FCA PUBLIC NOTICE

FCA PUBLIC NOTICE

RE IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ens Legis

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

To all Public Corporations

i :iain-clifford: stamp am a Natural Person with inalienable rights under the Magna Carta 1215;

i am the authorised representative of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP (Ens Legis);

i have a private contract with The Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State that accepts i’s rebuttal of the presumption of Crown/State jurisdiction and all twelve presumptions of the BAR Guild over IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ens Legis;

i have a private contract with the UK Coroner in accordance with Cestui Que Vie Act 1707 that i am alive and have claimed my estate as the Executor of all constructive trusts, including Southwark Crown Court Order 34;

i have a superior lien over IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP End Legis as filed via UCC1 and a financing statement, i am the Secured Party over IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ens Legis;

i stand with the Barons under article 61 of the Magna Carta with Lawful Excuse to distress the Crown so as to avoid treason;

The Financial Services and Markets Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 have no Jurisdiction over i due to Magna Carta Article 61;

i am the Appointed representative of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ens Legis and the shareholder of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP LTD, Company number 15132951, IAIN STAMP LTD, Company number Company number 15132667, I STAMP LTD, Company number 15132822, IAINCLIFFORD LTD, Company number 14593956 and hold a Trademark and Copyright over all derivatives of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP;

i have no contract with the FCA or any other Crown corporation and do not consent to any contract with the FCA or any Crown corporation;

i expressly forbid the FCA and any of its Representatives or Agents to write to, email or correspond with i or write or speak about IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP or any derivative of the NAME of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP the Ens Legis that i control and have commercial rights over to any other party for any reason;

i require the employees, Directors and Shareholders of the FCA to immediately cease its futile and fake investigation into the commercial activities of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, MATRIXFREEDOM and any member of MATRIXFREEDOM whether Legal Person or LTD company as a corporation;

i require the employees, Directors and Shareholders of the FCA to immediately remove any publication that implies there is an investigation into any company that IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP holds shares;

i require the employees, Directors and Shareholders of the FCA to cease its unlawful attempt to entrap IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP via contempt of court;

i require the employees, Directors and Shareholders of the FCA to cease its unlawful behaviour by way of forfeiture in its constraint of the bank accounts in the name of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, neither i nor IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP have been convicted of any wrongdoing or crime under Natural Law, the constraint is a forfeiture that breaches i’s constitutional rights as protected under the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Magna Carta 1215;

i require the employees, Directors and Shareholders of the FCA to immediately cease their harassment against IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and refrain from their Breach of the Peace;

Any wrongdoer that breaches this Notice will cause i to commence a Trademark and Copyright infringement claim against the wrongdoer;

Any wrongdoer that breaches this Notice will cause i to commence a Private Administrative Law process to establish the facts, the wrongdoer will be provided an opportunity to cure the damage caused and if the wrongdoer chooses not to cure the damage i will issue a Commercial Lien that will be recorded via UCC1 and UCC3 filings over the wrongdoer’s Legal Person Ens Legis.

NOTICE RE IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ens Legis

FCA PUBLIC NOTICE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

SERVED ON APRIL 01st, 2024.

RESPONDENTS:

PIETRO BOFFA, NICK CLARK, MATTHEW STONE, AND
ALL DIRECTORS OF THE FCA
ALLEDGED JUDGE BAUMGARTEN

i :iain-clifford: stamp am the Appointed Representative for Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and the beneficial owner of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ltd. i have Dominion and unalienable rights and undisputed jurisdiction over Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.

i :iain-clifford: stamp am a creditor of the bankruptcy of United States Incorporated that went into bankruptcy in 1933.

i :iain-clifford: stamp am a creditor of the bankruptcy of United Kingdom Incorporated that went into bankruptcy in 1938.

i am the Holder in Due Course of all credit issued as per U.C.C. 3-302.

including the issued credit under Order 34.

1.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) operating as a UK Corporation commenced an investigation in March 2022 into an Unincorporated Private Members Association called MATRIXFREEDOM and The Ens Legis Mr IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.

2.

Pietro Boffa assisted the FCA in securing the Ex Parte Order No 34 from Southwark Crown Court on 7th June 2023. In various witness statements Pietro Boffa says about himself:

  1. A Financial Investigator accredited under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as amended (“POCA”) and an Associate at the Financial Conduct
    Authority (“the FCA”) at 12 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN.
3.

The FCA and alleged Judge Baumgarten of Southwark Crown Court appear to substantially rely on the statements made by Pietro Boffa in various witness statements Pietro Boffa attests to.

4.

The FCA's presumed that it had jurisdiction to investigate under section 168 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), which purports to provide the FCA powers to appoint investigators to conduct investigations on its behalf where there are circumstances suggesting that an offence under FSMA or specific provisions of other legislation may have been committed.

5.

In May 2023, the FCA’s made an Ex Parte application to alleged Judge Baumgarten of Southwark Crown Court as a UK Corporation, and relied on purported witness evidence from Pietro Boffa, the FCA stated:

  1. “The investigation is into whether individuals including Mr Stamp and corporate entities are conducting regulated activities country to section 19 and 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
  2. The activities under investigation relate to claims management, debt counselling and making unauthorised financial promotions to UK consumers”
  3. “The FCA also consider that misleading statement to consumers have been made country to section 89 of FSMA (para 16-17)” c. Mr Stamp has obtained over £1m in connection with the offending from the MF-PMA group of companies.
  4. That Mr Stamp lives a criminal lifestyle.
  5. There isa real risk of dissipation.”
6.

Utilising the purported witness statements provided by Pietro Boffa the FCA persuaded alleged Judge Baumgarten of Southwark Crown Court to issue an unlawful Court Order No 34 2023 on 7th June 2023.

  1. The Pietro Boffa witness statements contain a wide range of untruths about Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.
    1. It is denied that Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP provides “claims management, debt counselling and making unauthorised financial promotions to UK consumers”
    2. It is further denied that Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP lives a criminal lifestyle.
    3. It is further denied that there was any risk of asset dissipation should Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP become aware of the FCA investigation.
7.

Amongst other things Order 34 constrains all bank account in the name of the Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.

8.

Southwark Crown Court Order 34 was granted, and Arrest and search Warrants were issued

9.
The FCA presumes to have the required jurisdiction to:
  1. Investigate Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.
  2. Constrain the bank accounts of Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.
  3. Add warning NOTICES to its website designed to destroy the reputation of the UK companies operated by Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.
10.

Despite constant surveillance of Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP since 2010 and more specifically from the early part of 2021 in relation to MATRIXFREEDOM the FCA’s alleged investigation continues with no charges brought forward.

11.

Despite numerous offers made by :iain-clifford: stamp to the FCA to bring forward any evidence of its presumed jurisdiction over Ens Legis IAIN CLIFORD STAMP the FCA has failed to do so.

FSMA 2000 PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 (POCA)

NULL AND VOID ACT/STATUTE

12.

i have sworn an Oath to the Barons that invoked Magna Carta Article 61 in 2001, i have lawful excuse to distress the Crown as no Acts and Statutes have received Royal Assent since 2001 and have no standing in law and to comply with any Acts and Statutes that allegedly received Royal Assent since 2001 i would be committing an Act of Treason.

13.

FSMA 2000 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) have no standing at law.

NO PERSONAM JURISDICTION TRESPASS AND HARM AGAINST i

13.

i :iain-clifford: stamp am a Sentient Man and the Authorised Representative of Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP the Legal Person.

14.

.i am the sole shareholder in IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP LTD 15132951, IAIN STAMP LTD, I C STAMP LTD 15133342, I STAMP LTD 5132822 and hold Copyright and Trademark over the name IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and all derivatives of the name.

15.

i have Dominion and Unalienable Rights under Natural Law and Magna Carta 1215

16.

Canon 3228 (vi): i am not “corporate property or a thing” and Southwark Crown Court is not and was not an elected as a “Custodian” of Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP as an artificial corporate person with NH 43 80 40 D.

17.

i corrected i’s status with the King, Prime Minister and Secretary of State via a Notice of Understanding Intent and Claim of Right in May 2023.

18.

i have also corrected i’s status in accordance with Cestui Que Vie Act 1707 with the UK Coroner, i have returned from the sea, reclaimed my dominion rights, i’s estate and am not dead.

19.

i am a Secured Party and Creditor having filed a lien over the Cestui Que Vie trust with reference number NH 43 80 40 D, i am not a ward of the court.

20.

i rebutted the 12 Presumptions of the private Bar Guild within i’s Notice of Understanding Intend and Claim of Right served on the King and Prime Minister in May 2023:

  1.  1. Public Record
  2. 2. Public Service
  3. 3. Public Oath
  4.  4. Immunity
  5.  5. Summons
  6.  6. Custody
  7.  7. Court of Guardians
  8.  8. Court of Trustees
  9.  9. Government as Executor/Beneficiary
  10.  10. Agent and Agency
  11.  11. Incompetence
  12.  12. Guilt
21.

As a sentient Man, i have the right to justice under the Magna Carta Articles 39 and 40.

  1. “No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful alleged Judgement of his peers and the law of the land”.
  2. “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”
22.

.As a sentient Man I have a right of trial by a jury of i’s peers.

23.

i did not consent to the proceedings at Southwark Crown Court and was not afforded i’s Dominion and inalienable rights to rebut the 12 Bar Guild presumptions in the Court Room and challenge Alleged Judge Baumgarten Oath of office.

24.

Due to the unlawful and false witness statement made by Pietro Boffa and other unlawful presentments made by the FCA and Alleged Judge Baumgarten unlawful acceptance to proceed with the matter in i’s absence i was unlawfully excluded from and denied i’s Dominion and unalienable right to reject the offer of a commercial contract known as Order 34 Southwark Crown Court.

25.

i do not, would not, and will not accept or consent to Order 34 Southwark Crown Court.

26.

i do not and would not have recognise/d the courts or alleged Judge Baumgarten presumed jurisdiction as neither the court nor alleged Judge Baumgarten has personum jurisdiction of i.

27.

i am not the Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, i have claimed the name IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP via i’s ownership of and jurisdiction over IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ltd.

28.

There is no Joinder between :iain-clifford: stamp and Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.

29.

Canon 3228 (v)

  1. The Presumption of Summons. If i had been summoned to the proceedings that took place on 7th June 2023, i would have rejected the offer of summons.
  2. By continuing the proceedings alleged Judge Baumgarten violated i's Dominion and inalienable rights as i was unable to rebut the Bar Guild presumption of Summons.
30.

Canon 3228

  1. (i): The Presumption of Public Record in any matter brought before a lower Roman Court is a matter for the public record, when in fact it is presumed by the Private Bar Guild as private business.
31.

Via this NOTICE i state on the Public Record that the matter is to be treated as a part of the Public Record.

32.

This NOTICE will pe publicly available at www.matrixfredom.org.

33.

i do not consent to the Order 34 remaining on the private side of the court as private BAR Guild business under private BAR Guild rules.

34.

Canon 3228 (ii), (iii) and (iv):

  1. The Presumptions of Public Service; Oath and Immunity.
35.

Order Number 34 is ultra virus and has no locus standi due to the lack of FCA and Southwark Crown court jurisdiction, had i been offered to attend the proceedings i would have insisted the mater remain on the Public Record and recused alleged Judge Baumgarten due to his obvious conflict of interest.

36.

Only a Man may Judge another ref: Blackstone Commentaries Trial by Jury under Moses

37.

A Man(s) brother or Brethren may stand in Judgment against him and hold him accountable to the customs and usages of society, and only a Man(s) Creator or brethren will truly know if he has done wrong.

38.

Under Maxims of Law, it states “where the truth is fiction of law does not exist”

39.

A Man (i) is true evidence of divine creation; fiction of law does not exist to a Man, and Man, being the Heir of the Sovereign divine source of creation reigns supreme over any fiction of law.

40.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten holds a fictitious ‘position of office’ and does not exist to the Creator of that office, Man (i).

41.

The order of Divinity is as follows:

  1. The divine
  2. Man
  3. Monarch
  4. d. Government
  5. Public Servants
42.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten is not i's Judge; alleged Judge Baumgarten is not i's creator nor i's peer.

43.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten has no subject matter jurisdiction over i.

44.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten is a magistrate.

45.

i had the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, this was not afforded to i.

46.

The Alleged Judge Baumgarten represents the BAR Guild, a Legal Society that does not qualify as one of “i’s peers”.

47.

The Alleged Judge Baumgarten has a conflict of interest regarding his Public Oath and BAR Guild Oath.

48.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten violated his public service Oath, did and does not have subject matter jurisdiction and does not have judicial Immunity.

49.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten, as a member of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of “a public official”, swore a solemn public oath and remained bound by that oath and, therefore, bound to serve honestly, impartially, and fairly as dictated by his public oath.

50.

By handing down Order 34, Alleged Judge Baumgarten presumed that the matter was Private BAR Guild matter when in fact it is a public matter and alleged Judge Baumgarten violated his public oath and without authority and via a conflict of interest chose his Bar Guild oath.

51.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten cannot stand under his BAR Guild oath as it is a presumption that i would have rejected, and alleged Judge Baumgarten by definition, has no locus standi, standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

52.

Alleged Judge Baumgarten was acting as an agent for the Crown Corporation under the BAR Guild, a nameless, faceless corporation and is wholly and personally responsible for his actions on behalf of the Crown corporation as established within the Nuremberg Code.

53.

All actions incurring any degree of injury will incur Notice of Injury, including a severe financial penalty.

i REQUIRE

54.

i require Pietro Boffa to rescind his false witness statements by May 3rd, 2024, and provide i with a public apology.

55.

i require Alleged Judge Baumgarten to rescind Order Number 34 and remove all constraint orders by 17.00 3rdth May 2024 as Alleged Judge Baumgarten has no Locus Standi and Order 34 is ultra virus, due to

  1. The witness statements provided by Pietro Boffa are false and misleading.
  2. No claims management, debt counselling or debt management services have ever been performed by i and neither have i ever made any unauthorised financial promotions to UK consumers”.
  3. i do not live a criminal lifestyle.
  4. i have jurisdiction over the Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and have claimed the name via IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ltd.
  5. i rebutted the 12 Bar Guild Presumptions in May 2023.
  6. i swore an Oath to and stand with the Barons under Magna Carta Article 61 and will not commit treason by complying with FSMA 2000 or POCA 2002 or any other Act or Statute.
  7. Neither Southwark Crown Court the alleged Judge Baumgarten nor the FCA has subject matter jurisdiction over i.
  8. Alleged Judge Baumgarten is not i’s Judge he is a Magistrate.
  9. The proceedings that took place on June 7th at Southwark Crown Court that culminated in Order 34 were unlawful as i was denied i’s Dominion and inalienable rights.
  10. The proceedings that took place on June 7th at Southwark Crown Court that culminated in Order 34 were unlawful as the proceedings should have taken place on the Public Record.
  11. Alleged Judge Baumgarten continued with the proceedings in direct conflict to his Public Oath and Bar Guild Oath and would have been recused if i had attended the proceedings.
56.

i require the FCA to cease its unlawful investigation by 17.00 10th May 2024 and return i’s property and remove the restrictions over the bank accounts in the name of Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.

57.

i require all warning notices removed from the FCA’s website that relate to all companies that Ens Legis IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP acts as shareholder by 17.00 10th May 2024.

58.

i require alleged Judge Baumgarten to rescind Order 34 by 17.00 3rd May 2024 and issue i with a public apology.

59.

Should Alleged Judge Baumgarten fail to rescind Order 34 by 17.00 3rd May 2024, i will convene a Common Law Court as described in schedule one of this NOTICE and put alleged Judge Baumgarten on trial to prove his innocence for the crimes of trespass and harm caused against i.

60.

Should the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone fail to cease its unlawful investigation by 17.00 10th May 2024, i will convene a Common Law Court as described in schedule one of this NOTICE and put the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone on trial to prove their innocence for the crimes of trespass and harm caused against i.

61.

Should alleged Judge Baumgarten not take part in a Common Law Court process, Alleged Judge Baumgarten, by tacit acquiescence, has failed to prove his innocence and will be duly convicted of the crimes of trespass and harm against i.

62.

Should the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone not take part in a Common Law Court process, the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone, by tacit acquiescence, have failed to prove their innocence and will be duly convicted of the crimes of trespass and harm against i.

63.

Should alleged Judge Baumgarten not take part in a Common Law Court process i will by way of restitution, file a Commercial Lien of £100,000,000 listed separately against alleged Judge Baumgarten. The lien secured against alleged Judge Baumgarten’s Public and Private Estate via a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC1) listing.

64.

Should the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone not take part in a Common Law Court process I will by way of restitution, file a Commercial Lien of £100,000,000 listed separately against the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone. The lien secured against the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone Public and Private Estate via a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC1) listing.

65.

Should alleged Judge Baumgarten not satisfy the £100,000,000 Commercial  lien by transferring physical Gold or Silver to an account of i's choosing and make a Public Apology to i with full admittance of the crimes of trespass and harm to i, i will employ the US Secretary of the Treasury and IRS to enforce the £100,000,000 Commercial Lien acting as i’s Trustee in Bankruptcy of United
States Incorporated  and United Kingdom Incorporated and will collect against the alleged Judge Baumgarten’s Public and Private Estate which may bankrupt the alleged Judge Baumgarten’s Public Estate.

66.

Should the directors of the FCA, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone not satisfy the £100,000,000 Commercial Lien by transferring physical Gold or Silver to an account of i's choosing and make a Public Apology to i to i with full admittance of the crimes of trespass and harm to i, i will employ the US Secretary of the Treasury and IRS to enforce the £100,000,000 Commercial Lien acting as i’s Trustee in Bankruptcy of United States Incorporated and United Kingdom Incorporated and will collect against the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone Public and Private Estates which may bankrupt the directors of the FCA, Pietro Boffa, Nick Clark, Matthew Stone Public Estates

Schedule One

Common Law Court Process

Step 1

Compiling the Case.

A Statement of Claim must be produced by those bringing a case, known as the Plaintiffs. Their Statement sets out in point form the basic facts of the dispute, the wrong being alleged, and the relief or remedy being sought. Next, the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim must be accompanied by supporting evidence: documents and testimonies proving their case beyond any reasonable doubt. This evidence must be duly sworn by those not party to the dispute in the form of witnessed statements; and it must consist of the original documents themselves, and not copies. As well, anyone whose testimony is used in this body of evidence must be willing to come into Court to testify and affirm their own statement.

Step 2

Seeking the Remedy of a Common Law Court:

Filing a Notice of Claim of Right After gathering his case, a Plaintiff must then seek the aid of a Common Law Court and its officers. Such a Court can be brought into being by publishing a Notice of Claim of Right (see Appendix B, “Court Documents”), which is a public declaration calling for the assistance of the community in the asserting of the
Plaintiff’s right under Natural Justice to have his case heard through the Common Law, by way of a jury of his neighbors and peers. Such a Notice can be published in local newspapers or simply notarized and posted in a prominent public location, like a town hall or library.

Step 3

Forming a Common Law Court.

Within 24 hours of the issuing of such a Notice of Claim of Right, any twelve citizens of a community can constitute themselves as a Common Law Court and its jury, and must then appoint the following Court Officers from their ranks: – a Court Adjudicator, to advise and oversee the Court – a Public or Citizen Prosecutor to conduct the case; this person is normally the Plaintiff himself or someone he authorizes to advise but not represent him – a Defense Counsel to advise but not represent the accused – a Court Sheriff, either elected from the community or delegated from among existing peace officers – Bailiffs, a Court Registrar and a Court Reporter It is assumed that people with knowledge of the Common Law and legal procedure will act in these capacities. And, as mentioned, a Common Law Magistrate or Justice of the Peace may also initiate this formation of a Common Law Court.

Step 4

Swearing in and Convening the Jury and Court Officers:

Oaths of Office.

Upon the appointment of these Court Officers, the Adjudicator (a Justice of the Peace or a comparable Magistrate) will formally convene the Court by taking and administering the following Oath of Common Law Court Office to all of the Court officers: I (name) will faithfully perform my duties as an officer of this Common Law Court according to the principles of Natural Justice and Due Process, acting at all times with integrity, honesty and lawfulness. I recognize that if I fail to consistently abide by this Oath I can and will be removed from my Office. I make this public Oath freely, without coercion or ulterior motive, and without any mental reservation. After taking this oath, the Jury members, Court Counselors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs and Reporter will then convene and receive instructions from the Adjudicator concerning the case. The Adjudicator is not a presiding Alledged Judge or Magistrate but an advisor to the Court, and has no power to influence, direct or halt the actions or the decisions of the Jury or other Court officers, except in the case of a gross miscarriage of justice or negligence on the part of other Court officers. Thus, the Court is self-regulating and dependent on the mutual respect and governance of all the Court officers and the Jury.

Step 5

Pre-Trial Conference.

The Adjudicator brings together both parties in a pre-trial conference in an attempt to settle the case prior to a trial. If a settlement is not achieved, both parties must then engage in a mandatory Examination of Discovery, in which the evidence and counter-evidence and statements of both sides will be presented. After a period of not more than one week, this pre-trial conference will conclude and the trial will commence.

Step 6

Issuing of Public Summonses.

No person or agency may be lawfully summoned into Common Law Court without first receiving a complete set of charges being brought against them and a formal Notice to Appear,
or Writ of Public Summons. Such a Summons outlines the exact time, date and address when and where the trial will commence. The Public Summons is applied for by the Plaintiff through the Court Registrar. The Summons will be issued under the signature of the Court Adjudicator and delivered to the Defendant by the Court Sheriff within 24 hours of its filing in the Court Registry by the Plaintiff. The Sheriff must personally serve the Defendant, or post the Summons in a public place and record the posting if the Defendant avoids service. The Defendant has
seven days to appear in Court from the date of service.

Step 7

The Trial Commences: Opening Arguments.

After an introduction by the Adjudicator, the trial commences with opening arguments by first the Plaintiff or Prosecutor, and then the Defendant. The Adjudicator and both Counselors will then have the chance to question either parties for clarification, and to make motions to the Court if it is apparent that the proceedings can be expedited.

Note:
Step Seven can still occur even if one side, usually the Defendant, is not present in Court and refuses to participate. Such a trial, being conducted “in absentia”, remains a legitimate legal procedure once the Defendant is given every opportunity to appear and respond to the charges and evidence against him. An In absentia trial will commence with the Plaintiff presenting his opening argument followed by his central case. The Court-appointed Defense Counsel will then be given the chance to argue on behalf of the absent Defendant, if that is the wish of the latter. It is often the case that a nonresponse or non-appearance by the Defendant can result in the Adjudicator advising the Jury to declare a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the Defendant has tacitly agreed with the case against himself by not disputing the evidence or charges, and by making no attempt to appear and defend his own good name in public.

Step 8

The Main Proceedings.

Assuming the proceedings are not being conducted in absentia and the Defendant is present, the main proceedings of the trial then commence with the Plaintiff’s presentation of the details of his evidence and argument against the Defendant, who can then respond. The Plaintiff may be assisted by the Citizen Prosecutor. After his presentation, the Plaintiff is then cross-examined by the Defendant or his advising Counsel. Following cross-examination, the Defendant presents his case, with or without his advising Counselor, and in turn is cross-examined by the Plaintiff or the Citizen Prosecutor.

Step 9
Closing Summaries and Arguments to the Jury and final advice by the Adjudicator After the main proceedings, the Adjudicator has the chance to further question both parties in order to give final advice to the Jury. The Plaintiff and then the Defendant then have the right to give their closing summary and argument to the Court. The Adjudicator closes with any final comments to the Jury.
Step 10

The Jury retires to deliberate.

The Court is held in recess while the twelve citizen jury members retire to come to a unanimous verdict and a sentence, based on their appraisal of all the evidence. There is no time restriction on their deliberations, and during that time, they are not allowed contact with anyone save the Court Bailiff, who is their guard and escort. The Jury’s verdict and sentence must be consensual, non-coerced, and unanimous.

Step 11

The Jury issues its unanimous verdict and sentence The Court is reconvened after the Jury has come to a verdict. If the jurors are not in complete unanimity concerning the verdict, the defendant is automatically declared to be innocent. The Jury spokesman, chosen from among them by a vote, announces the verdict to the Court, and based on that verdict, the final sentence is also declared by the Jury.

Step 12

The Court adjourns and the Sentence is enforced Following the announcement of the Verdict and Sentence, the Adjudicator either frees the Defendant or affirms and authorizes the decision of the Jury in the name of the community and its Court, and instructs the Sheriff to enforce that sentence. The Adjudicator then dismisses the Jury and formally concludes the trial proceedings, and the Court is concluded. The entire record of the Court proceedings is a public document, accessible to anyone, and can in no way be withheld, altered or compromised by the Adjudicator or any other party.