Monday, 30 March 2015

LAWFUL REBELLION - A guide to overcoming the Treason of government when the sovereign fails to uphold the law

LAWFUL REBELLION

-A guide to overcoming the Treason of government when the sovereign fails to uphold the law






Compiled by; a lawful rebel.







https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/

Links to this book

Word format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/1561647267442824/LAWFUL%20REBELLION%20GUIDE%20V7.0.doc

Text format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/593959377406866/Lawful rebellion guide v7.0.txt

Blog post (Always the latest version);
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-guide.html

Printable shield designs here:
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-printables.html

7th posting; 28/04/15.
Added sections; 9(b).

PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.

IF PRINTING FOR HANDOUT, JUST PRINT THE NECESSARY SECTIONS (INTRODUCTION, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 21), or the ones you feel relevant.

DON'T FORGET TO LEAVE THE GROUP LINK IN

https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/

*There may be repetition of text found elsewhere in section 13, as it has been left complete so it may be printed out on its own and complete.




Contents

DUE PROCESS OF LAW - an opening message

1. INTRODUCTION

2. WHAT IS OUR LAW?
2(a) what about atheists?
2(b) what about other religions?

3. WHY LAWFUL REBELLION?

4. THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND in September 1993

5. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT BY THE MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY, WHICH PRECEDED THE 2001 BARONS' PETITION

6. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 61

7. THE PETITION FROM THE BARONS AND LETTERS FROM BOTH PARTIES IN FULL

8. WHO SIGNED THE PETITION?

9. INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER INTO LAWFUL REBELLION
9a) Sending an oath of Allegiance to the barons’ committee
9(b) sending notice of your lawful standing

10 ADDRESSES OF BARONS TO SEND OATHS TO

11 INVINCIBLE NOTICE TO REMOVE ANY AUTHORITY FROM POLICE, BAILIFFS OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR CROWN INSTITUTION

12 LAWFUL REBELLION NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR COURT DECISIONS

13 DANIELLE DELIONESS LR PROCESS AGAINST C COURT AND WESSEX WATER.

14 MAGNA CARTA 1215 ARTICLE 61

15 MAGNA CARTA 1215 FULL TEXT

16 THE CHARTER BREAKER'S CURSE

17 MAGNA CARTA QUOTES

18 LAWFUL REBELLION FACTS
(AS USED IN AFFIDAVITS)

19 ARTICLE 52 OF MAGNA CARTA 1215

20 CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS TO PARLIAMENT'S POWER

21 IS ARTICLE 61 OF THE MAGNA CARTA 1215 VALID TODAY?

22 A TREASON, WITHOUT PRECEDENT

23 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW BEFORE MAGNA CARTA

24 WHAT TO SAY IF DRAGGED INTO “COURT”

Final page: Certified Copy footer

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

-An opening message from Danielle “DeLioness” Davidson, someone who has been through the fire.

Due process of law here;
https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/

Article 61; Magna Carta. This ancient law was invoked by constitutional protocols on the 23rd March 2001; it is now the supreme law of this land. Not to be underestimated, it gave the power of our common laws back to us, and means the crown has no authority over anyone standing under article 61. It’s the origination of all our law and in reality cannot be repealed as it predates parliament.

The fact is that our government have been committing treason most importantly, drawing us into the EU without our consent, this they knew about. It has been eroding our rights and laws ever since.

Since Article 61 was invoked it’s unlawful to vote and unconstitutional to vote. It’s been unconstitutional to vote since 2001 as that was when Article 61 was invoked according to constitutional protocols; however Government has been committing treason since 1911, first with the Parliament Act which unconstitutionally took away the need for the Royal Assent. Royal Assent given to any act of parliament meant it was in keeping with the constitution that is meant to protect our rights and freedoms in this country and the commonwealth. Without apparently needing Royal Assent meant the government could make up any random unlawful statute it thought it liked. The fact that this has been going on makes all those politicians working unconstitutionally and against the law of this land.

I have used article 61 to rebut a warrant from the county court (over contempt of court), in process of my council tax, and we successfully seized our town hall. Article 61 works as it is the law. This may sound confusing to some but it’s very simple, this is the lawful rebellion. If you are interested in the lawful remedy (really it’s your lawful duty to do so) please see this group and its files.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/

We need to have a peaceful lawful rebellion to restore the rule of law; there is no other way to get justice, without the treason issue being remedied. Whilst we still have criminal courts in place we will never see justice. Article 61 gives us lawful excuse to rebel.

There is a process and method which is honorable, lawful and peaceful which involves informing others of the truth and evidential facts, as well as dissent. People who join the group above can find out more there, there are many discussions but it is fairly simple and can be used with effect immediately for personal circumstances involving corporate bullies and institutions gone outlaws, which will in turn affect the whole as is its intent, written in law.

...., friend, if you are asking for a constitutional reform, you must defend the realm, by standing under Article 61. As that is the lawful duty of every man woman within or without the realm. This is the letter of the law; you won’t get a reform unless you follow it by the letter. Lucky for us Article 61 was invoked making it the supreme law of this land. Have you read what article 61 demands? Use the rebellion to create the revolution, as you've said before the answer is to not comply, well, that’s what the law tells us to do as well in the form of the rebellion.

Our ancestors did not fight their way to freedom and use their wisdom and intelligence for their descendants to be treated like this. It is royally wrong, and we will bring these criminals to trial in properly convened courts de jure, together we can make sure this happens.

But you have to use the remedy they left us for institutionalized treason, to restore the rule of law, and to compile evidence against them and also to educate them, and also it’s your defense, (as you’re doing what the law demands).

We are letting parliamentarians bomb people, cover up for pedophiles, turf people out of their houses, nick homeless peoples food, and they are meant to be our representatives and public servants, but they are not.

Due process of law here


Kind Regards

Danielle




1. INTRODUCTION

Our law is lost!

Over centuries, our law has been abrogated by successive governments which have enforced statute law and procedures that are not lawful. They have given the power of the creation of money to private institutions thereby allowing the creation of debt for the benefit of those institutions, and thereby reducing the people to being slaves of those institutions. Many people are aware of this.

Unlawful statutes have been used to commit many injustices against people.
The management of the criminal takeover of our government has involved many despicable practices, to bribe and to create blackmail levers on those involved.
Now even the power of law in the UK has been given to the EU, which is a foreign corporation.

THIS IS NOT ALLOWED BY OUR LAW AND IS INVALID AND VOID FROM THE BEGINNING.

The Monarch is our only protection from unlawful governance. The very contract which we each have with the Monarch, which gives the Monarch authority, is that the Monarch will uphold the law. This is why all legislation is supposed to be given Royal Assent before it becomes law, so that the Monarch can, indeed MUST refuse to pass any legislation which is not lawful;

“Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.” (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)
– Nichols v Nichols 1576

Lawful rebellion is a process written into our law 800 years ago, which provides the only remedy we have when the Monarch has broken the contract to uphold the law.
It is a process which must be formally invoked by a petition to the Monarch from the Barons' committee, and this was done on 23rd March 2001. It allows us to seize castles, buildings and lands in order to restore the law, but in order to do so lawfully we must have taken the necessary step to place us under the protection of that law, which is to send an oath of Allegiance to a member of the baron's committee. By doing that we remove our constitutional allegiance and subjugation to the Monarch. This does not make us subjects of the barons; it means that we swear to follow their direction in order to restore the law.

When there are enough people in lawful rebellion we can peacefully and lawfully seize the buildings of power and restore the law.




2. WHAT IS OUR LAW?

In order to be beyond reproach our actions must be both lawful and constitutional. Therefore we cannot just "make up" which law we claim to be bound by.

The law in England was written in the DOOM BOOK. All subsequent law must agree with this law, which has been re-affirmed in documents such as the MAGNA CARTA. We call it the "common law", but it must not be confused with;

1. The Commonwealth Laws “Common Law” being the Statutes passed by Westminster since Henry 3rd in 1224 right up to the present day have never honored the Golden Rule of Law that “all are equal under true law and none are above it”; and

2. The very fact that there are dozens and dozens of different definitions for Common Law, with none of them matching; the very fact that some claim it is the collected precedents of the courts, while others refer to the body of statutes of their own country; while others again speak of Common Law in terms of only the maxims embedded in both as if it is somehow equivalent to Natural Law means there is no clarity even to what Common Law is meaning it can’t possibly be Law, because any law that is unclear cannot possibly be true law.
(More on this here: http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/06/there-is-nothing-lawful-about-common-law.html)

From Wikipedia:
The Doom Book, Code of Alfred or Legal Code of Ælfred the Great was the code of laws ("dooms", laws or judgments) compiled by Ælfred the Great (c. 893 AD) from three prior Saxon codes, to which he prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses and incorporated rules of life from the Mosaic Code and the Christian code of ethics.

The title "Doom book" (originally "dom-boc" or "dom-boke") comes from dom (pronounced "dome") which is the Anglo-Saxon word meaning "judgment" or "law" — for instance, see Ælfred 's admonishment: Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom one doom to your friend; another to your foe! [1] The following reflects Mosaic Law: "You shall do no injustice in judgment! You shall not be partial to the poor; nor defer to the great! But you are to judge your neighbor fairly!" (Leviticus 19:15).

F. N. Lee extensively documents Alfred the Great's work of collecting the law codes from the three Christian Saxon kingdoms and compiling them into his Doom Book. [2] Lee details how Alfred incorporated the principles of the Mosaic Law into his Code. He then examines how this Code of Alfred became the foundation for the Common Law. The three previous codes were those of Æthelberht of Kent (c. 602 AD), Ine of Wessex (c. 694 AD) and Offa of Mercia (c. 786 AD).

In his extensive Prologue, Alfred summarized the Mosaic and Christian codes. Michael Treschow reviewed how Alfred laid the foundation for the Spirit of Mercy in his code:[3] Treschow states that the last section of the Prologue not only describes "a tradition of Christian law from which the law code draws but also it grounds secular law upon Scripture, especially upon the principle of mercy".

References
1. Thorpe, Benjamin, ed. (1840). Ancient Laws and Institutes of England: Comprising Laws Enacted Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings from Æthelbirht to Cnut, with an English Translation of the Saxon; the Laws Called Edward the Confessor's; the Laws of William the Conqueror, and Those Ascribed to Henry the First; Also, Monumenta Ecclesiastica Anglicana, from the Seventh to the Tenth Century; and the Anciety Latin Version of the Anglo-Saxon Laws 1. G.E. Eyre and A. Spottiswoode. p. 55. Retrieved 13 November 2014.

2. "Alfred the Great and our Common Law" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-11-19. [Dead link][Self-published source]

3. Michael Treschow, The Prologue to Alfred’s Law Code: Instruction in the Spirit of Mercy, Florilegium 13, 1994 pp79-110.



2(a); what about atheists?

There must be a model for law.

If your model is based on the concept that there is no God, then there is no good or bad, right or wrong, only matter in motion. Whatever is is. Defacto.

If your model is based on the concept of a Divine creator then each of us that lives has been given the gift of life by God and that gift forms a contract.
Our life is given in trust from God and no man may intercede in that.

We have the duty to God to respect all others, as the life they hold in trust is Divine as is ours, and that is why we have the "Golden rule", to treat others as we would have ourselves treated.

So no matter what your spiritual beliefs may be, to use the divine model as a basis for law is essential if you are to avoid the rule of psychopaths, who will always be more cohesive, determined and actually ruthless than normal people in their struggle to control absolutely everything. The only way that such people have been able to operate is by abrogating God's law.

God's law must not be confused with so-called law from the Catholic Church, which is not an instrument of God, and has been opposed to the God-given freedoms of man from the beginning. This Vatican canon law, or Admiralty law which has been exercised throughout the world is not true law at all, it is a system of rules for dead things. The ones who purport to control the dead things in their so-called "law courts" wear black robes. This distinction is important because A Papal Bull was issued claiming to annul the Magna Carta and we must be clear that no Papal Bull has jurisdiction over our land. This has been the very argument since the Magna Carta was written.

2(b) what about other religions?

The constitutional law of England has a long history and was based on Christian beliefs. Those beliefs provided a sound code for people to live by, and it was only by abrogating that code that the ruling elite have been able to treat us unjustly.

This is not a matter of what religion you believe, it is a matter of understanding that the Traditional law of the land is based on Christian concepts (which were intended to find common ground amongst all religions). When we were invaded, the foreign kings had to agree to accept our law, and so too anyone who has ever come here to be a part of us is expected to follow our law. It has always been that way. If you do not agree to this, you do not agree to law at all.

3. WHY LAWFUL REBELLION?

1. This is by ROYAL COMMAND from the Magna Carta 1215, Article 61.
"all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid.”

2. The Article was properly invoked when the Barons presented a petition to the monarch in accordance with Article 61, for the Treason of government to be addressed, as our land has been placed under the rule of a foreign power by our government, and that petition was then replied to by the monarch, who stated that the queen would not address the grievances, but instead take the Treasonous advice of parliament.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html

3. This means that the power of Royal Assent has been lost. The Royal Assent exists so that the monarch may ensure that only lawful acts are passed through parliament. Without Royal Assent our law has no protection from abrogation by PSYCHOPATHS. Furthermore, the most important function of the monarch is to protect the law.

*DO NOT PROGRESS UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND POINT (3)

(Royal Assent was actually unlawfully removed long ago; however it is only through the petition made according to Article 61 that this has now been formally evidenced).

4. In the present situation, the law commands that we each remove our constitutional allegiance to the monarch by swearing allegiance to the Barons' committee for the purpose of bringing about the restoration of law. By so doing we remove ourselves from the authority of all Crown agencies. (The law does not state that we must each swear an oath in front of a convened baron's committee. We can swear our Oath, in front of witnesses and then send the witnessed oath to a member of the Barons' committee, and that act HAS LAWFUL STANDING).

5. Being in LAWFUL REBELLION means that we must not cede authority to the TREASONOUS GOVERNMENT in any way, whether by paying taxes, signing petitions, voting etc. ANYTHING which cedes authority to agents of the Crown or its bodies including their unlawful courts (administrative courts have no authority in any case, yet they claim it and so are therefore unlawful) is now DISALLOWED BY LAW. (It is understood that in order to live, people are forced to cede authority in some way, such as using their paper money, because one would die otherwise. These things are all done under duress and therefore have NO STANDING IN LAW. In other words you have lawful excuse).

WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND ALSO that even without the invocation of Article 61, the funding of crime, terrorism and Treason are ALL ILLEGAL UNDER STATUTE LAW and therefore nobody should be paying taxes or funding or otherwise supporting the government in any way, in any case.

DO NOT PROGRESS UNTIL YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD POINT (5).

6. THE BARONS HAVE RUN AWAY. They have not acted as commanded by Article 61, after their petition to the Queen was dishonoured. As it is a LAWFUL ROYAL COMMAND which they have ignored it is our duty to either compel them to obey or if that is impossible to somehow ensure that the posts of the baron's committee are filled with people who will act under the law and obey the Royal Command in Article 61.

7. The barons represent the people in their interface with the Crown. The authority of the barons comes from the sovereignty of the people. Just as with the delinquent Monarch, when the barons abrogate their duty they lose their authority automatically, and that sovereignty returns to us.

8. Point (7) creates a unique circumstance in a constitutional monarchy, where sovereignty is passed through barons to the monarch, whereby the people find themselves holding their own sovereignty in their hands. We are at this point all actually sovereign individuals.

9. Article 61 says we can seize the buildings of power, and in doing so we may eject the Traitorous regime (or compel the monarch to).*(actual wording: "shall distress and harass us by all the ways in which they are able [9]; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions [10], and by any other means in their power").*
We just need the numbers, as all action must be peaceful and in accordance with the law. Our job now is to draw all people to stand under Article 61. A copy of an oath which has been sent and proof of posting proves that you are standing under Article 61 and places you under the full protection of the Magna Carta 1215.

10. The EU troops or the UN "world army" will descend on us to impose global governance via the EU if they get the excuse to intervene, and there will be slaughter and the loss of anything we ever cared about just like you have seen recently in far too many places. The ONLY way to prevent this is to stick to our World-known and respected CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and insist on restoring it. Any other kind of action, including especially the street protests that enemy agents like Russell Brand will have people doing will only give the enemy a chance to stage provocations and create an excuse to act. And should we all behave anyway, beware, for the main modus operandi of our enemy is to stage faked events and broadcast them as news to created a precedent.

We must peacefully occupy the buildings of power when we have enough people to do so, and we must be prepared to be absolutely ruthless if we have to stop agitators amongst us from causing trouble. We have to understand this. The agitators are the enemy and they must not be allowed. If you are not certain about this beforehand, you will fail to act appropriately when necessary. However you prevent agitators from creating violence, you can rest that you are doing so to prevent greater harm. Nobody wishing our success will create violence in our lawful rebellion.

11. If everyone hides away and ignores the situation then provocations will be staged and we will get the intervention forces anyway.



4. THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND in September 1993

The following are the charges which Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter laid before the magistrates’ court in Hexham, Northumberland on 9th September 1993, under “Misprision of Treason”.

The charge of “misprision” is applicable to those who know of acts of either treason or terrorism and who, in the event that they did NOT report them to the proper authorities, would themselves be guilty of those crimes.

All the “informations” laid before the magistrates were preceded by the following words:

“It being an offence at Common Law (see Halsbury 4th edition vol 11 at 818) for a person who knows that Treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he can to a justice of the peace, we hereby lay the following information.”

Case 1:

Whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors.”

On 7th February 1992 the Rt. Hon Douglas Richard Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, King Charles Street, London SW1 and the Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Anthony Aylmer Maude at that date Financial Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury, Parliament Street, London SW1 did sign a Treaty of European Union at Maastricht in the Netherlands, according to Article 8 of which Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union (confirmed by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons: Hansard 1st February 1993) therefore “subject to the duties imposed thereby”, subject to being arraigned in her own courts and being taxed under Article 192 of the integrated Treaty and thereby effectively deposed as the sovereign and placed in a position of suzerainty under the power of the “European Union”.

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.

Case 2:

Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” of the United Kingdom………etc. Hurd and Maude….etc. did sign a Treaty of European Union…according to Article 8 of which “every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union” and according to Article 8a of which such citizens “shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory” of any member state and according to Article 8b of which such citizens shall have the right to vote and according to which “Declaration on nationality” in the Final Act “the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state concerned.”

And that therefore the British people and Parliament will have no right to determine the numbers or identity of non British nationals to whom other European Union member states can give residence rights and voting rights in the United Kingdom.

And whereas according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The Laws of England are the birthright of the People”.

And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch77, 89) has stated that
“And a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence.”
Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.

Case 3:

Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any “person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto…shall be capable to be…a Member of either House of Parliament”
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 “to destroy the constitution of the country” is an act of treason.
 And whereas the term “municipal” has been defined by the European Court of Justice in 1972 as meaning “national”:
“..the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law whatever their nature, can be involved., and similarly defined by Lord Justice Cumming Bruce giving the majority verdict in McCarthys v Smith 1979 ICR 785,798:
“If the terms of the Treaty (of Rome) are adjudged in Luxembourg to be inconsistent with the
 provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970, European ? Law will prevail over that municipal legislation”
Hurd and Maude…etc. did sign a Treaty ….etc. according to Article 8b of which “Every citizen of the Union residing in a member state of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides.”

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.


Case 4:

Whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchy in which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign and Head of State and a democracy, whereby the people of that United Kingdom rule by delegating their authority for periods of up to 5 years to the Parliament and Government in London.

And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The laws of England are the birthright of the people”

And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that
“As a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence.”

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to “destroy the Constitution” is an act of treason.

…..Hurd and Maude…etc did sign a treaty…etc. according to Article 8 of which the British people, without their consent have been made the citizens of the European Union with duties towards the same and according to Article 192 of the integrated treaty the British people can be taxed directly by that European Union without further process in the Westminster Parliament and according to Article 171 of which the British State can be forced to pay a monetary penalty to the European Union.

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd……etc.

CASE 5.

Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II swore at Her Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects “according to their laws”.

And whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors”

Hurd and Maude….etc. did sign a Treaty….etc. which extended the powers of the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament in the new “European Union” to make and enforce in the United Kingdom laws which do not originate in the Westminster Parliament. And that this loss of democratic rights was without the express consent of the British people.

And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The Laws of England are the Birthright of the people”

And whereas Lord Justice Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that;
“As a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the
 power to destroy its omnipotence.”

Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason….etc.

CASE 6.

Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors” (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation IKB 733)

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.

Hurd and Maude etc. .…did sign a Treaty…according to which Article Q of which the Maastricht Treaty “is concluded for an unlimited period” and from which there is no right of nor mechanism for secession.

Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason etc..

This is one of the more extraordinary aspects of the Maastricht Treaty since it provides a direct parallel with that other “Union”, the American Union signed by the Southern, confederate states on the assumption that they could leave that Union whenever they wished. But they had omitted to ensure that both the right to and mechanism for withdrawal were included specifically in the Union declaration. As a result, the American President Abraham Lincoln (inaugural address 4th March 1861) justified war against the southern states by saying:
“No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union”
It was this issue and not the question of slavery (for which Lincoln had expressed accommodation in his inaugural address) which caused the American Civil War in which 600,000 died. The northern states were engaged not on a moral crusade but on an imperialist adventure, using the industrial and military might of the North to conquer the largely rural, raw material producing south.

Although the European Union as yet possesses no significant armed forces, this is the ultimate intention and an embryo Franco German force has already been set up. The possible exit from this “Union” of Britain, the second biggest paymaster, with the richest coal, oil and fishing reserves in Europe and with the world’s largest investments in the American economy might one day tempt this new breed of Eurofascist to use the logic of Abraham Lincoln.

CASE 7.

Whereas it is established by a statute in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) confirmed in 1297 and last reviewed at the passing of the Statute Law Repeals Act 1967 that:
“No freeman may be…disseised…of his liberties
 or free customs…nor will we not pass upon him but by the law of the land.”
This most durable pillar of the constitution is destroyed by a “Treaty of European Union”…etc..which disseises all free men of their liberties and free customs under the law of this land by subjugating their Government to the extension of the powers of the European Commission, Court and parliament (in which latter the United Kingdom members form a minority of 87 of 567 voting members). Under Article 192 of the integrated treaty our free men are open to be taxed without further process of the United Kingdom Parliament and according to the “Declaration on nationality” in the Final Act of the treaty the number and identity of non British nationals given residence and voting rights in the United Kingdom will not be determined by the British Government. And further that the treaty extends majority voting in the Council of Ministers thus permitting other states to determine laws which govern British people. Under Article 8 of the Treaty free men are required to become citizens of the European Union “subject to the duties imposed thereby.”

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 “to destroy the constitution” is an act of treason.

Therefore Hurd and Maude….etc

CASE 8 (IN SCOTLAND).

Whereas it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795:

“within the realm or without…to devise….constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors.” and
“to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom”

and whereas to destroy the constitution per R v Thistlewood 1820 is an act of treason.
 Hurd and Maude etc…did sign a treaty….for an unlimited period and without right of or mechanism for secession. This treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby it is established per Article III of that Act the people of the United Kingdom be represented by the one and the same Parliament and none other and per Article XVIII that no alteration be made in laws which concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.

Under the treaty, the rule of a Parliament other than that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is established where under, contrary to the Act of Union, subjects within Scotland become subject to laws made in an assembly in which their representatives form a minority seven fold more slender than in the parliament of the United Kingdom.

Therefore Hurd and Maude….etc

Since the United Kingdom has no formal codified constitution in the manner of the USA or Germany, we rely on certain critical statutes and precedents in case law to formalize and hold fast for future generations the wisdom of the laws which have established and guaranteed our rights and liberties and the institutions of parliament, government and courts.

It is one of the major safeguards for the people that past rights are enshrined in specific statutes and specific clauses. Imprecise words, confused sentences and contradictory clauses are a danger since they allow potential tyrants to exploit or bypass uncertainty in the law. It has therefore always been accepted as vital that any repeal of a statute or part of a statute should be made specific in new legislation. This is not just to “tidy up” the law books but more important so that everyone – voters, Parliament, ministers and journalists should know precisely how their historic guarantees are being affected.

But in the text of the Maastricht Bill laid before Parliament there was no mention of any of the many contraventions of historical statutes by the terms of the Treaty. The only reference to another Act of Parliament was to that of the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act, the terms of which would have been contradicted had a specific Parliamentary approval not been obtained.

The British people were deliberately kept in the dark about the destruction of their constitution and how the Maastricht Treaty and the European Community Amendments Act effectively threw out many of the most important statutes in British Parliamentary history. The first strategy of the tyrant is secrecy. The second is to lose the detail in a mass of superficiality and generalization. Both were evident in the passage of the Maastricht Treaty Bill.

Some statutes within the British system of an informal constitution could perhaps, at some stretch of the imagination, be regarded as less critical. But this could certainly not be said about the Union with Scotland Act, for in 1706 the Scottish people decided to share a Sovereign and a Parliament. Since the new Parliament of the UNITED Kingdom was to be in England (and the physical existence of the Scottish parliament dispensed with) the terms of the Act of Union were absolutely vital. The Act is the nearest we possess to an actual constitution. The Scots, effectively, gave up their Parliament only in return for the guarantee that the new (English dominated) Parliament would not curtail or in any way diminish their rights. If they did so (as has now happened under the Maastricht Treaty) then the Act of Union would be null and void and not only would the United Kingdom cease to exist but so would the authority of the Parliament at Westminster which was spawned by the Act of Union.

This is exactly what has happened and the British people, once the full enormity of the betrayal has dawned upon them, will exact a terrible revenge on those who purport to be their “democratic representatives”.



5. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT BY THE MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY, WHICH PRECEDED THE 2001 BARONS' PETITION

 Sovereign Authority
We have already argued that the ultimate powers of sovereignty remain in the sole possession of the monarch. Indeed, it is the unique covenant between sovereign and people that stands as the bulwark supporting our constitution and rights.

The sovereign is the court of last resort, the only person who can stand finally between the people and renegade politicians. Indeed, we would go further. It is the sovereign’s sworn duty, as laid down in Magna Carta (see above).

The Coronation Oath is a contract for life between the sovereign and the nation.

The present Queen swore:

“…to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom…according to their laws and customs.” She also swore to preserve for the people “all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.”

The Coronation Oath is not a contract between the sovereign and parliament. It is a contract between the sovereign and each individual subject. It cannot be broken by a vote in parliament. It can be broken only by the sovereign or by the individual.

Like all contracts, if one party to the contract believes the terms are at risk, the other party can be called to account.

As we have indicated already, today just as for nearly a thousand years, if an individual believes his freedoms, rights and liberties are at risk, the sovereign can be called upon to protect those rights as promised in the contract.

Likewise, the sovereign can call individuals to arms to protect the realm.

We know of two occasions in modern times when the covenant between sovereign and subjects first established in Magna Carta, and renewed in every Coronation Oath since, has been put to the test by one party to the contract or the other. Conveniently, the two examples come from opposite sides of the covenant.

1975 - Australia. The Governor General, acting on behalf of The Queen, dissolved the Australian parliament and called new elections, when the then government attempted to pass legislation which was held to infringe the rights of all Australians.

1982 - Falklands. Sovereign’s call to arms to prepare and despatch a task force to rescue the Falkland Islanders whose rights and sovereignty were threatened by war.

Actions of this kind enhance the status and strength of the monarchy, and re-affirm to the nation’s subjects that their rights and freedoms are being preserved. They also demonstrate in a modern context that Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are alive and well.

The sovereign is the ultimate protector of the nation and guarantor of the rights of each individual, and those responsibilities are the sovereign’s, and the sovereign’s alone.

At least one constitutional commentator (Allott) agrees with us:

"For parliament to develop or improve on a fundamental right is one thing. But to enact legislation which expressly removes an already existing fundamental right, and to have that enactment blindly upheld by a court, is quite another.

“If there is one thread which runs through the whole turbulent history of British constitutional development, it is the belief that we (parliament and the courts) are the servants of fundamental constitutional rules which were there before us and will be there after we are gone.”

The Ultimate Test
Despite all those rights, freedoms and protections, established over centuries, today our common laws, rights, freedoms, liberties and customs are being demolished with the speed and thoroughness of a team of statutory bulldozers.

Long ago, Magna Carta dealt with the problem of a sovereign acting above the law. Later, the Declaration of Rights confirmed the estates of the realm and their relationship to one another - a series of checks and balances. Today, that relationship has been seriously undermined. We now have a House of Commons acting above the law, plainly contemptuous of the (remaining) powers of The Queen and the House of Lords.

Such an overwhelming concentration of power in the hands of the executive, especially one with a huge parliamentary majority, means that we are currently faced with an extreme example of what Lord Hailsham famously called “an elective dictatorship”.

Writing of Magna Carta in his History of The English-Speaking Peoples, Winston Churchill said:

“…and when in subsequent ages the state, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success.”

The Magna Carta Society, and tens of thousands like us, believe the time has come - indeed, it is overdue - to put the great principles and rights enshrined in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights to the test once again.

Eventually, the issue of the EU's right to rule over the UK must be tested in the highest court in the land and - given the speed and comprehensiveness of present EU legislation and its destructiveness - that test must be made as a matter of the highest priority.

Already faced with the most fundamental concerns for the structure and protection of this nation’s constitution it now appears that the battle over the EU has developed a second front - the dismantling of our parliamentary institutions and the most cavalier disregard for our constitution and rights.

Given the extracts above, there is good reason to believe that, under Magna Carta, 25 hereditary peers can convene themselves as a quorum, and sit as a House of Lords, despite the recent passage of a bill purporting to restrict its hereditary numbers.

We have reason to believe that such a quorum can be assembled.

Furthermore, under the terms of Magna Carta, that House has an obligation to hear petitions brought by free men, and take them to The Queen, who - equally - has an obligation to hear them.

That is the ultimate consequence of the unique contract first established with Magna Carta and renewed at each coronation.

To those in government and the judiciary who might try to argue that we no longer have the right of petition and appeal to The Queen, there are serious questions to answer:

When do they claim that right was taken away? By whom? And how? On whose authority? And by what right?

(We believe the last monarch to receive and act on a petition was Queen Victoria, and we can find no evidence of any attempt to prevent or hinder any such petition subsequently. Nor does there appear to be any legislation which attempts to defy the contract made between sovereign and subjects in Magna Carta and the Coronation Oath. We acknowledge that it has become custom in the last few years for petitions to be passed to ministers of the crown for action, but that is not to say that the monarch can no longer act in her own right. Indeed, in current circumstances, the ministers themselves are party to our complaint, and cannot therefore deal with the matters complained of.)

In any case, the sovereign cannot be absolved from her obligations, responsibilities and duties to her subjects, and certainly not on the mere advice of ministers. Otherwise the Coronation Oath would be meaningless.

Which is why we are preparing a petition to be submitted to the hereditary House of Lords for presentation to The Queen, based on the following terms:

“We the undersigned seek to draw attention to and seek redress from the imposition of foreign laws, directives, regulations and judicial decisions by and from the European Union and its institutions, to the detriment and prejudice of your sovereignty and to our rights and freedoms as defined in Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and by the customs of your people, and which you, our sovereign, swore to uphold and preserve inviolate in your Coronation Oath of 1953.”

If Magna Carta stands, we have a right to enter such a petition.

If it does not, this kingdom stands in dire peril, the executive have some momentous questions to answer, and all free men of this kingdom should hear the call.

Whether Magna Carta stands or not, action is needed, and we intend to take it.

The Magna Carta Society


OTHER ACTIONS
The objective of this document has been to make a case for the constitutional repudiation of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

There are, of course, other means by which the UK’s membership of the EU may end - the government of the day might withdraw; the EU might throw us out (we should be so lucky); parliament might vote for repeal of the 1972 Act; private prosecutions of government ministers for treason might be successful. Any one of these events would have much the same practical effect as we seek.

Whichever event prevails, we argue that there are other actions, legal and otherwise, which need the urgent attention of those in a position, and with the knowledge, to take them:

Immediately
1. Determine how best to test in the courts the claim that European law is “supreme” in the United Kingdom.

2. Examine the direct conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counselors and EU commissioners. At the very least, we advocate that those who have taken the commission’s euro should be publicly stripped of their status as privy counselors.

3. Examine the constitutionality of the two separate recent attempts made by parliament acting under instructions from the EU and the European Court of Human Rights to interfere with the oath of attestation made by all members of the armed forces. The first involves the setting up of an embryo European Army, and the second with the setting and interpretation of standards of behavior likely to be detrimental to the efficiency of the forces. In both these actions parliament appears to have exceeded its authority, and had the effect of compromising the sovereignty of The Queen.

4. Examine the issue of citizenship (Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty - "Citizenship of the union is hereby established"). British citizenship (we prefer the term “subject of the crown”) is a birthright. Citizenship is not in the gift of a self-appointed foreign institution, which in any event is unaccountable to the British electorate and, we argue, has no standing here.

The notion of dual citizenship, implied under this Treaty, is nonsensical. Across the world, applications for dual citizenship are entirely voluntary. Furthermore, the European Union is even now only an association of sovereign nation states. It is not in itself a state, much as it might like to pretend otherwise. It is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. At the very least, therefore, that legal non-sequitur needs to be

disputed in the courts, with the outcome providing individual subjects with a practical and effective means of rejecting so-called citizenship of the EU, and all its pathetic paraphernalia - passport covers, driving licenses and the like.

5. Examine the constitutionality of the 1975 referendum and the referendum proposed on the euro, both of which concern changes which appear to have been forbidden under our constitution and, if possible, instigate proceedings to have them set aside.

6. Investigate potential cases of treason against all the plenipotentiaries acting under the royal prerogative and who signed the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam on behalf of the United Kingdom.

7. Test the legality of all new EU legislation, directives and regulations, as attempts are made to introduce and enforce them. To date, insufficiently vigorous opposition has been applied. There are huge battles ahead, including: the euro and tax harmonization, weights and measures, a European defense force, Europol and Corpus Juris. As the EU attempts to enforce its policies and law on the UK, contrary to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and common law, each and every one must be disputed to the utmost of our resources and will-power.

Post-Membership
8. The restitution of the constitution will release an avalanche of cases of maladministration, involving whole industries (fishing, for example) and many thousands of individuals and businesses, and going back over many years.

The desire for an immediate and gigantic bonfire of EU inanities will need to be balanced with an equally important desire to achieve rapid but orderly abolition of (now) illegal regulations. An immediate moratorium on enforcement seems the most practical and desirable first step.

The vital issue of making good the damage suffered by the people will come a close second. This might perhaps be addressed in much the same way as restitution and reinstatement was handled after the second world war, with the state leading a programme of national re-building. What redress do the people whose livelihoods have been damaged or destroyed over the last 30 years have against government ministers and enforcement agencies past and present? And how can it be delivered quickly and fairly, without time-consuming and expensive civil proceedings? It is possible that justice itself will demand that the state foots the bill.

We urge that a powerful independent body be set up as a matter of the highest priority and charged, primarily, with determining the best means of achieving rapid and equitable redress for all those affected by the enforcement of EU law, regulations, directives and judicial decisions in the UK since 1 January 1973.

9. Investigate potential cases of treason against all prime ministers since 1972

10. Investigate, with a view to prosecution, the past actions of ministers and officials who exceeded or may have exceeded the authority delegated to them by the people, and who attempted to defy the clear intentions of the constitution of the United Kingdom.

And Finally…
11. The people are sovereign. The monarch is the embodiment of that sovereignty. So it was and still should be. But these tenets of the constitution have been seriously threatened by the erosion of the checks and balances between the sovereign, the houses of parliament and the people - an erosion which has been insidious, lengthy and allowed to thrive by the negligence of the people, who have failed sufficiently to exercise vigilance.

It was 473 years after Magna Carta that a further treaty became necessary between the sovereign and the people. Another 312 years have passed since the Declaration of Rights.

Events of recent years, and the momentous issues raised in this document, convince us that a new treaty between the monarch and the people is now essential. It should re-state the true relationship between sovereign, the two houses of parliament and the people, re-establish the checks and balances between them, and re-affirm the covenant between sovereign and subjects.

Nothing else will do.
___________________________________________________________________
This document was researched and written by the founding members of
The Magna Carta Society
signed:

25 January 2000

Founding members of The Magna Carta Society:
David Bourne Mike Burke
Idris Francis Adam Hartman
John Hurst Bob Lomas
Brian Mooney Ashley Mote
Bob Sims Bryan Smalley

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely

David Robinson.

++++++++++

Email from Inspector Nicholson:

Good Morning David,

I so sorry for my elusiveness over the last few months, but the service has undergone a massive overhaul over the last few months which has led to a big impact on my time.

Anyway David, another apology in that having sought advice from the Police Federation, I am not able to get involved or encourage my staff to do so, as it is apolitical matter and we need to remain impartial.

Good luck though David, and I will watch with interest as to how things develop.

Inspector Mark Sarah Nicholson

+++++++++++++

My reply....

Dear Mark Nicholson,

By your comment it seems that the politicians of this country are above the law if they are not to be investigated for crimes against the state i.e. treason, then they are free to do whatever they like without penalty. I cannot accept that as a reasonable response from you and I must (under the constitutional laws of this country) remind you that we ALL have a duty under the law to stand by the constitution under the tenet of Article 61 since the time it was invoked (23rd March 2001).

We are all equal under the law and you sir have a duty under Oath to act according to the law without fear nor favour, The facts are the facts and cannot be denied. The treason being committed (along with many other crimes) is EVIDENTIAL and also the FACT that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has been invoked.

As is the case within a regime of institutionalized treason your superiors (police federation) cannot be relied upon to give you lawful advice and, the Nuremburg trials at the end of world war two show that 'just following orders' is no defense in law. The Misprision of treason Act also makes those who have been informed of the treason facts, to be liable under the law if the crime is not then reported to a justice of the peace.

I find your response disappointing as I did when I found that you had not provided the constables under your direction with the information that I supplied (in disc and literature format) as you said you would do in a previous email.

I would like a recorded interview with you so that you can defend the position you are taking on this matter with clarity and, documented evidence that your position is lawful.

David.




6. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 61

Media Coverage

1.    Peers use Magna Carta to oppose EU charter
    By Sarah Womack, Political Correspondent 12:00AM GMT 07 Feb 2001

A GROUP of peers will today use ancient rights granted under Magna Carta to urge the Queen to block further European integration.

Their petition, presented under Clause 61 of the ancient charter, asks the Queen to withhold Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty. It has the backing of 65 Euro-sceptic peers led by Lord Ashbourne and has been organised by Sanity (Subjects against the Nice Treaty).

Clause 61 of Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in June 1215, permits the “Sovereign’s subjects to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition which four of their number are then obliged to take to the Monarch who is obliged to accept it. She then has 40 days to respond.” The “enforcement powers” granted by King John when he signed the Magna Carta were last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

Lord Ashbourne, a Conservative hereditary peer ousted from the Lords under Tony Blair’s reforms, said: “These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed. Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.”;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1321462/Peers-use-Magna-Carta-to-oppose-EU-charter.html


2.     Peers petition Queen on Europe
       By Caroline Davies 12:00AM GMT 24 Mar 2001

FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.

The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter’s Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.
They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta’s provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html

Magna Carta Society Research Paper proving the invocation of Article 61;
http://magnacartasocietyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/magna-carta-society-research-paper.html

7. THE PETITION FROM THE BARONS AND LETTERS FROM BOTH PARTIES IN FULL

The Petition;

A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta,1215

February 2001 To Defend British Rights and Freedoms

Ma’am,

as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:

1. the loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973;

2. the terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to the European Union:

a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your Government;

b) to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;

c) which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice, abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers of enforcement;

d) to create a military force which will place British service personnel under the command of the European Union without reference to British interests, and contrary to:

I) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,

ii) the Queen’s Commission, and

iii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;

e) which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in British interests;

3. the creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights” at will;

4. the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to

a) suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath Act, 1688;

b) subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;

5. Your Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in1707;

WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval; to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June1953.

We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.

(signed)



Notes: (Provenance unknown, but possibly from the MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY).

The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September [sic] that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”

The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:

Article 24 –transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting.

Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.

Article 191 –assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Articles 29 and31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).

Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.

Article 17 –establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: “The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed.” Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.

The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU “competence,” including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.

Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.

Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [i.e.: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee the country.

The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.” (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)

In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.

Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was “still part of statute law…on which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.”

The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:

“…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.”

Both Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between the sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.


List of Signatories

Peers signing the petition:
Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel)Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.

The petition was also signed by:
Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Letter To The Queens Private Secretary


Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
23 March 2001


You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause 61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence(which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty's Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty's ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty's obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.

From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty's promise to her loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstone’s Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself . De prerogativa Regis is merely declaratory of the common law…

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever.

So it is clear that no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people – may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish.

Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty's subjects.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?

These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)

2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is further protection of our common law rights.)

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others– have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops

..until redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects.

Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The Reply

“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.

“The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”



8. WHO SIGNED THE PETITION?

Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel)Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.

The petition was also signed by:
Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl Kitchener,Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.


9. INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER INTO LAWFUL REBELLION

a) Sending an oath of Allegiance to the barons’ committee

The barons have run away, but we need proof that we have pledged allegiance in order to be lawful. So a copy of your oath and proof of posting are what you are after. Much more information on the PRACTICAL LAWFUL DISSENT PAGE.)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/388605611224816/

You need to send this letter to one of the barons listed in the next section.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oath of allegiance

[ Put the title and address of the baron here ]
 From : (Your name and address).
Date: _____________
Sent by recorded post No.:___________

Dear [ Title of baron],
In full knowledge of treason being committed in Parliament, by delivering the Sovereign Peoples of this Common law land into the hands of foreign powers, in understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the office of Sovereign, from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons' committee whom invoked lawful rebellion, in accordance with article 61 of Magna Carta until such times as redress of these present wrongs is achieved and for as long as the committee of the barons abide by the constitution without deviation.
 Sworn and subscribed on the (Date).

Signed:  _____________________

Witnessed by: _____________________

Witnessed by: _____________________

Witnessed by: _____________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The witness is optional, but 3 makes it fully lawful. Photocopy it before you send it. Make 2 copies. Get a friend to post it (at the counter, costs £1.72 recorded delivery). Photocopy the receipt. Get your friend to write this:

I XXXXXX of (address) confirm that on the (date) I placed the document "Oath of allegiance to the Barons" signed by XXXXXXX in an envelope addressed as follows;

[ Put the title and address of the baron here ]

and I posted the envelope by recorded delivery No. ___________

Signed__________ Date_________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Photocopy that. Now you keep a copy of the oath, the postage receipt, and the signed witness statement saying that it was posted in your pocket.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*Alternatively, because at least some of the barons are 'turncoats' and dishonourable, declare that you are standing under article 61 to the corrupt judiciary or the imposters within Westminster in a lawful Notice or Affidavit (any public servant or alleged authority figure will suffice), stating that you back the invocation of article 61 if not the barons whom invoked it. The whole point is to be able to prove 'intent' so that it cannot be propagated that we are outlaws. We stand fully under the common law as it demands we must, and have a lawful duty with 'lawful excuse' to reject any and all alleged authorities that operate under the crown.



9(b) sending notice of your lawful standing

This is a Notice you can use to inform the Defacto authorities of your standing:
C/o xxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
[xxxxxxxx]

Copies to:

XXXXXXXXX, doing business as Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
Recorded Delivery Tracking Number: xxxxxxx

Peter Fahy
Chief Constable
Greater Manchester Police
Central Park
Northampton Road
Manchester
M40 5BP
Recorded Delivery Tracking Number: xxxxxxx

NOTICE
DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.
Please read the following NOTICE thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

Date:  xxxxxxx
Ref: xxxxxxx
Dear Sirs,

1. I AM WRITING TO INFORM YOU OF MY LAWFUL STANDING UNDER ARTICLE 61 OF THE MAGNA CARTA 1215.

2. The Article was invoked on 23rd March 2001 by a quorum of four peers in full accordance with that Article (See appendix 1).

3. The process was confirmed as currently valid by the response made by the Sovereign in accordance with the Article.

4. The response made by the Sovereign did not address the grievances raised by the barons and therefore the text of Article 61 is very clear, that we must; “with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children;”.

5. This is a ROYAL COMMAND to EVERYONE as the Article states: “All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid” (see appendix 2 for the whole Article).

6. I HAVE PLEDGED MY ALLEGIANCE TO THE BARONS AND AM IN LAWFUL REBELLION in accordance with Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 and under the full protection of our Constitutional Law.



_______________________          _______________________          _______________________
7. As those in government are committing Treason, then the law demands that I hinder the operation of said Treasonous government by all peaceful means which can include the following;
* Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.
* Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.
* To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.

8. Therefore our constitutional law demands that in the present circumstance of lawful rebellion I must not do anything to assist any operation of government or its institutions. In view of this any continued attempt by you to enforce Statute law on me will constitute an act of Treason.


9. All persons claiming authority to uphold the law must know the law and observe it well, as specifically stated in the Magna Charta 1215 Article 45;

* 45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.


If you have any objection to my lawful standing under Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 you must say so immediately stating your specific reasons. It is my reasonable expectation that should you not offer any specific objections to any part of this Notice, sent to me by recorded delivery within ten (10) days from your receipt of same, that I may presume your agreement to it.
I will presume silence to mean acquiescence in all these matters.
Yours sincerely without ill-will, vexation or frivolity,



Yours truly and with all rights reserved, on the date of: ________________________________

_________________________________________________   

Xxxxxxxxxxxx.

We, the undersigned, confirm to witnessing a man known to us as Xxxxxxx, signing and sealing this Notice,

# xxxxxx, on the date of: ________________________________


__________________________________
xxxxxxx, in rerum natura
c/o xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
[xxxxxxx]


__________________________________
xxxxxxx, in rerum natura
c/o xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
[xxxxxxx]


__________________________________
xxxxxxx, in rerum natura
c/o xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
[xxxxxxx]

Appendix 1
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 61

Media Coverage

1.    Peers use Magna Carta to oppose EU charter
    By Sarah Womack, Political Correspondent 12:00AM GMT 07 Feb 2001

A GROUP of peers will today use ancient rights granted under Magna Carta to urge the Queen to block further European integration.

Their petition, presented under Clause 61 of the ancient charter, asks the Queen to withhold Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty. It has the backing of 65 Euro-skeptic peers led by Lord Ashbourne and has been organised by Sanity (Subjects against the Nice Treaty).

Clause 61 of Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in June 1215, permits the “Sovereign’s subjects to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition which four of their number are then obliged to take to the Monarch who is obliged to accept it. She then has 40 days to respond.” The “enforcement powers” granted by King John when he signed the Magna Carta were last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

Lord Ashbourne, a Conservative hereditary peer ousted from the Lords under Tony Blair’s reforms, said: “These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed. Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.”;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1321462/Peers-use-Magna-Carta-to-oppose-EU-charter.html


2.     Peers petition Queen on Europe
       By Caroline Davies 12:00AM GMT 24 Mar 2001

FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.

The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter’s Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.
They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta’s provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html

Magna Carta Society Research Paper proving the invocation of Article 61;
http://magnacartasocietyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/magna-carta-society-research-paper.html




_______________________          _______________________          _______________________
Appendix 2
Magna Charta 1215 Article 61

61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.










_______________________          _______________________          _______________________


10 ADDRESSES OF BARONS TO SEND OATHS TO

Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton),

Pimm's Cottage, Man's Hill, Burghfield Common, Berkshire RG7 3BD

Tel: 01189 832399

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Craigmyle

Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire PH41 4PL

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Strathcarron

3 Elizabeth Court, Milmans Street, London SW10 0DA

Otterwood, Beaulieu, Hampshire SO42 7YS

Tel: 01590 612334

+++++++++++++++++++

Marquis of Aberdeen

House of Formantine, Methlick, Ellon, Aberdeenshire AB41 7EQ

Tel: 01651 806897

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl of Cromer

6 Sloane Terrace Mansions, London SW1X 9DG

Drayton Court, Drayton, Somerset

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl of Devon,

Powderham Castle, Exeter, Devon EX6 8JQ

Tel: 01626 890253

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Wise

- died 2012 Christopher John Clayton WISE 3rd Baron WIES (has yet to establish his claim to the title and appear on the Roll of the House of Lords) b 19 March 1949, unm. His brother and hp is the Hon Martin Highfield WISE (b 1950) unm. No others in line of succession to the barony.

+++++++++++++++++++

Viscount Exmouth,

The Coach House, Canonteign Falls, nr. Exeter, Devon EX6 7NT

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Dormer

Yew Tree Cottage, Dittisham, Devon TQ6 0EX

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Barber of Tewkesbury

still sits in the house of lords but has had a leave of absence since April 2011

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Newall

18 Lennox Gardens, London SW1X 0DG

Wotton Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 0RZ

Tel: 01844 238376 Fax: 01844 237153

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Milne,

188 Broom Road, Teddington, Middlesex

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Oaksey

Hill Farm, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9HS

Tel: 01666 577303 Fax: 01666 577962

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl Cathcart,

Gateley Hall, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5EF

18 Smith Terrace, London SW3 4DL

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Sandys

Died feb 2013 On the death of the 7th Baron Sandys the Barony of Sandys passed to his third cousin three times removed, Nicholas Wills [Hill], 9th Marquess of Downshire, a great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Baroness Sandys.

+++++++++++++++++++

Nicholas Wills [Hill], 9th Marquess of Downshire,

Clifton Castle, Ripon, North Yorkshire HG4 4AB

Tel: 01765 689326

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Ailsa,

Cassillis House, Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7JN

Tel: 0129-256310

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Napier of Magdala

The Coach House, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1HU

Tel: 01672 512333 Fax: 01672 512333

E-mail: rob.napier@clara.net

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl Kitchener

Died Dec 2011 On the death of the 3rd Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome the Earldom of Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome became extinct

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl of Romney

Gayton Hall, King's Lynn, Norfolk

+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Napier & Ettrick

Gowan Cottage, Westley, Waterless, Newmarket, Suffolk

Down House, Wylye, Wiltshire BA12 0QN

Thirlestane Castle, Ettrick, Selkirkshire

+++++++++++++++++++

Viscount Norwich

24 Blomfield Road, London W9 1AD

Tel: 020 7286 5050 Fax: 020 7266 2561

+++++++++++++++++++

Viscount Cowdray

Cowdray Park, Midhurst, West Sussex GU29 0AY

Tel: 01730 812461

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Sudeley (Merlin Charles Sainthill, interesting name)

25 Melcombe Court, Dorset Square, London NW1 6EP
(Known to have received numerous oaths and not written back to deny allegiance to the B. committee.).


11 INVINCIBLE NOTICE TO REMOVE ANY AUTHORITY FROM POLICE, BAILIFFS OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR CROWN INSTITUTION

TAKE NOTE THAT I HAVE PLEDGED MY ALLEGIANCE TO THE BARONS AND AM IN LAWFUL REBELLION in accordance with Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 and under the full protection of our Constitutional Law.
As those in government are committing Treason, then the law demands that I hinder the operation of said Treasonous government by all peaceful means which can include the following;
Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.

Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breach of the Constitutional safeguard.
To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breached the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.

Therefore our constitutional law demands that in the present circumstance of lawful rebellion I must not do anything to assist any operation of government or its institutions. In view of this any continued attempt by you to enforce Statute law on me will constitute an act of Treason.

Note that I am a man known as xxxxx, and as a living man I reserve all rights in accordance with The Statute in Force "Bill of Rights 1689 "The Said Rights Claimed".

If you feel so inclined as to enforce statutes I will report your conduct to ALL relevant bodies and will pursue you privately using Proof of Claim for Tort, Damages and/or injury in Affidavit form, under your full commercial liability and under the penalty of perjury.

You are deemed to have been served this notice with immediate effect.


12 LAWFUL REBELLION NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR COURT DECISIONS

Lawful Rebellion Notice of Conditional Acceptance for court decision warrant of arrest, contempt of court, water bills.

    To : Mr. ....... (doing business as Court Enforcement Agent)
    Address

    From: Meself
    Address

    Case ref..

    Date notice served.

    Sent by recorded post No.____________

    NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

    Notice to agent is notice to principle
    Notice to principle is notice to agent

    Dear Mr. .....,
                            I am writing to you after receiving a letter of arrest and imprisonment for seven days for contempt of court.

    Whereas I, XXXXXXXXXX do Not consent to the presumed jurisdiction of ...... County Court nor does your service have jurisdiction to lawfully carry out an arrest warrant for contempt of court, whilst the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect and, that I XXXXXXXXXXX ( the living (wo)man) stand fully behind the committee of the Barons whom invoked said article, which is the constitutional duty of ALL British subjects at this time. Not to do so would be ancillary to treason, therefore, enforcement of the detainment of xxxxxxxxxx would be an act of unlawful kidnap at common law.

    Any hearing must be conducted in a properly convened Court de Jure so that justice can be seen to be done. I demand remedy under due process of law where constitutional law is fully observed.

    Please be aware that this is a 'Notice of conditional acceptance' it informs you and means what it says. The matter raised herein is of a very serious nature and requires your immediate and urgent response.

    Please also be aware that the fact that this 'Notice of conditional acceptance is hand written does Not detract its validity under the common law. This document may be used as evidence in my defense.

    Definition of a Notice

    A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact has reason to know it, or has been given notification of it.

    A reply in full to this notice is required within five (5) days from receipt of it.

    Failure to reply to this Notice in 'substance' (meaning to respond to the points raised) shall be deemed to mean that they/you are in full agreement with all the points of law raised herein and, that no further actions will be taken against I Danielle Delioness nor the legal fiction that I lawfully reject to represent and, that I have 'lawful excuse' to do so.

    Whereas you may be in ignorance of the evidential thus provable fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional Law on the 23rd day of March 2001 and, which stands on this day as the political position of the British Isles and Commonwealth.

    TAKE NOTICE THAT : This fact was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001 and can be seen online under the title of 'peers petition Queen on Europe' and that we are all responsible 'individually ' to comply with the law and that there is No defense in law by pleading ignorance.

    IT is the common law duty of all British subjects to defend the Common Law and to stand under article 61 when it has been invoked. Therefore ;

    1. I conditionally accept that ..... County Court has the authority to carry out its threats against me and, that I have a lawful obligation to comply to its orders on proof being provided, in substance and within the reasonable time allotted, that ....County Court and 'HM courts and tribunals service', can lawfully make such demands whilst article 61 of Magna Carta is currently in effect.

    2. That ....County Court is functioning under the constraints of the British Constitution and that the Crown has any authority whatsoever in these treacherous times.

    I xxxxxxxxxx do have 'lawful excuse' to reject, , distress and rebel peacefully and entirely lawfully under the protection of Constitutional law. Anyone who would seek to deprive me of due process under constitutional law will be committing a very serious offense indeed.

    Mr...., I urge you strongly to investigate the facts referred to herein. I do urge you to stand in defense of the British Constitution and under Article 61 yourself.

    Without malice, frivolity or ill will, with all my inalienable Rights reserved and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

    Any response is required to be made on penalty of perjury and on your personal commercial liability.

    Signature

    Printed name

    Three Signatory witnesses and dated

    1
    2
    3


13 Danielle DeLioness LR process against C Court and Wessex water.

Lawful Rebellion Notice of Conditional Acceptance for court decision warrant of arrest, contempt of court, water bills.

This is the letter that began this process. Danielle DeLioness (A very naughty rebel) had ignored the first two summonses (which I don't advise) and received this sentence for contempt of court.

From: Mr. Markey
HMRC & Tribunals Service
Yeovil County Court
The Law Courts
Petters way
Yeovil
BA20 1SW

                                       URGENT
CONTACT: COUNTY COURT YEOVIL

Case number 3JA10324

WARRANT OF ARREST FOR Mrs. Danielle Delioness

FAILURE TO ATTEND COURT WHEN ORDERED TO DO SO.

YOU HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO 7 DAYS IN HMP Eastwood park....FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

To prevent loss of liberty and the embarrassment of a Police officer/Enforcement officer arresting you, you are strongly advised to contact

                                  YEOVIL COUNTY COURT
                              WITHIN THE NEXT 48 HOURS
               FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING ARRESTED.

Mr. Markey
County Court Agent
Yeovil County Court
Tel........

Danielle, being a very naughty rebel indeed, decided she didn't want to consent to 7 days in prison. She was advised to contact Mr. Markey to give her just a little more time to draft the following Notice and serve it to begin the rebuttal process, which she did.
Being a sweet talker she convinced Mr. Markey that she needed a couple of weeks to convene a meeting with the so called court in Yeovil.....instead she wrote and served this up:


To : Mr. Markey (doing business as Court Enforcement Agent).
Yeovil County Court
The Law Courts
Pelllers Way
Yeovil
BA20 1SW

From: Danielle...
Address.....

Case reference number 3JA10324

Date Notice served: 20th January 2015.

Sent by special delivery.

                         NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.
       Notice to agent is notice to principle, Notice to principle is notice to agent

Dear Mr. Markey,
                        I am writing to you after receiving a letter of arrest and imprisonment for seven days for contempt of court.

Whereas I, Danielle Delioness do Not consent to the presumed jurisdiction of Yeovil County Court nor does your service have jurisdiction to lawfully carry out an arrest warrant for contempt of court whilst the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect and, that I Danielle Delioness (the living woman), stand fully behind the committee of the Barons whom invoked said article, which is the constitutional duty of ALL British subjects at this time. Not to do so would be ancillary to treason, therefore, enforcement of the detainment of Danielle Delioness would be an act of unlawful kidnap at common law.

Any hearing must be conducted in a properly convened Court de Jure so that justice can be seen to be done. I demand remedy under due process of law where constitutional law is fully observed.

Please be aware that this is a 'Notice of conditional acceptance' it informs you and means what it says. The matter raised herein is of a very serious nature and requires your immediate and urgent response.

Please also be aware that the fact that this 'Notice of conditional acceptance' is hand written does Not detract its validity under the common law. This document may be used as evidence in my defense.

Definition of a Notice:
A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact has reason to know it, or has been given notification of it.

A reply in full to this notice is required within five (5) days from receipt of it.

Failure to reply to this Notice in 'substance' (meaning to respond to the points raised) shall be deemed to mean that they/you are in full agreement with all the points of law raised herein and, that no further actions will be taken against I Danielle Delioness nor the legal fiction that I lawfully reject to represent and, that I have 'lawful excuse' to do so.

Whereas you may be in ignorance of the evidential, thus provable fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional Law on the 23rd day of March 2001 and, which stands to this day as the political position of the British Isles and Commonwealth.

TAKE NOTICE THAT: This fact was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001 and can be seen online under the title of 'peers petition Queen on Europe' and, that we are all responsible 'individually' to comply with the law and that there is No defense in law by pleading ignorance.

It is the common law duty of all British subjects to defend the Common Law and to stand under article 61 when it has been invoked. Therefore;

1. I conditionally accept that Yeovil County Court has the authority to carry out its threats against me and, that I have a lawful obligation to comply to its orders on proof being provided, in substance, and within the reasonable time allotted, that Yeovil County Court and 'HM courts and tribunals service', can lawfully make such demands whilst article 61 of Magna Carta is currently in effect.

2. That Yeovil County Court is functioning under the constraints of the British Constitution and that the Crown has any authority whatsoever in these treacherous times.

I Danielle Delioness do have 'lawful excuse' to reject, distress and rebel peacefully and entirely lawfully under the protection of Constitutional law. Anyone who would seek to deprive me of due process under constitutional law will be committing a very serious offence indeed.

Mr. Markey, I urge you strongly to investigate the facts referred to herein. I do urge you to stand in defense of the British Constitution and under Article 61 yourself.

Without malice, frivolity or ill will, with all my inalienable Rights reserved and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

Any response is required to be made on penalty of perjury and on your personal commercial liability.

Signature

Printed name

(Three Signatory witnesses and dated)

Witnessed by:
1 David Robinson: Signature, Date.
2
3

[No response was forthcoming]

         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the time frame for the first response had expired the second Notice was served:


To: Mr. Markey (DBA Court enforcement officer).
Yeovil County Court
The law courts
Pellers way
BA6 9PF.

From: Danielle.......

Address.....

Case ref number....

Date Notice served:

Sent by recorded post.

                         NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.
                                   Notice to principal is Notice to Agent.

Dear Mr. Markey.

Whereas I have received no reply to the 'Notice of conditional acceptance' posted to you on the 20th January 2015 and received by your office on the 21st January signed by STEELE. I am providing an opportunity for you to remedy the matter, please be aware of your duty of care to reply to my concerns as said in the previous Notice served.

You are required to make a response on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury within 7 days to remain from being in dishonor.

If no reply is forthcoming then you agree there is no claim against me as stated in the previous Notice.

Without vexation, frivolity nor ill will, with all my inalienable rights reserved.

Signed...

Danielle .........

Three Signatory witnesses and dated

1 David Robinson: Signed...dated.
2
3

(No reply was forthcoming and after the time frame had elapsed the third Notice was served).

                                           -----------------------------------------------

Third and final Notice as no response was forthcoming from the other two.

TO: Mr. Markey (Doing business as Court Enforcement Officer)
Yeovil County Court
The Law Courts
Pelllers Way
Yeovil
BA20 1SW

FROM: Danielle....
Address..

Case ref Number.

Date Notice served: 4th March 2015

Sent by recorded post

                                          NOTICE OF DEFAULT
                                Notice to agent is Notice to principal.

Dear Mr. Markey,

Whereas no response has been forthcoming from two previous notices served on you and, that they have been received therefore accepted in law. It is now clear that No further demands nor arrest warrant shall be enforced against I Danielle Delioness of the above address. Whereas you have tacitly accepted the claims of non jurisdiction that I made within said Notices this matter is therefore closed. Thank you.

Without frivolity, vexation, or ill will and, with all my inalienable common law rights reserved.

Signed

Witness signatures

1. David Robinson: (Signature)    Date 04/03/15
2.
3.

This is a simple process that anyone can do. It has been effective as the so called County Court enforcement officer is in dishonor and therefore would have NO claim in any proper court of law and, she (Danielle DeLioness), would not accept anything else.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst the above process was being carried out Danielle also wrote to Wessex water who had brought the matter to Yeovil County Court.

Lawful Notice to Water Company over charges.

To : Chris Hunt (Doing business as Wessex water billing services limited credit administrator).
Address:
Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd
Clevedon Walk
Nailsea
Bristol
BS48 1WA

From: Danielle Delioness

Address:..........

customer ref: C24135874

Date Notice served:

Sent by recorded post

                            NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

           Notice to agent is notice to principle, Notice to principle is notice to agent

Dear Chris Hunt,

I am writing you this Notice to put you on notice of the facts. I am standing under Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 according to our British constitution as invoked on 23rd March 2001, evidenced by the fact that it was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001 and, can be seen online under the title of 'peers petition Queen on Europe.'

Whereas Margaret Thatcher, PM, privatized water services in 1989 and created the National Rivers Authority and at the same time as OFWAT was created, all public procurements in the UK are governed by the EU treaty, the 'EU procurement directives and UK procurement regulations', which is an act of treason at common law, allowing foreign jurisdiction the regulatory powers over British services.

Also the signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making powers further, by extended majority voting in certain areas of policy making was a further act of treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

Whereas I, Danielle Davidson, a law abiding constitutional subject is standing under the invocation of Article 61, I conditionally accept that I can pay your demands according to the rule of law on proof being provided that it is lawful to do so.

To accept the privatization of public services would be to accept a treasonous administration to my understanding, which would be a criminal offence according to common law.

I implore you to check the facts alluded to above and to abide by the British Constitution Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 yourself.

A reply to this lawful notice is required to be made in substance within 10 days on receipt of this 'Notice of conditional acceptance'. I have put the alleged court on Notice of the same and I am waiting for a response.

A failure to respond to this notice in substance and within the reasonable time frame allotted, will be taken to mean by all parties (including third party interlopers) to mean that you agree wholeheartedly to the facts alluded to within this document and that no further claims against I Danielle Davidson is lawful and, all claims are null and void.

TAKE NOTICE: We are individually liable for our actions and omissions under constitutional law. Ignorance is no defense in law.

Any reply must be made upon your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

Without vexation, frivolity or ill will, with all my nature inalienable common law rights reserved and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

Kind Regards

Signed: Danielle.....

printed:

(No signatory witnesses to this first one - not as necessary at this stage unless dealing with the so called courts).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONSE from Wessex water (FROM A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATOR).

Dear Miss Danielle ..........

Thank you for your letter received on the 3rd February 2015.

Under section 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991, any person who uses the water services at a property is liable for all charges accumulated during their time in the property. You are using the services provided, and are liable for the balance outstanding.

Please contact me by 19 February 2015 to set up a payment arrangement for your ongoing charges and arrears for (address).

Failure to contact me by 19th February 2015 will result in debt recovery action continuing.

If you have any questions about this letter (yadda yadda yadda)

Yours Sincerely

Alex Carter

Credit Administrator.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of default and opportunity to cure to water board in reply (2nd notice)

TO: Alex Carter (doing business as Credit Administrator)
Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd,
Clevedon Walk,
Nailsea,
Bristol,
BS48 1WA

FROM: Danielle DeLioness
Address:........
Ref No.
Date Notice served:
Sent by recorded Post

                         NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

                               Notice to agent is notice to principle.

Dear Alex Carter,

Thank you for your letter dated 6th February 2015, which acknowledges the receipt of my 'letter' (Notice of conditional acceptance) received on the 3rd Feb 2015.

The first Notice sent to you was addressed to Wessex water employee Chris Hunt. I must advise you to read said previous Notice and to respond to it in full.

I hereby give you a further seven (7) days to respond to the 'Notice of Conditional acceptance', in full and with proof of only lawful claims to monies, properties of I Danielle Delioness.

I am disappointed by your reply dated 5th Feb 2015 wherein you failed to respond to the two (2) serious, lawful points raised therein.

Section 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991 Is an Act of Parliament which has no authority over I Danielle Davidson at this time or since Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 was invoked. Therefore the law forbids me to abide by it.

Please add the answer to this question on reply. Along with the two previous questions as yet unanswered:

Are you Alex Carter standing under the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 in Lawful Rebellion?

I f you are not I cannot aid you in any way. I am putting you Alex Carter on Notice of the above article being in effect today and, that you also have a duty by law to stand in defense of the British Constitution.

Any debt recovery action taken against I Danielle Davidson whilst my serious questions as to the lawfulness of your demand are unanswered, will constitute unlawful coercion to act against British Constitutional law and, would thus be harassment with intent to extort monies under false pretences. This would cause me a tort, of which you and Wessex Water would be held liable for.

If you fail to respond to any of these three (3) questions that require answering, or address any letter to me with the title Miss then I may ignore any further correspondence from you and/or Wessex Water with no dishonor on my part.

By failing to respond to reasonable and lawful questions you are in dishonor, please cure the matter.

Without frivolity, ill will or vexation with all my natural inalienable common law rights reserved.

Signed: Danielle....

&

3 Witness signatures.

-Footnote-
(Anyone standing under article 61 would suffice as a signatory witness but also, anyone in agreement with your Notice also if that is too hard to find).

                           -------------------------------------------

The response was yet again by a different administrator....oh they think they are so clever...fools!

From: Samantha Heeney
Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd
Clevedon Walk
Nailsea
Bristol
BS48 1WA

19th Feb 2015

Miss Danielle.........
Address......

Customer reference .....
Premises supplied.......
Balance £1,229.94.
County Court Claim: 3JA10324  (now evidently revoked).

Dear Miss Delioness

Thank you for your letter received on the 18th February 2015.

The water industry Act 1991 sets out the statutory mechanism for payment of water and sewage charges. This applies to all occupiers of the property receiving water and sewage services.

The Magna Carter is not relevant to the payment of water charges and does not overrule the 1991 act.

You have asked us to address the issue raised in your previous letter of 1 February 2014. (NOTE: they cannot even get the year correct!). I can confirm that the privatization of the water industry and the signing of the single European Act 1986 are not relevant to the payment of water charges and do not provide you with any exemption from payment.

You have a balance outstanding of £i,229.94 which is broken down in the following way. You have a balance outstanding of £737.21 which covers the period 27 October 2012 to 20 November 2014 and is for your on-going consumption. I can accept a minimum of £64.72 a month.

You have a balance outstanding of £492.73 which covers the period 1 November 2011 to 26 October 2012 and is subject to County Court claim 3JA10324. I can accept a minimum of £20.53 a month.

I have extended the hold on your account until 5 March 2015 to allow you time to contact and arrange payment. Failure to contact by this date will result in debt recovery action being taken.

If you have any questions about this letter, please call me on 01225 524327 Monday to Friday 8.30am - 6.00pm or email customerservices@wessexwater.co.uk

Yours sincerely

Signature (copy, not a wet signature)

Samantha Heeney
Credit Administrator.

                     -------------------------------------------------

Notice of Default (third notice) to Wessex Water Billing Services

TO: Samantha Heeney (doing business as Wessex Water Billing Services Credit Administrator); Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd.

Address:
Clevedon Walk
Nailsea
Bristol
BS48 1WA

From: Danielle ....

Address: ........

Date Notice Served: 04th March 2015

Sent By Recorded Post

                                             NOTICE OF DEFAULT

                                 Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal

Samantha Heeney,

Thank you for your timely reply to my 'Notice of Default and opportunity to Cure,' received by you on 18th February 2015.

As previously stated the 'Water Industry Act 1991' is an Act of Parliament created by quislings and does Not comply with the rule of law in Britain and, whereas that being the evidential truth in law, I Danielle Davidson cannot at this time abide by said Act and remain within the boundaries of constitutional law.

Are you, Samantha Heeney, attempting to coerce me into breaching constitutional law?

Furthermore, I am not an occupier but a dweller of the property and a constitutional subject of the realm of Britain. You also wrongly addressed your letter to 'Miss' Danielle Delioness. I do not accept this title as it implies the legal fiction of which I revoke entirely.

Considering the fact that you cannot even spell Magna Carta correctly I will presume that you have not looked into the fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect today and, that once invoked it does indeed overrule the said 1991 Act. Your statement therefore is tantamount to Sedition at Common law and I strongly advise you to check the facts for yourself as ignorance is no defense in law.

Again you are wrong to suggest that the privatization of the Water Industry and the treasonous signing of the 'Single European Act 1986' are not relevant to the payment of Water charges! To do so is to aid and abet high treason at common law and I will NOT DO SO.

Passing on each of my lawful Notices to a different admin to respond does NOT make you any less liable for your unlawful coercive demands. I now possess evidence of collusion against all three administrators whom have dealt with this matter.

I hereby demand that you CEASE AND DESIST in this coercion and pass my Notices onto the head of your department. If you continue this harassment you may invoke a counterclaim against you personally, whereby you will be cross examined as a hostile witness in a properly convened Court de Jure. Ignore British constitutional law at your peril Samantha.

Any further coercive demands made against I Danielle Delioness by Wessex Billing Services Ltd, will be harassment that will be considered to be a tort.

Samantha Heeney I stand by constitutional law for the sake of our rights and our children’s. I would implore you to look at the facts and to do the same. We cannot allow further corruption to go on.

Fee schedule:

For any letter sent to I Danielle Delioness with coercive demands for payment shall incur a penalty fee of £200.00 (two hundred G.B pounds) per letter.

Any further response made by myself to unlawful demands shall be charged at £150.00 (one hundred and fifty G.B pounds) per hour or part thereof.

The above charges will be invoked by ANY individual making further unlawful demands.

Wessex Water Billing Services limited are in dishonor whereas you/they have failed to respond to the points of law in truth within previous notices served. Any further letters received may be ignored by me with NO dishonor on my part.

Any reply to this 'Notice of default' must be made on penalty of perjury and on the individuals personal commercial liability.

Without ill will, vexation or frivolity and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

With no admission of liability whatsoever and with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With prejudice.

Signed

Witnessed

1. David Robinson: Signature, Date...

2.

3.

                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Footnote by David Robinson.
(She will also demand a properly convened court for any counterclaim of harassment and breach of fee schedule....I would be happy to act with power of attorney in that matter...bring it on Wessex water!)

To: Miss Danielle Delioness

Address

Dear Miss Delioness,
Customer Number:
Property Address:
Balance: £1,229.94

County Court Claim: 3JA10324 : £492.73

Thank you for your letter dated 4th March 2015. I am sorry you are unhappy with the response letters you have received.

As previously discussed, the legal points raised in your letter are irrelevant and do not excuse you from paying your water charges. We will only respond to new enquiries and will not repeat ourselves.

Please contact me by 24 March 2015 to set up a minimum payment arrangement of £89.00 a month. This should cover your ongoing charges and clear your arrears over 24 months.

If you are unable to afford this, we have schemes to help customers who have arrears or are unable to pay their bill in full. All we need is a financial statement prepared by a free debt advice agency. We can then work it out what help we can offer to clear any arrears and make ongoing bills more affordable.

The advice agency will

    Check you are getting all the benefits you are entitled to,
    Prepare a budget so you can stay on top of spending,
    Work out a realistic payment plan to repay your debts and make sure the most serious debts are dealt with first.

I have enclosed a list of debt free advice agencies. Citizens Advice Bureau or similar can apply on your behalf, and telephone or online services, such as Step Change and National Debt Line, can give you a budget statement to attach to your application.

Whichever agency you choose, please contact me by 24 March 2015 to let us know when you have an appointment so we can hold any further debt recovery action.

Failure to contact me by 24th March 2015 will result in further recovery action.

If you have any questions about this letter, please call me on 01225 524... Monday to Friday 8.30am - 6.00 pm or email customer.services@bristolwater.co.uk

I enclose a copy of our Code of Practice for Enquiries and Complaints for further information.

Yours Sincerely

Alex Carter
Credit Administrator


lawful response..

TO:
Alex Carter; Wessex Water Billing Services Ltd.
ADDRESS

From:
Danielle Davidson
ADDRESS
DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:
Sent by recorded post.

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OFMISPRISION OF TREASON
Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.

To Alex Carter (doing business as Credit Administrator for Wessex Water Billing Services Limited).

Please read the following 'notice' thoroughly and carefully. It is a NOTICE, a LAWFUL DOCUMENT and EVIDENCE. It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the UTMOSTIMPORTANCE and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION.

Please be aware that failure to act on this LAWFULNOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act, which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/any British sovereign man/woman within or without the realm of the English Isles and Commonwealth and, is an OFFENCE under the misprision of treason Act 1795,' SECTION 1 (Misprision of treason).

Whereby;...it is an offence at common law for any person(s) who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace. Also please be aware that the penalty for committing 'misprision of treason' in this day is life imprisonment and total asset stripping, and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not malice, menace, frivolity, vexation nor ill will.

Whereas you persist to harass me despite being notified of the facts and that you have made UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself/legal person, and that you are continuing to coerce me to comply with unlawful statutes (Industries Act 1991) by threat of enforcement and, that you are acting for a 'corporation' who has at this time no lawful claim against I Danielle Davidson, a sovereign woman standing in lawful rebellion and, that the crown is committing high treason against the sovereign peoples of the English Isles and Commonwealth at this time therefore I cannot lawfully nor morally support financially or in any other way a treasonous regime of governance or any private entity not also standing under article 61of Magna Carta 1215, Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DOSO ! Therefore...

It is to my understanding that you must now by the common laws of this realm and, with the evidence herein supplied, CEASE AND DESIST in all actions against I Danielle Davidson, I have lawful excuse to deny payment for a stolen water and sewage 'service’ or to deal with anyone/entity not also standing under said article. With light to the evidence reported to you personally Alex Carter, herein this notice, this evidence by LAW must now be reported by YOU to the police to stay within the bounds of constitutional law, failure to do so would contravene the Treason 1795 Act and would be an Act of 'misprision of treason at common law'. I will be forced to report any further unlawful demands to the police.

THEREFORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that:

1.) A long range deception to overthrow the sovereignty of the English Isles, by controlling its currency and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalized by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion. Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled 'Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft' (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as 'European Economic Community'. The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

2.) Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.

3.) The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-French pro-federal European lobbying body posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. The documentation evidencing these events are present on the discs FCO 10 30/48 herein provided.

4.) The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.


5.) The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

6.) Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970-72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents have been released after the thirty year rule.

7.) The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are all born free to do whatever we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm, injury or loss to another's life, liberty or property or their rights to life, liberty or property.

8.) England, within the United Kingdom(corporation) of Great Britain is a common law jurisdiction and British parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender land or transfer, even temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war.

9.) No man (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common law of Great Britain that forms the British constitution (Magna Carta 1215, The Declaration and Bill of Rights1688/89, the Coronation Oath Act 1689 and the Act of Union succession and settlement 1701-1707.

10.) The Declaration of Rights 1688 is an un-rebutted claim of Right by the people and therefore beyond the reach of parliament and still stands to this day. The Declaration includes the clause: No foreign prince, person, prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. This is mirrored in the Bill of Rights1689 which still stands as legislation.

11.) Treason in statute law was redefined by the Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include; a) compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his/her spouse or eldest son; b) levying war against the sovereign in his/her realm, which includes, any insurrection against the authority of the sovereign or of the government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder; c) giving aid or comfort to the sovereigns enemies in wartime.

12.) Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

13.) Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes the subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

14.) The evidence presented in the 'Shoehorned into the E.U.' files shows that the Heath Government of 1972was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.

15.) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British parliament, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.

16.) The signing of the single European Act in1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

17.) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992,based on the original EEC Berlin document1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, this was an Act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.

18.) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997increased the European Unions powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

19.) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government repealed the Treason legislation in section 36 of the ' Crime and Disorder Act 1998.'abolishing the death penalty. This included the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law still stands as common law has primacy.

20.) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further Acts of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

21.) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word’ sovereignty' from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

22.) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008surrendered further control of policy including that relating to immigration and borders. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Brown administration.

23.) The present Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is evidence to prove that this is an Act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.

24.) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by professional accountants of their books in the last 15years. One year of non-publication is a criminal offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U's own court of auditors for the past15 years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance of British taxpayer's funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.

25.) The six European Treaties since 1972 are all unlawful and should be struck completely from the statute books.

26.) All of the documented evidence pertaining to these allegations can be viewed on the 'Shoe horned into the EU' discs herein.

The evidence submitted herein is to my understanding precise and factual and is in no way whatsoever intended to deceive, mislead, cause mischief or as an act of frivolity, vexation or ill will. Whereas this document is required to be responded to in its entirety within 28 days on your receipt of this 'Notice of understanding of Misprision of treason' please respond as to your lawful standing in light of this evidence presented on your full commercial liability and penalty of perjury..

Our constitutional law demands that we ALL take up lawful rebellion in support of the barons petition of the 7th ofFebruary2001 and, to continue to distress those that refuse (as to the terms and conditions laid down under Article 61 Magna Carta1215), which was Invoked by the barons' committee on the 23rd March2001 and reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davis on the24th March 2001, under the title 'Peers Petition Queen on Europe' the invocation of Article 61 still stands to this day as the lawful position of the English Isles and commonwealth.

The evidence confirming that treason has and is being committed, is provided within a computer disc format compilation of public records documents amounting to almost 500pages entitled 'FCO 10 30/48Shoehorned into the EU'. Within this compilation of signed and sometimes stamped documentation the evidence of both sedition and treason are proven. This information can be found on the internet for your perusal.

I am also obliged to provide the following information for your immediate investigation:

The evidence presented in the 'Shoe horned into the E.U.' files shows that the Heath Government of 1972 was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.


    a.) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British parliament, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.

    b.) The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

    c.) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original EEC Berlin document 1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, this was an Act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.

    d.) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 increased the European Unions powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

    e.) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government repealed the Treason legislation in section 36 of the 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998.' abolishing the death penalty. This included the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law still stands as common law has primacy.

    f.) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further Acts of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

    g.) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word 'sovereignty' from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

    h.) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 surrendered further control of policy including that relating to immigration and borders. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Brown administration.

    i.) The present Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is evidence to prove that this is an Act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.

    j.) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by professional accountants of their books in the last 15 years. One year of non- publication is a criminal offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U's own court of auditors for the past 16 years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance of British taxpayer's funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.


FEE SCHEDULE.

Whereas you are continuing to harass I Danielle Davidson I now include charges for ANY unlawful harassment due to your continued unlawful demands which causes me a tort.

For ANY unlawful demands sent to me via email, letter or by any other means of communication whilst ignoring the rule of law, you shall incur and accept the charges of £300.00 (Three hundred GB pounds) per each demand made.

For ANY visits to my home made by ANY representatives of Wessex water or by any third party representatives involved in this matter i.e., bailiffs, whilst ignoring the rule of law, you shall incur and accept charges of£12,000.00 (Twelve thousand GB pounds) per incident.

The above fee schedule is a non negotiable instrument. Any breach of fee schedule will invoke a demand for payment against the directors of Wessex water billing services limited, and will constitute a criminal offence at common law that shall be reported to the relevant authorities.

I now AFFIRM that all of the information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and first hand experience and that I am of lawful age and mentally competent to serve this 'Notice of misprision of treason'.

I hereby affix my own name to all of the affirmations and claims made herein this document with explicit reservations to all my natural, unalienable sovereign Rights and habeas Corpus, and to my specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract nor obligation which I have not knowingly, willingly, voluntarily and without misrepresentation, duress or coercion entered into, and that any hearing with regard to this matter(s) is to be heard under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land in open forum, as this matter is of course in the public interest and, that this is in accordance with my constitutional rights.



Signed:

Witnessed by:

Witness 1).

Witness2).

Witness3).


Without Malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will with all my natural unalienable common law rights intact, and on full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.


EVIDENCE.

Copy of the Daily Telegraph report 'Peers petition Queen on Europe' 24th March 2001. Exhibit A.

Copy of the letters between the barons Committee and the office of Sovereign in 2001. Exhibit B.

The entire text of Article 61'Enforcement clause'. Exhibit C.

Maxim:

”Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.”


EXHIBIT 'A'.
Peers Petition Queen on Europe. Daily Telegraph.

By Caroline Davies

12:00AM GMT 24 Mar 2001

FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.

The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter's Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice <a>agreed by Tony Blair in December</a> will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.




EXHIBIT 'B'.

The petition of the barons and letters from both parties in full.


The Petition

A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta,1215

February 2001 To Defend British Rights and Freedoms

Ma’am,

as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:

1. the loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973;

2. the terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to the European Union:

a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your Government;

b) to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;

c) which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice, abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers of enforcement;

d) to create a military force which will place British service personnel under the command of the European Union without reference to British interests, and contrary to:

i) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,

ii) the Queen’s Commission, and

iii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;

e) which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in British interests;

3. the creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights” at will;

4. the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to

a) suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath Act, 1688;

b) subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;

5. Your Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in1707;

WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval; to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June1953.

We have the honor to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.

(signed)



Notes:

The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”

The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:

Article 24 –transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting.

Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.

Article 191 –assumes for the EU the right to” lay down regulations governing political parties at European level[i.e.: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Articles 29 and31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Euro just).

Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British Euro-realists.

Article 17 –establishes a common foreign and defense policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December2000, that: “The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed.” Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.

The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU “competence”, including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.

Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.

Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [i.e.: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet)acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee the country.

The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.” (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)

In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.

Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark the 300thanniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was” still part of statute law…on which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.”

The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:

“…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.”

Both Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between the sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.

List Of Signatories

Peers signing the petition:

Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel)Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.


The petition was also signed by:

Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney,

Earl Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala,

Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.


Letter To The Queens Private Secretary

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London

23 March 2001

You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty's Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty's ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty’s obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.

From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is assigned contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty’s promise to her loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstone’s Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself .De prerogativa Regis is merely declaratory of the common law…

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever.

So it is clear that no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people – may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish.

Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty's subjects.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib.Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?

These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2and 4 of the Bill of Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)

2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is further protection of our common law rights.)

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others– have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops

..until redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects.

Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell



The Reply

“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.

“The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”



EXHIBIT'C'.

Article 61, the whole text.

61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.




14 Magna Carta 1215 Article 61

But since we have granted all these things aforesaid, for GOD, and for the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better extinguishing the discord which has arisen between us and our Barons, we being desirous that these things should possess entire and unshaken stability for ever[1], give and grant to them the security underwritten[2];

namely, that the Barons may elect twenty-five Barons of the kingdom[3], whom they please, who shall with their whole power, observe, keep, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted to them[4], and have confirmed by this our present charter, in this manner:

that is to say, if we, or our Justiciary, or our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall have injured any one in any thing, or shall have violated any article of the peace or security[5], and the injury shall have been shown to four of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, the said four Barons shall come to us, or to our Justiciary if we be out of the kingdom, and making known to us the excess committed, petition that we cause that excess to be redressed without delay[6].

And if we shall not have redressed the excess, or, if we have been out of the kingdom, our Justiciary shall not have redressed it within the term of forty days [7], computing from the time when it shall have been made known to us, or to our Justiciary if we have been out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four Barons, shall lay that cause before the residue of the twenty-five Barons;

and they, the twenty-five Barons, with the community of the whole land[8], shall distress and harass us by all the ways in which they are able[9]; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions[10], and by any other means in their power[11], until the excess shall have been redressed[12], according to their verdict; saving harmless our person, and the persons of our Queen and children; and when it hath been redressed[13], they shall behave to us as they have done before[14].

And whoever of our land pleaseth, may swear, that he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons[15], in accomplishing all the things aforesaid, and that with them he will harass us to the utmost of his power[16]: and we publicly and freely give leave to every one to swear who is willing to swear; and we will never forbid any to swear[17].

But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid[18].

And if any one of the twenty-five Barons shall die, or remove out of the land, or in any other way shall be prevented from executing the things above said, they who remain of the twenty-five Barons shall elect another in his place[19], according to their own pleasure, who shall be sworn in the same manner as the rest.

In all those things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five Barons, if it happen that all the twenty-five have been present, and have differed in their opinions about any thing, or if some of them who had been summoned, would not, or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed, shall be held as firm and as valid, as if all the twenty-five had agreed in it: and the aforesaid twenty-five shall swear, that they will faithfully observe, and, with all their power, cause to be observed, all the things mentioned above[20].

And we will obtain nothing from any one, by ourselves, nor by another, by which any of these concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be void and null: and we will never use it, neither by ourselves nor by another [21].



15 MAGNA CARTA 1215 full text

English translation

Magna Carta.

Abuses by King John caused a revolt by nobles who compelled him to execute this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.

"We have also granted to all freemen* of our kingdom, for us and our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever."

*Freeman – those of free status in the eyes of the law (that is, not villeins) and as such having certain rights denied to villeins, such as access to the Kings courts in certain actions, freedom to move about and marry and exemption from certain onerous duties.


The Magna Carta
(The Great Charter)

Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be full of age and owe "relief", he shall have his inheritance by the old relief, to wit, the heir or heirs of an earl, for the whole barony of an earl by £100; the heir or heirs of a baron, £100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s, at most, and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.

3. If, however, the heir of any one of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age.

4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waster of what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid.

5. The guardian, moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks, fishponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land; and he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and wainage, according as the season of husbandry shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonable bear.

6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage takes place the nearest in blood to that heir shall have notice.

7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her.

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.

9. Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor is able to satisfy the debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall answer for the debt; and let them have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are indemnified for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he is discharged thereof as against the said sureties.

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

12. No scutage not aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.

13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

14. And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters; and we will moreover cause to be summoned generally, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, and others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come.

15. We will not for the future grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free tenants, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and on each of these occasions there shall be levied only a reasonable aid.

16. No one shall be distrained for performance of greater service for a knight's fee, or for any other free tenement, than is due therefrom.

17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.

18. Inquests of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment shall not be held elsewhere than in their own county courts, and that in manner following; We, or, if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court.

19. And if any of the said assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, let there remain of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as many as may be required for the efficient making of judgments, according as the business be more or less.

20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet saving always his "contentment"; and a merchant in the same way, saving his "merchandise"; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his "wainage" if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood.

21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offense.

22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others aforesaid; further, he shall not be amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.

23. No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so.

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.

25. All counties, hundred, wapentakes, and trithings (except our demesne manors) shall remain at the old rents, and without any additional payment.

26. If anyone holding of us a lay fief shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff shall exhibit our letters patent of summons for a debt which the deceased owed us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to attach and enroll the chattels of the deceased, found upon the lay fief, to the value of that debt, at the sight of law worthy men, provided always that nothing whatever be thence removed until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfill the will of the deceased; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the deceased, saving to his wife and children their reasonable shares.

27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.

28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the seller.

29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money in lieu of castle-guard, when he is willing to perform it in his own person, or (if he himself cannot do it from any reasonable cause) then by another responsible man. Further, if we have led or sent him upon military service, he shall be relieved from guard in proportion to the time during which he has been on service because of us.

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.

31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is not ours, against the will of the owner of that wood.

32. We will not retain beyond one year and one day, the lands those who have been convicted of felony, and the lands shall thereafter be handed over to the lords of the fiefs.

33. All kydells for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seashore.

34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court.

35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one measure of corn, to wit, "the London quarter"; and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or "halberget"), to wit, two ells within the selvedges; of weights also let it be as of measures.

36. Nothing in future shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs, but freely it shall be granted, and never denied.

37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight's service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight's service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight's service.

38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law", without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us.

43. If anyone holding of some escheat (such as the honor of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) shall die, his heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would have done to the baron if that barony had been in the baron's hand; and we shall hold it in the same manner in which the baron held it.

44. Men who dwell without the forest need not henceforth come before our justiciaries of the forest upon a general summons, unless they are in plea, or sureties of one or more, who are attached for the forest.

45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.

46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.

47. All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforsted; and a similar course shall be followed with regard to river banks that have been placed "in defense" by us in our time.

48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.

49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of the peace of faithful service.

50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks, the relations of Gerard of Athee (so that in future they shall have no bailiwick in England); namely, Engelard of Cigogne, Peter, Guy, and Andrew of Chanceaux, Guy of Cigogne, Geoffrey of Martigny with his brothers, Philip Mark with his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and the whole brood of the same.

51. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's hurt.

52. If anyone has been dispossessed or removed by us, without the legal judgment of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five and twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, for all those possessions, from which anyone has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King Henry, or by our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our order, before our taking of the cross; but as soon as we return from the expedition, we will immediately grant full justice therein.

53. We shall have, moreover, the same respite and in the same manner in rendering justice concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our broter afforested, and concerning the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another (namely, such wardships as we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight's service), and concerning abbeys founded on other fiefs than our own, in which the lord of the fee claims to have right; and when we have returned, or if we desist from our expedition, we will immediately grant full justice to all who complain of such things.

54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

55. All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements, imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of the five and twenty barons whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the pease, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, along with the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him, provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five and twenty barons are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five and twenty for this purpose only, and after having been sworn.

56. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for the tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.

57. Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross; but as soon as we return (or if perchance we desist from our expedition), we will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and in relation to the foresaid regions.

58. We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

59. We will do towards Alexander, king of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and his hostages, and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the same manner as we shall do towards our owher barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William his father, formerly king of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his peers in our court.

60. Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed b all of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.

61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.

62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.

63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent.

Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

++++++++++++++++++++++

This is but one of three different translations I found of the Magna Carta; it was originally done in Latin, probably by the Archbishop, Stephen Langton. It was in force for only a few months, when it was violated by the king. Just over a year later, with no resolution to the war, the king died, being succeeded by his 9-year old son, Henry III. The Charter (Carta) was reissued again, with some revisions, in 1216, 1217 and 1225. As near as I can tell, the version presented here is the one that preceded all of the others.
The two other versions I found each professed to be the original, as well. The basic intent of each is the same.
Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300)

16 THE CURSE OF THE CHARTER BREAKERS

 The rights and liberties affirmed by Magna Charta were deemed of such importance, in the thirteenth century, that the Bishops, twice a year, with tapers burning, and in their pontifical robes, pronounced, in the presence of the king and the representatives of the estates of England, the greater excommunication against the infringer of that instrument. The imposing ceremony took place in the great Hall of Westminster. A copy of the curse, as pronounced in 1253, declares that, ‘ by the authority of Almighty God, and the blessed Apostles and Martyrs, and all the saints in heaven, all those who violate the English liberties, and secretly or openly, by deed, word, or counsel, do make statutes, or observe then being made, against said liberties, are accursed and sequestered from the company of heaven and the sacraments of the Holy Church.’

William Penn, in his admirable political pamphlet, England's Present Interest Considered, alluding to the curse of the Charter breakers, says: ‘I am no Roman Catholic, and little value their other curses; yet I declare I would not for the world incur this curse, as every man deservedly doth, who offers violence to the fundamental freedom thereby repeated and confirmed.’

In Westminster's royal halls,
Robed in their pontificals,
England's ancient prelates stood
For the people's right and good.

Closed around the waiting crowd,
Dark and still, like winter's cloud;
King and council, lord and knight,
Squire and yeoman, stood in sight;

Stood to hear the priest rehearse,
In God's name, the Church's curse,
By the tapers round them lit,
Slowly, sternly uttering it.

“Right of voice in framing laws,
Right of peers to try each cause;
Peasant homestead, mean and small,
Sacred as the monarch's hall,—

Whoso lays his hand on these,
England's ancient liberties;
Whoso breaks, by word or deed,
England's vow at Runnymede;

Be he Prince or belted knight,
Whatsoe'er his rank or might,
If the highest, then the worst,
Let him live and die accursed.

Thou, who to Thy Church hast given
Keys alike, of hell and heaven,
Make our word and witness sure,
Let the curse we speak endure! “

Silent, while that curse was said,
Every bare and listening head
Bowed in reverent awe, and then
All the people said, Amen!

Seven times the bells have tolled,
For the centuries gray and old,
Since that stoled and mitred band
Cursed the tyrants of their land.

Since the priesthood, like a tower,
Stood between the poor and power;
And the wronged and trodden down
Blessed the abbot's shaven crown.

Gone, thank God, their wizard spell,
Lost, their keys of heaven and hell;
Yet I sigh for men as bold
As those bearded priests of old.

Now, too oft the priesthood wait
At the threshold of the state;
Waiting for the beck and nod
Of its power as law and God.

Fraud exults, while solemn words
Sanctify his stolen hoards;
Slavery laughs, while ghostly lips
Bless his manacles and whips.

Not on them the poor rely,
Not to them looks liberty,
Who with fawning falsehood cower
To the wrong, when clothed with power.

Oh, to see them meanly cling,
Round the master, round the king,
Sported with, and sold and bought,—
Pitifuller sight is not!

Tell me not that this must be:
God's true priest is always free;
Free, the needed truth to speak,
Right the wronged, and raise the weak.

Not to fawn on wealth and state,
Leaving Lazarus at the gate;
Not to peddle creeds like wares;
Not to mutter hireling prayers;

Nor to paint the new life's bliss
On the sable ground of this;
Golden streets for idle knave,
Sabbath rest for weary slave!

Not for words and works like these,
Priest of God, thy mission is;
But to make earth's desert glad,
In its Eden greenness clad;

And to level manhood bring
Lord and peasant, serf and king;
And the Christ of God to find
In the humblest of thy kind!

Thine to work as well as pray,
Clearing thorny wrongs away;
Plucking up the weeds of sin,
Letting heaven's warm sunshine in;

Watching on the hills of Faith;
Listening what the spirit saith,
Of the dim-seen light afar,
Growing like a nearing star.

God's interpreter art thou,
To the waiting ones below;
Twixt them and its light midway
Heralding the better day;

Catching gleams of temple spires,
Hearing notes of angel choirs,
Where, as yet unseen of them,
Comes the New Jerusalem!

Like the seer of Patmos gazing,
On the glory downward blazing;
Till upon Earth's grateful sod
Rests the City of our God!

1848.


17 MAGNA CARTA QUOTES

Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court.
‘Where justice is concerned, the principles of Magna Carta are a reference to which we should always return to ensure that we are proceeding in the right direction.’

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Danny Danziger & John Gillingham
‘As a symbol of the struggle against tyranny it will always retain its value’
Danny Danziger & John Gillingham are the authors of the excellent book, 1215: The Year of Magna Carta.
Erwin Griswold, Dean of Harvard Law School
‘Magna Carta is not primarily significant for what it was, but rather for what it was made to be’

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sir Winston Churchill
‘Here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it’
Prime Minister of Britain 1940 – 1945, 1951 – 1955.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

William Stubbs.
‘The Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation, after it has realised its own identity’
‘Thee whole constitutional history of England is little more than a commentary on the Magna Carta’
Bishop of Oxford between 1866 and 1884, in his volume on constitutional history.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thomas Tany, 1650.
‘Magna Carta is the being of our being’
Influential preacher and self-professed prophet.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

William Pitt, “The Elder”.
‘[Magna Carta is] the Bible of the English Constitution’
Former British Prime Minister, 1766 – 1768.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lord Bingham of Cornhill.
‘The sealing of Magna Carta was an event that changed the constitutional landscape in this country and, over time, the world’
As well as being a former Master of the Rolls, Lord Bingham was also Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and Senior Law Lord of Appeal. The Bingham Centre continues to promote his work and the rule of law internationally.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Rt. Hon. Fiona Woolf C.B.E.
’2015 is the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta, the single most important legal document in history.  The foundation for global constitutions, commerce and communities.  The anchor for the Rule of Law.’
In September 2014 she marked the Global Law Summit’s one year to go anniversary at Mansion House.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Franklin D. Roosevelt.
‘The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history.  It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the Middle Ages. It was written in Magna Charta’
This American President’s Third Inauguration Address in 1941 defended democracy and freedom, as Europe and many other parts of world were at war. In this speech, the President referenced the Magna Carta as a precursor to democracy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls.
‘The greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot’
Between 1962 and 1982.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

David M Rubenstein.
‘The best money I ever spent’
On the US$22m he spent on purchasing a 1297 version of Magna Carta.


18- LAWFUL REBELLION FACTS
(as used in Affidavits)

1. Magna Carta: Chapter 61 of Magna Carta covers the subject's rights to appeal to a committee of barons for redress against a tyrant.

2. In 1999, after several hundred thousand postcards were sent to Queen Elizabeth II urging her not to give royal assent to the treaty of Nice, a quorum of 65 peers acting under the Magna Carta chapter 61, selected 25 of their number to form such a committee. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in chapter 61 of Magna Carta were established.

3. Four of these peers served the petition on Queen Elizabeth II on the 7th February 2001 at noon, insisting that she should; “Withhold the royal assent from any parliamentary bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice, unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given their clear and specific approval; uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration Of Rights, which you, our sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953.

4. (The service of the barons' petition was reported in the Daily Telegraph on the 7th of February 2001.)

5. These things she has conspicuously failed to do.

6. As a consequence of her failure to comply, all loyal subjects are required, “Together with the community of the whole realm, to distress us and distrain us (the crown) in all possible ways, namely by seizing our castles. Lands, possessions and In any other way they can. Until redress has been obtained as they see fit.”

7. The fact that “The whole community of the realm” is obliged to support the Barons' committee, means that individual OFFICIALS HAVE NO AUTHORITY to issue demands in the name of the crown, and commit the statutory offence of “fraud by misrepresentation,” if they try.

8. The courts have no authority to deny the subjects' rights. Representatives of the crown may not breach the common law maxim that, “No man may sit in judgment of his own cause.” it is for the Barons' committee to let us know when they are satisfied that redress has been obtained.

9. The Barons' Committee procedure is based on the subjects' common law right of “duress of circumstances”- we may commit minor crimes in order to prevent a worse one happening.

10. Transferring allegiance is not Treason because the oaths of allegiance are the office, not the holder.

11. Accordingly, as a loyal subject of the realm, I have entered into lawful rebellion as demanded and required by chapter 61 of Magna Carta 1215. When redress (as determined by the Barons' Committee), has been achieved, I will once again be a true and loyal subject to the holder of the office.



19 Article 52 Of Magna Carta 1215

52. "If anyone shall have been disseized by us, or removed, without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, we shall straightway restore them to him. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below as sureties for the peace. But with regard to all those things of which any one was, by king Henry our father or king Richard our brother, disseized or dispossessed without legal judgment of his peers, which we have in our hand or which others hold, and for which we ought to give a guarantee: We shall have respite until the common term for crusaders. Except with regard to those concerning which a plea was moved, or an inquest made by our order, before we took the cross. But when we return from our pilgrimage, or if, by chance, we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway then show full justice regarding them."

20 Constitutional Limits to Parliament's Power

(Found at: http://www.merialvetsite.com/sites/constitution/Limits1510.html)

This Outline of the principles of our Constitution and the enduring values of the English law endeavors to show the force of the constitutional argument. We commend this as a counter to any further attempt by those within Parliament, whether elected, appointed or hereditary, who appear to be working to try to dismantle the constitutional heart of our nation. These same representatives of the people seem to believe that they have authority and power so to do. In this they are following in the footsteps of previous governments that have relied on the fashionable opinion of Professor A.V. Dicey who conveniently overlooked the restraining power of Oaths and argued that "Parliament could make or unmake any law it wished, (albeit) under the Constitution."

Our arguments forcefully demonstrate that those who govern are not empowered to breach the Constitution or the law and may never lawfully breach their own sworn oaths of office. This clearly shows why such constitutional upheaval is beyond the legitimate power of Parliament as it is at present constituted. That this argument is forceful, was emphasized in 1956 by the late Sir Winston Churchill and earlier, in the 18th Century, by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. The fundamentals of the Constitution remain unaltered since their time, so how may it all be legally dismembered now? The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the Sovereignty of the nation and the wellbeing and security of the People by compelling all who govern to uphold our national Sovereignty under oath. The Constitution exists and provides a positive limit to Parliament's power. It is not codified in a single document but is in part written and comprises many laws and customs. Sir Winston Churchill was fully aware of the importance of the Magna Carta: "The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success." (Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956)) An extract from the Earl of Chatham´s comments, made to the House of Lords, is included at the end of this short paper. His comments most eloquently reinforce the above. Over the last two years our colleagues and we have made a study of the fundamental principles of the English Constitution. We have consulted original documentation (The Declaration and Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, relevant Acts of Parliament) and studied written records (Parliamentary Records - precursors to "Hansard" - for both Houses) contemporaneous with that documentation to establish the full significance of the written material. We have tried to establish just what the written words were intended to mean at the time they were actually written and their present relevance. We have discussed our findings with constitutional experts and with the Offices of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Home Secretary and of the Lord Chancellor to confirm that we are not labouring under any recognized misunderstanding of these matters. We have also had the benefit of expert legal advice from leading counsel. The following material forms only a part of our researches. We believe it is very relevant to the progressive loss of Sovereignty resulting from recent Government legislation and intentions; as indicated for example in the Treaty of Nice, awaiting ratification and unconstitutional provisions within the Anti-Terrorism Act. We believe we have demonstrated that the Constitution does impose limits on Parliament's power and Parliament may not legally contravene the existing Constitution or the Rule of Law.

The essence of our argument is as follows:- Irrevocable Liberties of the Subject. The Magna Carta 1215 itself states this:- Chapter 39 "Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatu, aut utlagetur, exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicum parium suorum vel per legem terre." "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or (1) by the law of the land." Chapter 40 "Nulli vendimus, nulli negabimus, aut differemus, rectum aut justicum." "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice." The Great Charter was confirmed by the statute law of 25 Edw. 1 cc 1, 9, 29. This is published as the Magna Carta (which strictly speaking it is not, but merely one of the formal confirmations of) by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office as Rights of the Subject I, revised to 30th September 1979. Chapter X-XXVIII of this confirmation is the extant statute law confirming the above as follows:- "Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonet, aut disseisiatur de libo ten suo, vel libertatib libis consuetudinib suis, aut ultaget aut exulet aut aliquo mod destruatur, nec sup eum ibimus, nec sup eu mittem, nisi p legale judiciu piu suo, vel p legem terre, Nulli vendem nulli negabim, aut differem rectum vel justiciam." "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free custom, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed: nor will We pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgement of his peers, or* by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or (1) defer to any man either Justice or Right." Relevance Crucially, from the Magna Carta, the absolute rights not to be taken, imprisoned, disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed are formally ascertained: except by the lawful judgement of his peers and/or(1) by the law of the land. Next and most importantly this may not be denied or ignored because "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice." In recent years it has been confirmed on several occasions that no Minister may advise The Queen to break Her Coronation Oath (2). This limitation on Parliament's power has thus been acknowledged. It has also been recognized in Leading Counsel's Note (1): Latitude in translation has left doubt as to whether choice is intended by using "or"; but "and" is most likely. There is evidence for this view within Magna Carta itself, both logical and literal. The logical interpretation of Chapter 40 supports this view because it confirms an absolute and irrevocable right to "either right or justice" as in Chapter 39. In the context of the Latin statement (Ch 40). this clearly indicates both "right and justice" as appropriate. Literal evidence may also be found in Cassel's Latin dictionary 24 edition:- "Vel" or, and also even. Government documents however conveniently use "or" implying choice. recent opinion for the Freedom Association. All must bear "true allegiance". This is a solemn duty under oath of office and compliance is a prerequisite of office. The Queen accepts the advice of her Ministers but equally there can be no entitlement to place the Monarch in an unconstitutional position with wrong advice or "evil counsel" that causes Her to commit perjury. This is the logic behind the maxim "the king can do no wrong". Under the Constitution Sovereignty belongs to the people but is vested by them in trust with the hereditary monarch, who is first approved and confirmed by the people, not by Parliament or government which is elected and empowered to govern on their behalf. This fundamental principle is exemplified by the coronation service which starts with the acceptance of the new monarch in waiting who solemnly swears to govern only in accordance with terms of the Coronation Oath. Only then is the monarch crowned and enthroned (3) (4). The "Coronation Oath" confirms that we shall be governed according to the laws and customs of the land. The Coronation Oath Act 1 W & M Ch. 6 1689, in part, states:- "WILL You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?" The King and Queene shall say: "I solemnly Promise soe to doe." Arch Bishop or Bishop: "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements." King and Queene: "I will." We may only be lawfully governed in accordance with the principles of the Coronation Oath. Although the Oath was amended in 1937 to reflect changes of a territorial nature, the principles that apply to the Kingdom agreed and contracted by the Oath as above, remain in force today and cannot be renounced. For although, under the constitution Parliament may make or unmake any statute and to that extent may be regarded as omnipotent, it may not contravene the Constitution. This was alluded to by Sir Robert Megarry when he observed "Parliament is omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence"(5). Therefore all Politicians elected or appointed, who actually sit in Parliament, are there for the purpose of government within the Constitution and not without it. This is the entrenchment of the Rule of Law and duty of governance that ensures no destruction of parliamentary "omnipotence". No man, whether he be king or commoner, is above the law. The rule of law is the absolute fundamental necessity of all democratic society. It is the fabric and limitation of our Constitution. Such infamous leaders as Hitler and Stalin are prime examples of those who denied the democratic process and dispensed with the Rule of Law. It is the Coronation Oath, supported by oaths of office, that requires those who govern, to do so only in full accordance with the Constitution. This is the means by which the people, through their courts, can ensure that despotism and tyranny may not take hold and oppress the People. For if the People have no remedy at law to protect their rights they are by definition oppressed. Note 2: Prime Minister John Major in the Commons (Hansard 15/10/96); in correspondence from the Home Secretary Jack Straw replying in "light of his constitutional responsibility" on 20/7/2000; by the Speaker in the Commons Betty Boothroyd 1/8/2001, and by the Lord Chancellor in Oct. 2001. Note (3): Constitutional Law Wade Phillips p.169 7th ed. 1965 Note (4): On Constitutional Law Chalmers & Hood Phillips p.143 6th ed. 1946. Note (5): Sir Robert Megarry Vice Chancellor Manuel v. Attorney General 1983.). Previous abuse and failure resulted in the Petition of Rights in 1628, which asserted that arbitrary imprisonment without showing cause was unlawful. Charles I pressed his luck by using the illusory "divine" authority vested in him to dissolve Parliament for 11 years. So to raise funds he imposed "ship money", an arbitrary tax, through the use of the prerogative power contrary to the Petition of Rights. This ultimately cost him his head! For although in Darnell v. R, also known as the "Five Knights" case against unlawful imprisonment and John Hampden's "Ship Money" trial, judgment found for the King; it was recognized that the King had violated the Constitution in both cases. This point was forcefully asserted through the Petition of Rights in 1628, followed by the Civil War from 1642-49. It was ultimately settled in perpetuity by the "Glorious Revolution of 1688". There is no legal precedence that contradicts the status of our indubitable rights. Parliament currently claims "unlimited power" over us and that our "rights" are only residual, but absolute power is contrary to the principles of the Constitution. There are boundaries and these are indicated. The Constitution only permits a "prerogative power" in dire emergency such as war or for the good of the nation, but the use of such power may only be a temporary expedient at the hazard of the minister and therefore subject to correction by the judiciary or the legislature. Such powers may never be used as a means to accumulate greater or unlawful power as a substitute for constitutional governance for that would be a violation of the Constitution. It is also the duty of the judiciary independently and impartially to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Of this there can be no doubt. Indeed if the People are oppressed, they are entitled to redress and no longer owe allegiance to the Crown until redress is forthcoming (Magna Carta Ch 61). The Bill of Rights states any actions taken against its principles are null and void. Any notion that the Bill of Rights is "just an ancient Statute" and thus no longer relevant under modern conditions must fall. The validity of the Bill of Rights was solidly re-affirmed in the House of Lords by Lord Bingham (6). "Desuetude" is unknown to English law. It is therefore the sworn duty of all Parliamentarians to uphold the Bill of Rights and not to seek to attempt to undermine its principles. These are at the heart of our Constitution and another fundamental principle of the English law demands that there is a balance of "law" and "remedy" as illustrated by the very symbol of justice itself "The scales of justice". This equity is demonstrated in the famous case of:- Ashby v. White 1704. If a person has a right, the law provides a remedy to enforce it. As Holt, CJ, said in Ashby v. White : "If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal." "Where justice or right, there is remedy" - "Ubi jus ibi remedium" First the Coronation Oath guarantees the Rule of Law and the custom (the Rights and Liberties of the people). Next, Magna Carta and the law ensure that the liberties of the subject will always apply and be available to them, particularly the right to trial before conviction and punishment by application of the Rule of Law through the customary courts. The Habeas Corpus Act and Writs ensure there will be no unlawful or unreasonable delay in justice, as determined by the Magna Carta and re-affirmed in the Bill of Rights. Note (6): Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001 The Coronation Oath also guarantees the rule of our law and crucially, the exercise of a just balance/equity of right and law ("remedy"); "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements? Sovereign: I will." The Petition of Rights 1628, amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688/9, ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with without the settled consent of Parliament as a whole, not by government alone; in other words only by Statute. This ensures that the "Rule of Law" remains the sole means of constitutional governance and cannot be replaced. Nor may the people be isolated from their courts by creating statutes under the guise of "emergency legislation" or otherwise, that by design or inadvertently undermine the Constitution and betray public trust or usurp Parliament's role, purpose and raison d'etre. To subvert the laws of the Kingdom is Treason. (7) Treason is the most serious of all crime under the Constitution, in order to protect and preserve the Constitution for the people, their heirs and successors in perpetuity. (8) The process whereby a person could be outlawed and not subject to the protection of the law was definitively extinguished by the Magna Carta in 1215. That there should be no lawful denial of trial by one's peers (the right to jury trial came later) was the greatest desire of those who drew up the Charter. The Barons only accepted trial by their equals and the Rule of Law, applied through trial, was ensured forever. King John had been outlawing and disseising the Barons who were determined to ensure protection and insulation from the sovereign's tyrannical rule. By the end of the 17th Century in the wake of civil war, over-mighty parliamentary control and a further dictatorial king, the people's protection afforded by the Magna Carta was re-affirmed by the Bill of Rights. This was itself a remedy to counter any future abuses of power by Parliament or Crown for ever. Judgment could no longer be arbitrary nor ever henceforth precede trial and everyone would invariably be judged by their peers. To exile, imprison or "put upon" a suspect without trial is contrary to the whole spirit of the Magna Carta. This asserts that presumption of innocence is an absolute right demanding trial before conviction or punishment and no punishment without guilt being proven at trial. "Justice in mercy" must "be executed in all judgments". "The law must be executed" and "justice must be seen to be done" (9). There may be no cruel or unusual punishment (e.g. deportation without trial) and no excessive bail. There will be no "fine or forfeiture" before conviction. No pernicious courts may exist, such as that of the Star Chamber. Jurors will be duly empanelled and returned showing that where jury trial is required, it will be used. Right of Petition to the Crown may not be denied. As the Bill of Rights states there can be no (legal) suspension of existing law without the (settled) consent of Parliament, it follows that Parliament must first amend, repeal or destroy and then reconstruct our Constitution. No government would find that an easy or popular task. Parliament cannot otherwise "lawfully" pass new laws that contravene a Constitution, sworn by all who govern to uphold. Certainly constitutional laws such as the Bill of Rights cannot be replaced by "Implied Repeal". All Parliamentarians have to swear, prior to assuming office; "to bear true allegiance" to the Monarch and so uphold the Constitution for the People's governance. This is confirmed in the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT as their duty, the law and the Custom (10). Note (7): R v Thistlewood 1820 "Cato Street Conspiracy" etc. Note (8): On the Constitution Chalmers & Hood Phillips pp 439-452 6th ed. 1946 Note (9): Hewart Lord Chief Justice Note (10): Commons resolution 19 July 1995 The above clearly demonstrates that the recently enacted legislation against terrorism, rushed through Parliament before Christmas, has, by denying access to trial before imprisonment by virtue of the so called Third Pillar of the EU, directly contravened the very core of our Constitution. Similarly ratification of the Nice Treaty would seriously breach the Constitution and proposed amendments to the 1981 Animal Health Act, at present being forced through Parliament, are a further blatant potential breach of the People's perpetual rights. These are just three examples. There are others such as the "Right to Roam" and "fine and forfeiture before trial and conviction" of lorry drivers found to be carrying alleged illegal immigrants, even if they are handed over to the authorities on discovery by the driver. Finally the following extracts from statements made to the House of Lords by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (1708 - 1778), most eloquently describe a situation that is not dissimilar to the one in which we now find ourselves; "Instead of the arbitrary power of a King, we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of Commons. If this be true, what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords, is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants. But my Lords this is not the fact, this is not the Constitution, we have a law of Parliament. We have a Statute Book and the Bill of Rights." - "the principles of the English Constitution. I have been bred up in these principles; and know that, when the liberty of the subject is invaded and all redress denied him, resistance is justified. If I had a doubt on the matter, I should follow the example set us by the reverend bench with whom I believe it is a maxim, if any doubt in point of faith arises, or any question of controversy is started, to appeal at once to the great source and defence of our religion - I mean the Holy Bible: the Constitution has its political bible, by which, if it be fairly consulted by every political question may and ought to be determined. Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights form that code, which I call the Bible of the English Constitution. Had some of his Majesty’s unhappy predecessors trusted less to the comments of their ministers, had they been better read in the text itself, the Glorious Revolution would have remained only possible in theory, and would not now have existed on record a formidable example to their successors."

Conclusions

* The above extracts from our studies of the Constitution show a clear and logical argument to the effect that our Constitution does place definite restraints on the power of Parliament to make laws, enter into treaties or undertake actions in contravention of that Constitution. For no man is above the law. Furthermore there can be no right without a remedy to uphold that right.

* It is also apparent that successive governments over a number of years have introduced legislation that has contravened the Constitution and required HM The Queen to breach Her Coronation Oath by granting Royal Assent to such legislation.

* In this way the equilateral triangular harmony and authority of Crown, Lords and Commons in Parliament, governing the nation on behalf of the People, has been usurped and replaced by an over-mighty government. The People's trust has been betrayed. The law-makers have become law breakers and thus the survival of our national independence and sovereignty is now at stake.



21 Is Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 valid today?

Without remedy there is no law, and Article 61 is the only remedy written in law to our current situation of Treason and the abrogation of the law, and the loss of Royal Assent which means that the law cannot be upheld by the sovereign.

Therefore it MUST be valid.

But even if it was thought that it might not be, for whatever reason, the response made by the sovereign to the petition, which was patently presented in accordance with Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 re-affirmed the validity of that Charter just as surely as if she had just signed it anew herself. This is so ironic, that our cause is due to the loss of Royal Assent, and our sovereign has given her Assent to our movement. The reply was not made under duress and therefore regardless of any allegations of the Magna Carta having being signed under duress, the sovereign has freely reaffirmed the validity of the process invoked by the peers.

Also in regard to Magna Carta being signed under duress the fact was that before it there was no remedy in law against an unjust king, and without remedy there is no law. By providing remedy against unjust rule Magna Carta 1215 was the flowering of the seed planted by Ælfred the great. So any suggestion that Magna Carta is invalid because it was signed under duress is at the same time a claim that there should be no law, and that tyrants should be allowed to rule as they wish. This has never been a traditional outlook of the people of these lands.

Our sovereign is unable to restore the law, but has confirmed the duties placed upon us by Article 61 of the MC 1215. The royal command therein is valid. There is possibly no stronger act which could have been performed by the sovereign in order to bring about the restoration of the law.

22 A TREASON, WITHOUT PRECEDENT

(Found at; truth-wars.co.uk/articles-of-interest/bigbrother/this-is-our-land/ (no longer up), footnotes not available.)

For the first time in our history, the State, whose first duty is to defend the Nation and our Sovereignty, is actively engaged in destroying it. This is the fundamental nature of the State’s evil machinations. Those that feel passionately for their country know that it is this directed malevolence that needs to be stopped.

Even with the use of new draconian regulations, the treasonous State has problems controlling the premature hatemongering and violent excesses of its own collaborationist groups and auxiliaries. This illustrates the gravity of our situation. We have a duty to see that this Great Treason is undone.

An Unlawful Surrender of Our Sovereignty
On Thursday 18th October 2007 Britain's then (un-elected) Prime minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, signed the Lisbon Treaty. It was an act of Treason.

It is treason to act (or conspire) contrary to the Act of Supremacy 1559, Praemunire 1392, the 1351 Treason Act, the 1848 Treason Felony Act - and Treason at Common Law [1].

Since 1972, Parliament has treasonably surrendered the supremacy of the peoples’ (our) sovereignty to an alien foreign power - it has unlawfully, and conspiratorially, allowed the Constitution and the Crown to be subjugated to the power of the European Union. Our Sovereign representative (The Queen), as official Governor of the nation, has failed to fulfill her Oath and duty to protect the people against the treachery of Parliament. It has been observed: "Parliament, having in reality discarded the Crown, the Monarch and the Constitution, is part of the European Union (EU). The British People are not a part of the EU, for they never agreed to join it, or give up their inalienable right to be an independent people of self political determination. Parliament ... is not only an unlawful assembly but a political dictatorship, for it no longer represents the political aspirations of the people" [3].

The legal obligations, placed on the Monarch by the Oath, are set out in Halsbury’s Laws. One of the principal duties imposed on the Crown, by the swearing of this Oath, is:  “to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs”; where: “the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof …” [4].

Those that seek to live by other forms of law other than English Common Law, or conspire to promote the adoption of other forms of law (such as the European system of Corpus Juris), are committing treason. Those that work for agencies of the Crown must swear an Oath of allegiance to the Crown. If they aid or support these acts, then they are committing common law Treason. Those that know of these acts, and do nothing, are by default committing 'misprision of Treason' [5].

The Denationalisation Agenda
The political rationale for the destruction of our ancient nations was set out in the early part of the 20th Century by Marxist ideologues such as Antonio Gramsci: attack the historic pillars of society within a nation by constant defamation and criticism - the public institutions, armed forces, politicians, the police, education, and particularly the teaching of national history and national identity; break down the boundaries between the private and public sectors so that the defined lines of responsibility of accountability disappear; and (then) install a new (Marxist) controlling system, piece by piece, until the single party state has been achieved.

It is this subversive agenda that our political masters are following, to 'deconstruct' (a euphemism for destroying) both our nation and our sense of nationhood.

Our Parliament is now an instrument of State control – working against the interests of the people. Our identity as a sovereign nation is being destroyed by a treasonous political aristocracy that has institutionalised lying, betrayal, deceit, dissimulation and obfuscation - that: " … Britain has a lying government, which systematically and as a matter of routine falsifies the facts … Government lying amounts to a horrifying assault on civil society, the main reason that mendacity is always embedded in totalitarian regimes.” [6]. Changes of Government do not alter this situation.

Efforts to 'deconstruct' (destroy) the English Church are especially prominent. We recall the warning of Sir Karl Popper (generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century) who was of the firm belief that it was the spiritual breakdown occasioned by Marxism that led to the growth of Fascism in Europe in the 1930s. [7], and now, in the beginning of the 21st Century, an uncompromising and alien religious 'final solution' is eagerly anticipating our own naive self-destruction.

Rule by State Thuggery
English philosopher and writer Roger Scruton provides a particularly insightful and succinct description of the traditional subservient position of the State in Law: "The English law existed not to control the individual but to free him. It was on the side of the subject against those – whether usurping politicians or common criminals – who wished to bend him unconsenting to their will" [8]. The journalist Peter Hitchins also observes this vital arrangement: "In the English common law tradition, quite distinct from those of our Continental neighbours, it is the State that is answerable to us. We are presumed innocent in the widest possible sense. We can walk down any street without being challenged to prove who we are or explain what we are doing. We are, in short, sovereigns over ourselves, left alone to live our private lives as we wish provided we obey a law we have made ourselves. Or rather, this is what we were until our elite State began its great reforms fifty years ago" [9].

In the last few decades State politicians have completely reversed the traditional relationship between the people, the law, and the law enforcers. Again, Peter Hitchins sums up the old relationship as: "the British principle [is] that it is the right and duty of each citizen to preserve the peace and bring malefactors to justice, with its corollary that the police are merely paid to act on the citizens behalf" [10].

We now have black-uniformed, paramilitary police, who clearly see themselves as servants of the State.

Diversifism is Moral Cowardice
Diversifism is a political invention, founded upon the concept of the essential subjectivity of ideas (especially cultural beliefs and values). Those advancing diversifism believe there should be no ranked or privileged values or beliefs - and (of course) they believe this position should be beyond argument and unchallengeable. Diversifism provides a refuge for those too cowardly to make a moral choice - or to act ethically.

The politics of diversity is justified on the supposed moral (and practical) superiority of a society with a multiplicity of cultural values and beliefs. It is used a political weapon in the 'deconstruction' (destruction) of monoculture nations, such as the English nation. Not surprisingly the law enforcement establishment and the police in particular, are being required to embrace diversifism as part of this process of 'deconstruction'.

"Peace Through Diversity"
[Metropolitan Police Service and Greater London Authority, 2nd Annual Peace Talks, 2006]

Diversifism is used to kill any critical examination of the process of colonization, population displacement, and population replacement within these Islands. It has been used as a tool to destroy social inclusivity and cultural homogeneity.

We are seeing a resurrection of 1930s-style totalitarian sloganeering. We have, for example: ‘Strength in Diversity’ [Commission for Racial Equality, resource document], and, of course, the universally applied deceit ‘The Enrichment of Diversity’. In even the smallest of local police stations you will see signs offering translation services in 27 different languages, and posters exhorting us to 'face the challenge of diversity'. What you probably won't see is much effort in catching villains, or keeping us safe on the streets and in our homes. The police understand their new priorities. The chatter with the upper echelons of the police service is of 'community cohesion' - something we already had 50 years ago before the political classes got busy with their 'deconstruction' project.

Police Anti-English Racialism
The political subversion of the law enforcement agencies is most apparent in the various training programmes to make the police 'racially aware' - the 'diversity awareness' training programmes, and the liaison committee meetings with the many political pressure groups supporting 'minorities' rights'. These are all contrary to the principles of common law - that the police must deal with law enforcement matters only on the facts of each individual case, on the alleged criminal act itself – that a defendant’s (or victim’s) particular skin colour, their gender, their political or religious allegiance, their social class or their cultural background are (in law) all irrelevant.

In 2005 Avon and Somerset Police unlawfully discriminated against "white" (English) candidates in its recruitment programme. The force rejected 186 white applicants because, it said, its workforce was "over-represented by white men". Under the Race Relations Act, short listing or appointing on racial grounds is unlawful. The Chief Constable was subsequently forced to publish an apology for "inappropriate" (wrong and insulting) behaviour by the force, and one of the rejected applicants subsequently won an undisclosed sum in compensation in an out-of-court settlement [11][12].

The embracing of diversifism provides opportunities for sedition and treason. For example, in a written parliamentary answer in November 2006 the then Labour Home Secretary, John Reid, declared that those working for the Home Office Immigration and Homeland Security Department would not have to declare their membership of the fanatical Hizb-ut-Tahrir organisation. This followed the revelation that the Home Office IT Manager, Abid Javaid, was a member of the extremist organisation. It is well known that Hizb-ut-Tahrir supports a worldwide Islamic state run under Sharia law and has openly refused to condemn the 2005 London bombings [13][14].

Thought Control
In the latter part of the 16th Century Queen Elizabeth I, involved in the bitter struggles between Protestants and Catholics, and the very real danger of insurrection, showed immense political skill (and great moral courage) by declaring to have: "no desire to make windows into men's souls". Unfortunately our present political elite have precisely that sinister ambition - they wish to control people's thoughts, and persecute and punish those who may harbour 'politically incorrect' ideas.

It is therefore hardly surprising, therefore, that we see the political State keen to subject members of the police service to examination for 'incorrect' thinking. Plans are well advanced, and have already been trialed in Scotland, to use psychometric tests to "weed out bigots and racists within the force" [15] [16]. Presumably this isn't a reference to the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary.

There is now legislation to enforce State control, and punish dissenters. The enforcement of this new regime is being implemented with the same political tactics as used by totalitarian states 70 years ago to identify the "enemies of the people" - the identification of an 'evil' adversary (the indigenous English, asserting their right to self-determination). We now have: changes to the law to criminalise dissent; changes to the law to enhance political power; political corruption and electoral fraud; the suppression of criticism and open debate; the politicisation of the police and judiciary; and the use of the schools for politically indoctrinating our children.

The use of 'sectioning' powers are deployed via FTAC (Fixated Threat Assessment Centres) as a way of incarcerating, as 'mentally ill', those who express dissent, or challenge the State.

Securing State Control
One of the most disturbing features of the Great Treason is the role of the security services and law enforcement agencies in suppressing dissent and protest - and of giving effective assistance to the treasoners. A case study examination of the complicity of agencies in assisting an unlawful Parliament - in breach of their oaths of office - can be downloaded here.

War by Other Means
The criminal political elite are actively engaged in aiding a 'war by other means' - a war directed against the indigenous, sovereign people of these islands. The political elite are the instigators and principle enablers in this 'war' - in enabling the occupation of our territory; the destruction of our social, cultural and constitutional institutions; and in genocide. It is a seditious, stealthy form of warfare with an end objective of destroying the nations and the native peoples of the British Isles.

23 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW BEFORE MAGNA CARTA.
(Found at; http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_time_12th_century.htm)

LIBERTY! THE TIMELINE

Man and woman gallop their horses through surf
In the Middle Ages Brits live in a country of forests, farms, and small towns. Horses and dogs are their companions. Sailing the sea or riding, Brits feel mobile and free. These experiences spur their love of liberty.
They end slavery, and establish one of the most powerful ideas in the history of freedom – that no one is above the law, not even a king.

MURDER, MUSCLE PRINCIPLE & INNOVATION

1100 Henry I forced to support Charter of liberties
Ironically, William the Conqueror had to turn to the old legal constitution of England to control his army and nobles. He retained the local courts of the hundred and the shire, where every free man had a place, brought these under the jurisdiction of the King's Court, hired his own sheriffs, and made certain that every tenant swore loyalty to his local lord and to him.

He introduced the "fiction of tenure" - that all land tenure depended on the king whose subjects held their lands only because he allowed them to - and memorialized his ownership in the Domesday Book. Showing an efficiency that eludes modern bureaucrats, William's men fanned out across England and made exactingly clear in the Domesday Book what he owned - everything from castles to duck ponds. In return, William enforced order, and made the roads safe.

His son the Red King is a very different man. William Rufus owns all that his father owned, but his robberies and rapes earn him fierce enemies, and Brits are relieved when accidentally or purposefully he is shot by an archer in the New Forest. The Red King is carted to his capital at Winchester, dripping blood, perhaps because he is still alive, and dies. His brother Henry, the younger son of William the Conqueror, who has rushed to Winchester to secure the royal treasure, declares himself King.

The Church and the barons distrust Henry, either because he is William Rufus' brother or because he may be his murderer. They tell Henry that if he wants the crown, he has to guarantee he will protect their liberties.

These include ending the plunder of the church and affirming that the church is free; ending the King's unlimited financial demands on his barons; and restoring the law of King Edward with all its rights and liberties.

At this distance these freedoms may not seem all that liberating, but one promise will change history. They daringly establish that the King himself must obey the law of the land.

The principle that no one – not a king, not a president or prime minister – is above the law is essential to the freedom and happiness of people today.

1102 Brits end slavery
Until 1102 Brits were still being sold as slaves, "young men and maidens whose beauty and youth might move the pity of the savage, bound together with cords, and brought to market to be sold" (William of Malmesbury).

One man was about to change this. Born in Lombardy, Abbot of Bec, Anselm had been in England on business, when, in 1093, he was dragged before William Rufus, the King of England, and told he would be Archbishop of Canterbury. A pastoral staff was forced into his hand. William II regretted his decision almost immediately. Anselm had backbone. "Christ is truth and justice and he who dies for truth and justice dies for Christ" he wrote. He insists that the Church install him, not the King, and repeatedly challenges the King's injustice.

After Henry becomes King, and despite having to make several long, hard journeys to Rome since Henry is as argumentative as his brother about his royal prerogative, Anselm calls a national church council. In 1102 they meet in London on the small island of Thorney, where the abbey of Edward the Confessor stands. At the Council of Westminster the British clergy condemn slavery as contrary to Christ's teaching and declare, "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."

Unlike most councils this one has an effect. Slavery ends, probably because slavers in that century were afraid of one thing: Excommunication and the damnation of their immortal souls should they violate the ruling.

Slaves become villeins (serfs), owing service to a feudal lord, who owes them the use of his land and his protection. Better to be a serf than a slave, but the Brits hate serfdom, too.

1105 -1130 Henry I wins battles; reorganises kingdom
Henry's older brother invades England to seize the throne, and is joined by many Norman nobles, but Henry's English subjects support him, and win a decisive victory on Norman soil at Tenchebray in 1105. In turn Henry makes many English his sheriffs and judges. He creates a royal court representing all his vassals. Members of his court of justice and Court of Exchequer resolve payment disputes by making a circuit of the shires to hear disputes. This is the beginning of judges' circuits.

1131/33 Henry I grants charter of freedom to citizens of London & their heirs
Henry I recognizes the rights of the citizens of London to appoint their own sheriffs and judges, to limit their taxes, to arrange their own lands, pledges, and debts, to transport their goods free of tolls; and to be free of having soldiers billeted on them.

Henry does this because Londoners had leverage – he wanted them to support his daughter Matilda’s right to inherit the throne.

London’s Charter becomes a model for other towns. Those which grew up around abbeys take longer to establish their freedoms. Sometimes, as at St Edmundsbury, a rank injustice such as the unjust execution of the farmer Ketel inflames the citizens. At St Edmundsbury, they win their right to be acquitted or condemned by a jury of their neighbours when accused of a crime.

1135 - 1148 "The anarchy" reveals power of liberty and women
Henry I wants his daughter Matilda to rule England after he dies. His nephew Stephen and the barons promise she will, but Stephen changes his mind. Londoners "elect" him King, and he is crowned. At his coronation Stephen issues a charter promising to all his men of England ‘all the liberties and good laws’ that they had enjoyed under his predecessors.

In 1139, Matilda lands with an army to recover her throne. Stephen's mother Adela had handled armed men and managed estates. Matilda is equally resolute; however she loses the support of Londoners by refusing to acknowledge their charter of liberties, and is forced to flee to Oxford where she was besieged by Stephen, who had escaped captivity in Lincoln. “Matilda escaped in white robes by a postern, and crossing the river unobserved on the ice, made her way to Abingdon” (Green, A Short History of England).

England is thrown into anarchy as Stephen and Matilda and their ally’s battle for the throne. Throughout, Stephen's wife Matilda is "his constant companion and resolute supporter. In the years of struggle she took an active role, bringing troops to besiege Dover Castle in 1138, and mustering an army on the south bank opposite London in the summer of 1141. She took a prominent part in all the peace negotiations during the reign, including those with the Scots" (Oxford DNB).

With the leadership of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church finally manages to arrange a peace that pleases Matilda. Stephen will remain King, but when he dies, the crown will go to Matilda's son, Henry. The people of England are relieved as foreign mercenaries are sent packing and their castles are razed.

Hot-tempered, witty, and ruthless, Henry II does not strike observers as a natural champion of justice.

1154-1166 King’s gambit – Henry II strengthens rule of law
Henry II, Matilda's son and the grandson of Henry I, is always on the go, riding the length of a kingdom that stretches from the Mediterranean to the far north of England. His kingdom is in some chaos due to unemployed mercenaries making a living from robbery, but Henry II is an administrative genius, and he aims to end the violence and consolidate his power.

Henry figures one way to do this is to undercut his barons by drawing Brits out of the barons’ law courts and into his, where he can pocket the court fees. Traditionally, twelve local men testify in court about the facts when land ownership is in dispute. In 1163-64, at the Assize of Clarendon, the innovative Henry establishes the Grand Jury, and invites 12 men from each hundred and four men from each township to testify under oath about the facts of criminal acts to his traveling (circuit) justices.

Henry’s Grand Juries act as witnesses, and decide whether there is validity to a charge and a person ought to be brought to trial for a criminal act. The Grand Jury’s radical ability to protect freedom arises because it is locally based and knows the facts on the ground. It determines from the evidence whether there are any grounds for a trial in the first place. The Grand Jury will evolve into a great shield protecting the innocent – trial by jury.

The Constitutions of Clarendon also attempt to establish the jurisdiction of the civil courts and "the ancient customs of the realm" and limit the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. The battle between Henry and the archbishop is underway.

Brits will take the idea of the grand jury and develop it into a powerful shield against government oppression.

1160s Thomas à Becket defends freedom of church
Brave, charming, energetic Thomas à Becket threw himself f into the role of Archbishop of Canterbury when Henry II forced the monks to elect him. He warned Henry, "You will soon hate me as much as you love me now, for you assume an authority in the affairs of the Church to which I shall never assent."

Their struggle is fierce. Henry had drawn judicial power into his hands, and had made some positive decisions. Now he wants to control the Church by trying "criminous" priests and monks in his courts if they have not been convicted in the ecclesiastical courts. Becket resists. He does not want a king interfering with what he believes is the church's business. He believes that no person should be placed in double jeopardy for the same offense.

Henry also wants to control where and when bishops can travel and appoint bishops rather than allow their election. The right of sanctuary is limited. Becket refuses to agree.

He is harassed. His life is threatened. He flees to the continent, where he stubbornly refuses to agree despite the urgings of the Pope. When the hand of the Pope is strengthened, and Henry is threatened with an interdict, he agrees to back down, but he is livid with anger. Becket returns, but doubts that Henry will honour his word. It is possible that Becket knew he would be physically attacked, and reckons that in dying for his beliefs he will affirm them.

Four knights from Henry's court force their way into Canterbury Cathedral. "Where," cried Reginald Fitzurse in the dusk of the dimly-lighted Minster, "where is the traitor, Thomas Becket?" Becket turns resolutely toward him. "Here am I, no traitor, but a priest of God," he answers, and descends from the choir, and stands with his back gainst a pillar and fronts his foes. "You are our prisoner!" the knights shout, but Becket shakes them off. As he does, they strike with their swords, and scatter his brains on the stones.

Freedom of religion has come to mean freedom from religion freedom from the church. For many people, it is just as important that a church be free, and not controlled by a state. This is the principle for which Thomas à Becket died.

12th Century escape route to freedom
Unlike the continent, where a man is either a serf or free, in Britain some serfs are tied to the land, and subject to a lord; others are free, paying rent only; still others are half free, and pay rent or owe a particular service. On the Great Wheel of Fortune that Brits see as a metaphor for life, a freeman who could not pay his rent or taxes might sink to the status of a serf, while a serf could rise and become free.

According to old custom, a serf who escapes from his lord and manages to live in a charter borough for a year and a day without being caught becomes a free man. Charter boroughs like London encourage craftsmen by hiding and protecting them. When the serf wins his freedom, his wife becomes a free woman, too.

The freeman has certain duties: He will pay taxes to his borough, take his turn standing armed watch at night, and join in defending his city from attack.

1190s Surprising churchman supports steps toward self-rule; Londoners lead
As Richard the Lionheart returned from the Holy Land, he was captured by a hostile European prince and held for ransom. His justiciar, Hubert Walter, the Archbishop of Canterbury, grants charters of rights to a number of towns in exchange for help with Richard’s ransom.

Already London citizens are:
Organising into parishes to make decisions about their PARISH neighborhoods.

Organising parishes into WARDS, and sending representatives from their parishes to make decisions for the larger ward neighbourhood.

Organising their wards into London’s greater COUNCIL, and sending a representative from each ward (an alderman -no woman) to make decisions about the whole city – such as defending it from attack and trying criminals.

Despite often brutal opposition from their kings, Brits are moving toward self-representation and self-rule.

24 WHAT TO SAY IF DRAGGED INTO “COURT”

(David Robinson posted in Practical Lawful Dissent.)

How I may conduct a (NOT) court hearing....

 Once you are in lawful rebellion what should you do if you are taken by force to a Private corporate enterprise (any court in the land other than directed by a grand jury of the people. See Michael of Benrnicia Post on the group wall for more on grand Juries)?

 So...you are taken into the doc with two private security guards at either
side, they have removed the handcuffs and you are standing. The magistrates (corporate directors, presumed trustees) or Judge (Director acting ultra vires _ above his jurisdiction and in a quisling capacity - aiding and abetting treason, as are all the magistrates) ask you if you are so and so........now I can only state what I would say or similar, you may decide on a different approach?

 I would say rather loudly OBJECTION! (object at every point). You have no authority to demand anything from me whatsoever sir!.... I am here under duress of circumstances whilst in lawful rebellion standing under constitutional law and the invocation of article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, and I do not consent to this unlawful service, nor can I do so under the rule of law. To proceed against me would be to attempt to coerce me into committing a serious criminal offence under common law, I have lawful excuse to deny such a service. You are acting ultra vires and in a quisling capacity and I demand that any hearing is to be held according to due process of law, under the protections of the common laws of this land and in a properly convened court de jure and in open forum, so that 'justice may be seen to be done'.

 You will likely be shouted down but stick with it and state it regardless.

 You are a sovereign being, a living man or woman not a legal fiction. In law (under the common law) there is god, and then you, and then the judge, show no fear and stand in your power. To oppose the constitutional law is an act of high treason; they don't like it up em!

 You would likely be threatened with contempt, or some claim of psychiatric disorder at that point....no matter what they threaten you with object using the same retort as above and more.....

 I would then respond to any further harassment asking if he/they are going to deny you due process of law and commit high treason today. Further stating that the crown has NO jurisdiction since Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked on the 23rd March 2001 and, since she has breached the coronation oath and deposed herself of the title of constitutional monarch. Again demanding that they cease and desist with this unlawful charade, claiming kidnap and to be released immediately.

 I would likely turn to a peace constable at some point and ask if he/she is standing under their oath of office today? Pressing him/her for a
reply....further pressure maybe used by informing him/her that he/she has a duty to observe the common law, and to act without fear nor favour under it.... that the hearing is a travesty of injustice and criminal as it is not a court of law but merely a private corporate entity acting without consent or lawful contract nor jurisdiction, and operating under treasonous legislation.
Also stating that as I had taken an oath of allegiance to the common law tenet of article 61, via the barons petition to the office of sovereign, and invocation of said article, also reciting the reference to the readily available evidence for this which is - The daily Telegraph report 'Lords petition queen on Europe' reported on the 24th March 2001. Also the letters between Sir Robin Janvrin (alleged monarchs private secretary) and the committee of the barons All can be viewed online.

 I would then inform him/her that the judge or magistrate is acting ultra vires and compounding treason under the constitution laws of the land and, that he/she has a duty of care to investigate the claims or be guilty of the same.
Take down his number and ask his or her name.....also ask the name of any judge or Magistrate and ask them to spell it. Be authoritive in asking.

 I realize I am ignoring the fact that the bench would be attempting to silence you or intimidate you, but these are the things I would state at whatever juncture they could be said at, and not necessarily in this order. It would be a battle to do this so don't be under any illusions, but quite a lot of fun to do too :0)....but only if taken I was there against my will...otherwise I would be there of course.

 You can also threaten them back if you like? stating, that they are committing a serious tort against you and that you may use Article 52 of Magna Carta 1215 to demand the barons committee convene to seek remedy, or by a Grand jury of the people for justice to be done, and that I will bring claim against them for the torts, along with a claim of high treason at common law. reminding them that Tony Blair did not repeal the death penalty for high treason in 1998, as he had already committed three counts of treason and therefore had no lawful authority, and that it is an act of treason at common law to attempt to repeal that Act.

 I would not plead nor give any name or sit or stand when told. I may be inclined to put some of these points as questions i.e. Do you have jurisdiction under the law whist the invocation of article 61 is in effect, or whilst the breach of the coronation Oath is not remedied? Questions don't create controversy but who cares about controversy it’s not a court anyway so I would be as controversial as I could be!

 I am more inclined personally to tell them rather then ask them but I have got a lot of facts already stated within my many Notices and affidavits to call on for my defence.... I would not be afraid to state that I was entirely
Contemptuous of the court as it is NOT a court of law. And that they have no authority to make any demands whatsoever which is evidential in fact.

 Demanding remedy is kind of double think because they nor the board room of Tesco's can provide it, the two are not that dissimilar.

 I would not use any of the legal acts and statutes against them that just gives them credibility by doing so... 'Double think', but demand due process of law to be observed, justice cannot be denied or delayed under common law.

 'Lawful excuse' is recognised even in their deceptive courts.... it is a common law tool as is 'duress of circumstances'. The fact that we are policed by consent admitted recently by the criminal home secretary cannot be denied truthfully. Always restate that you do not consent to the hearing and that no lawful contract is in existence and, even if it were then it would be unlawful for you to consent to it in such treasonable times, and that it is the lawful duty of all sovereign people to reject such criminality under the law and on ethical or moral grounds.

 If you are planning to do some serious distressing of the regime, it maybe a good idea to get a psychiatric evaluation documented prepared, stating that you are in good condition mentally; they do try to get people who can run this way sectioned if they can.....

 I'm sure I will have missed some things in this post and others will probably have a different approach than I would use. I trust this is still worth knowing though.

 I swear to the best of my first hand knowledge that all the above is the lawful truth as to my understanding. I would, and have sworn so on penalty of perjury in affidavits and notices to most if not all the above facts.

 The result would either be that I was released without any demands or I would be incarcerated by those willfully committing extremely serious offences. If I were unsupported at the hearing with no public gallery I may play things a little more tactfully but other than that, with witnesses to the event I would give them hell.

Peace.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/

Links to this book

Word format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/1561647267442824/LAWFUL%20REBELLION%20GUIDE%20V7.0.doc

Text format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/593959377406866/Lawful rebellion guide v7.0.txt

Blog post (Always the latest version);
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-guide.html

Printable shield designs here:
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-printables.html






















5 comments:

Rollo R said...

Thanks Coffinman; an excellently researched and comprehensive view which I have read with great interest. I had previously demurred as I pledge will pledge an oath to no one (Matthew 5:34), but see I may Support the notion just as effectively, and will do that.

Danielle Delioness said...

As I understand the oath that is pledged is to the common law to protect our rights under that law, lest we be ruled by some other fascist laws imposed on us, we need a law to agree on, Common law is something that has been agreed upon many times over in the past, it is the result of the wisdom of our forefathers being human themselves, and us all having a common and natural understanding of how we would wish to be treated. The fact this has been in any way enshrined for people to refer to and been reaffirmed throughout British history in its constitutional law is a fortunate thing, but not without effort on the part of people who have many times been repressed. My inner integrity in this matter sees the urgent need for us to see and agree that common law is our true law. Most people in Britain has an assumed allegiance to the Crown that we are born with, that is meant to be to common law anyway, but that has been usurped. I will pledge my allegiance to common law rights anyday for the laws are fair and just that I can agree with unlike the corporate laws being thrust upon us by the treasonous administration and crown we have currently.

Danielle Delioness said...

As I understand the oath that is pledged is to the common law to protect our rights under that law, lest we be ruled by some other fascist laws imposed on us, we need a law to agree on, Common law is something that has been agreed upon many times over in the past, it is the result of the wisdom of our forefathers being human themselves, and us all having a common and natural understanding of how we would wish to be treated. The fact this has been in any way enshrined for people to refer to and been reaffirmed throughout British history in its constitutional law is a fortunate thing, but not without effort on the part of people who have many times been repressed. My inner integrity in this matter sees the urgent need for us to see and agree that common law is our true law. Most people in Britain has an assumed allegiance to the Crown that we are born with, that is meant to be to common law anyway, but that has been usurped. I will pledge my allegiance to common law rights anyday for the laws are fair and just that I can agree with unlike the corporate laws being thrust upon us by the treasonous administration and crown we have currently.

Coffinman said...

Danielle I only just saw your comment about "common law".
The preblem is defining it.
I have referenced this page in the guide in section 2, as it describes this problem very well:
http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/06/there-is-nothing-lawful-about-common-law.html
The best specific definition for "common law", (without shooting ourselves in the foot) would be;
[In the Dictionary of English Law of 1882 by Charles Sweet of Lincolns Inn, page 172 the definition of Common Law, is definds as “that part of the law of England which, before the Judicature Acts, was administered by the common law tribunals”.]
There we have a historical definition for common law which places it prior to any acts of Parliament.
That is a good definition.
But we need to research into what that was if we are to hold it up.
Albert Burgess will not assist us, that is for sure.
For the purposes of Article 61 the law must mean the law specified in the oath of the sovereign.

lee tonkinjones said...

NOTICE OF LAWFUL REBELLION DISPACHED FROM AUSTRALIA TO QUEEN ELIZABETH II, ARCH BISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND THE GOVERNOR GENERAL 10th NOVEMBER 2014.
LEE JONES