Why don’t you know about this?

 The simple answer is that our mainstream media and press is controlled by the state, only allowing neutral or state-agenda favorable information to be expressed through their media. What does slip through their control is either unimportant to the overall momentum of the agenda, or its ignored or dismissed in a number of ways.

If you have been directly involved in any political campaigns you will know that the media do not report all the facts, they omit and sometimes bend facts to meet an agenda being set for them. Ask members of the recent campaigns for saving Firefighter’s pensions, the Scottish referendum, the EU referendum, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership or most recently the young Doctors dispute and their campaign to protect their jobs and save the NHS from privatisation. Anyone involved in these processes will attest to the manipulation of the media in favour of the Government’s preferred outcomes. Look at what is happening in Israel and ask yourself why the heinous crimes against the Palestinians are almost completely missing from British mainstream news.

In 2008, award-winning journalist Nick Davies lifted the lid on how manipulating the media really is. The title of his article in the Independent newspaper says it all: “How the Spooks Took Over the News.” In his articles and his book Flat Earth News (2008), he illustrates how “shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion–and the media simply swallow it wholesale.” In the Guardian newspaper, Davies describes how our media have become mass producers of distortion, and he evidences this with clear, unambiguous examples. He convincingly delivers the message that “the mass media generally are no longer a reliable source of information”.

The mega media corporations, like News International owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, drive opinion and political awareness not just in the direction of profit, but also towards the longer-term goals of their associates. The corporate ownership of news has now all but destroyed the principle of truth-telling by grossly politicising the news agenda and severely reducing the actual time available for journalists to do their jobs.

Specialists at Cardiff University surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their “facts”, they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn’t be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these “facts” had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the articles. The implication of these two findings is alarming. Where once journalists were active detectives and gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by agencies to serve some political or commercial interest.

Propaganda is not a new thing. Shortly after World War I, the word propaganda started to take on negative connotations. People were beginning to understand that propaganda was not just a weapon that their government used against the enemy; it was something they frequently used against their own people. At the outbreak of WW2 in 1939, Britain resurrected the MOI to once more regulate and manipulate news flow. It was while working for the MOI that a certain Mr. Eric Blair, aka George Orwell, was inspired to create the terrifying vision of the Ministry of Truth in his dystopian novel 1984.

Orwell had grown increasingly disillusioned with the MOI’s warped news coverage and eventually resigned in disgust. The fascist ideals and practices of a Britain that claimed to be open and democratic were to become a powerful theme in Orwell’s written works.

In the interests of full honesty and disclosure, it must be added that the Government, of this and other countries, does not stop at the use of manipulated media to control public opinion. It also uses ‘events’ to assist with their agenda. Some have been declassified and are making their way into the public consciousness, whilst other more recent but no less shocking ‘events’ have yet to properly surface. This subject area is beyond the scope of this booklet but you are encouraged to open your mind to what ‘Statecraft’ might include. (Follow the money trail, asking ‘cui bono?’)

Apart from our media not serving our best interests, here is another reason why you might not know this vital information. As part of my research, I uncovered many sources of accidental misinformation but also disinformation. 

For example, the book “Constitutional History of the United Kingdom” by Ann Lyon, described the 1215 Magna Carta as purely symbolic, stating that it had been annulled very shortly after it was written, by Pope Innocent III. This is provably false! To summarize inconsistency of this argument, it is a very well established principle that the peoples incumbent head of state cannot under the control of a foreign power. For example, Bracton, who wrote under Henry III says,

“The king, ought not to be subject to man, but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the king. Let the king therefore render to the law, what the law has invested in him with regard to others; dominion, and power: for he is not truly king, where will and pleasure rules, and not the law.”

In 1213 King John was having a great deal of trouble with the Barons, and the population generally. King John was using foreign mercenaries to suppress the population. He feared for his safety and gave England to Archbishop Pandolph, the Papal Legate, receiving it back again to rule as a vassal King to the Pope for a payment of 1000 Marks a year. John also took on the mantle of a Crusader so that any one who attacked him would face excommunication.

In 1366 King Edward III received a letter from the Pope asking, again, for the 1000 Marks a year for those years for which it had not been paid, threatening to take action against him if Edward failed to pay. Edward spoke to the Bishops, and the Lords, who spoke to the Commons. First the Bishops, then the Lords, and finally the Commons, came to Edward and they told him that England did not belong to John. King John only held England in trust for those who follow on. Therefore it was not King John’s to give away. By handing England to the Pope, King John broke the law. As such, the agreement King John made with the Pope was not valid. The money was not owed, and was not to be paid. This constitutional ruling ensures that the Kings of England were not, and can never be, vassal Kings to anyone. This is a very important constitutional ruling which applies as much today as it did then.

Speaking of this, Lord Kilmuir, the ex-Lord Chancellor who wrote in December 1660, states that

“King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.”

Pope Innocent III DID indeed purport to declare the Magna Carta 1215 “null and void of all validity forever” but what authority did he have over England to do so? The constitutional laws and customs of England clearly do not allow any foreign interferences. As Sir William Blackstone said in 1753,

“the legislature of England doth not, nor ever did, recognize any foreign power, as superior or equal to it in this kingdom or as having the right to give law to any, the meanest of its subjects.”

Ann Lyon’s book contained other significant errors and omissions, including the 2001 invocation of Article 61, which could only have been deliberate given the extent of research that had gone into the main body of the text. The book was targeted at undergraduates. Why would a book in Universities be to obviously and fundamentally incorrect? This book is a good example of one of the smaller, but no less important, parts to the well-funded and organised sedition of our Constitution. Other articles and information sources make claims, such as; most of the Magna Carta has been repealed, failing to inform the reader that, as previously stated, only the Statute version of 1297 can be repealed.

The Real History of the British Constitution

Constitutional Common Law was first codified by Alfred the Great (reigned 871-899), the Saxon King of Wessex who laid the foundations of what would become the Kingdom of England. In doing so, he compiled the laws and customs of the nation into the “Liber Judicialis”, based upon the Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule;

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Historically, Common Law alone did not provide full protection against tyrannical injustices. King John, who reigned from 1199-1216, was famous as one of the evilest monarchs in Britain’s history, leading to the baronial revolt towards the end of his reign and the subsequent formation of a more powerful and far-reaching level of lawful protection for the people. A new peace treaty was written and sealed at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. Its full name was the Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for “the Great Charter of the Liberties”), now commonly called the Magna Carta.

Its fundamental aim was and remains to provide lasting protection to the people against a repeat of such tyranny. The security clause was first used prior to the 1688 Glorious Revolution. This involved the overthrow of King James II of England (James VII of Scotland and James II of Ireland) by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange). The Magna Carta affirmed the right of the people to such things as trial by jury, protection from excessive fines, protection from unlawful governance and the right to lawfully rebel against an unconstitutional government.

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” – Magna Carta

Our inalienable rights and liberties are clearly stated in these written contracts. It is also true that many of our unwritten rights are equally valid. One obvious example is the right to free speech, for which, unlike the U.S. Constitution, there is no written provision within the British Constitution. We should currently be living in a constitutionally limited Monarchy with a democratic process of re-election of Parliament.

The British Constitution is spread over the following very important and powerful documents;

(The below comments in inset italics show how various Governments attempted to repeal these laws and give examples of their violation. Details provided by Albert Burgess, Constitutional Researcher)

886 Alfred the Great – The Dome – Alfred took all the best laws from all the kingdoms under his rule and brought them together and recorded them in the ‘Dome’.

1100 Henry I – Charter of Liberties – Henry believed he ruled by divine right which was promoted by the Catholic Church. He was forced by the Barons to issue this Charter which was a restatement of Alfred’s laws.

1215 King John – Magna Carta – As detailed above

1216 Henry III – Henry de Bracton of the King’s Bench made several rulings which prevented the Sovereign from acting unjustly. One of his rulings was that, ‘he is beneath the law for it is by the law that he becomes King’ Another was, ‘In England we have the rule of law; unjust laws are not laws.’

1351 Edward III – The Statute of Treason, Provisors and Praemunire – In 1366 the Pope demanded the back payment of his 1000 marks per year. Edward asked the Bishops then the Lords and then the Commons what he should do? They unanimously told the Pope he would not be getting the money. Under English Law the sovereign only holds England in trust for their successors. Edward was also King of France and as such could have no say in how England was governed.

Clement Atlee repealed the Statute of Provisors with the 1948 Criminal Law Revision Act thus paving the way for membership of the EEC and allowing disposal of English assets to a foreign power. This was an act of treason. The following were a violation of the above Statute.

In 1910 the House of Lords rejected Asquith’s Finance Bill because it was unfair to the public. Asquith then created the Parliament Act 1911 by threatening the House of Lords with closure. King Edward VII refused Royal Assent because it removed protection from the people. However, Edward died shortly after and the new King George V was ‘informed’ that he could not use the Royal Prerogatives without the backing of a Government Minister.

In 1999 Tony Blair put through the House of Lords Act which was to remove all but 92 hereditary peers. Certain politicians plan to replace the House of Lords with an elected senate. Restricting the hereditary peers from playing their part in government were acts of treason.

1392 Richard II – Statute of Praemunire – This statute prevented foreign laws being imported and the drawing out of English people to face foreign courts.

Harold Wilson repealed this statute in the ‘Criminal Law Act 1967’ allowing the Heath Government to place our courts under the dominion of the EEC. This was an act of treason.

1559 Elizabeth I – Act of Supremacy – This Act contains an oath of which this is part, ‘…no foreign prince, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any power, jurisdiction, superiority, supremacy, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual in this realm’. This Act clearly shows that we are not to tolerate any attempt to allow any kind of foreign interference in our affairs.

Edward Heath committed treason when he set up a conspiracy in violation of this Act, to submit our sovereignty to the EEC. By default, every succeeding Government has also committed treason in continuing with EU membership.

1628 Charles I – Petition of Rights – The King was presented with a Petition of Rights which was a restatement of Alfred’s laws, including our right to criticise government.

1641 The Grand Remonstrance – This was a request by Parliament asking the King to rule by law. Charles refused, was tried for treason and beheaded.

1689 William III – Declaration of Rights – Following the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange was chosen to rule England by the true representatives of the people. He asked the politicians how the English wanted to be governed. This produced the Declaration of Rights.

The Bill of Rights – The new Parliament immediately passed the Declaration of Rights into law called the Bill of Rights. This contained two codicils, the first stating that any amendment after 23 September 1689 was unlawful. The second was that the Bill was for all time as it can be changed only by representatives of the people meeting together again.

The following section of the Bill of Rights is taken from www.statutelaw.gov.uk. It states the following:

“And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”

In other words, the British may not be ruled in any way, shape or form by any foreign entity. So, it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. Here is the evidence that our present Monarch has unfortunately for some reason broken her Coronation Oath, by giving Royal Assent to these treaties.

Other constitutional rights given by these contracts –

• The right to bear arms
• The right to petition the Sovereign
• Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause
• The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies
• Habeas corpus is not to be denied (innocent until proven guilty, and your right to report unlawful detention to a court)
• No person will be compelled to make loans to the King, and there will be no tax without the approval of Parliament
• Soldiers and sailors will not be billeted on civilians
• Government will not impose martial law during peacetime

The right to bear arms gives every person the right to self defence using reasonable force, including deadly force if appropriate. Using tragic events as an excuse to remove that right has historically been the work of governments with good reason to fear their people – governments intent on some kind of future totalitarian control of their populations.

The Coronation Oath Act 1688

 The Coronation Oath is the freely taken and mutual covenant between the Monarch and the People of Britain. During the Coronation ceremony, the People effectively elect the Monarch, and in return, the Monarch swears the Coronation Oath. This oath includes the promise to “cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed”. It is therefore the Monarch’s promise to preserve our Law, especially our Constitutional Law.

Six British Monarchs have been deposed in one form or another, having been deselected for their failure to maintain the rights and liberties of the People. They were Ethelred, Richard II, Henry VI, Charles I (executed), James II and Edward VIII.

We have a tripartite government in this country. Parliament, the Judiciary and the Monarchy are intended to provide protections and limits on each other. One of those limiting powers is Royal Assent.

We are told by Parliament that the last time a bill was rejected by the sovereign was in 1707 when Queen Anne rejected the Scottish Militia Act. This is far from the truth. Queen Victoria refused a bill on homosexuality because it contained references to lesbians on the grounds she did not believe women could engage in such activity. The bill had to be rewritten with all reference to lesbianism removed before it received the Assent. King Edward VII refused what became the 1911 Parliament Act because it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects.

Since 1960 the Royal Assent has been granted by a committee of 5 Barons appointed by the government of the day to give what has become known as the automatic assent. This is of course unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, Royal assent remains there as the exclusive authority of the Monarch, to be used when necessary on behalf of the People.

While Government is tri-partite, we the People must recognise our role in demanding our just and humane governance. We must demand that Parliament fulfil its constitutional accountability to us.

If we are unhappy with the manner in which we are governed, we have no right to a remedy until we are willing to act in our own defence. We must demand that our government, our politicians, and our monarch fulfill their oaths. If they fail, we must seek redress elsewhere.

The Enemy Within

With such powerful constitutional laws protecting our human rights, systems of governance and justice, how have we arrived at our current situation with an unaccountable, deceptive and technically unlawful Government?

Without going into too much unnecessary detail, two thousand years ago the Romans came, saw, conquered, helped themselves and then left when finished. However, when they did leave, they kept and maintained an area of land next to the Thames and founded a trading post and named it Londinium. Through the clever use of walled defences, laws and commerce they became wealthy and formed a formidable establishment within this area.

These days Londinium is known as ‘The City of London’ or the ‘Square mile’. Subsequent monarchs have recognised The City of London as an independent area best left to its own business, although they have never trusted it, or its wealth based power. Consequently, the City of London is not subject to British Law; it has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag, its own police force. It remains today a centre of World leading commerce. It is interesting to note that the corporation which owns and runs the City of London is older than the United Kingdom by several hundred years.

When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066 subjugating all the Saxons to his rule, he had to concede to Londonium. The Roman merchants within were difficult to defeat due to the wall and their established ability to provision the city by ships. In return for them recognising him as the new King of England, William agreed to recognise their independence and customs. These merchants of Roman origin demanded the Roman Civil Law, the Maritime Law. This was granted and remains to this day as the law of the ‘City of London’.

The same Civil Law of Rome prevailed in continental Europe, so when William invaded, he brought with him jurists and clerics steeped in the principles of Roman civil law. Our ancient laws and customs withstood the shock and remained without any amendment.

However, as you will read, this Roman Civil Law is running in parallel as part of our society today through statutes of parliament and is now threatening our Constitution by deception. This merchant based law is the law of the money men, it’s based on commerce and contracts, whereas Constitutional law is based upon morality.

There are, fundamentally, two competing systems of man-made law in the world that are in constant ideological conflict against each other. One is the Common Law and the other is the Civil Law, or more specifically Roman Civil Law, also called Maritime Law. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law – “Lex Mercantoria” – and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. It is Commercial Law, the law of money. The primary and compelling reason for the United States’ Declaration of Independence was to eliminate Maritime Law and Maritime jurisdiction from the Domestic Law of the colonies due to its potential for conflict with freedom.

Briefly, and stated in general terms, the basic concepts of these two systems are diametrically opposed. In the Civil Law the source of all law is the personal ruler, he is sovereign. In the Common Law, the source of all law is the people, and they as a whole are sovereign. Oligarchical rule versus Republican rule, respectively.

The Roman civil law is recognised as lending itself towards an oligarchic state, whereas the Republican enhancing Saxon Common Law promotes moral self-determination of the People by the People under a constitution created by the People.

During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Roman Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms through trading and money. The Common Law, with its basic moral principles being the instrument through which men of equal genius but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions. The Constitution of Britain embodies the loftiest concepts yet framed of this exalted concept, however, that system is in the advanced stages of being secretly and systematically removed from under our noses.

In Britain, we have these two systems of law running simultaneously. Civil law is obviously a requirement in a finance based modern society. Parliamentary Acts and Statutes are needed to introduce and adapt our legal system to modernisation and change. As a simple example, we moved on from horses and carts and therefore need the Road Traffic Act to legislate for the use of modern motor propelled vehicles on the road, regulating their safety and liability issues, et cetera.

However, with careful legal and historical analysis it can be observed that there has been a very slow introduction of a great number of various Statutes and Acts that have been used to overlay Common Laws. This overlaying of civil legislation is not changing Constitutional Law, which remains immutable, but it is having the deliberate effect of bureaucratically burying it in false obscelescence. This tactic is being used to subtly steer the direction of our future governance towards the dominance of power being with the state rather than the people, as per our Constitutional Law.

This subversive and seditious legal procedure was recognised as early as 1929 by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England. He realized that the house of commons was using Statutes to install legal instruments of authoritarianism in an attempt to dismantle our Constitution. Lord Hewart wrote a book specifically about this called ‘The New Despotism’, in which he described this “new despotism” as “to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme”. The book created a constitutional and political storm. It was rumoured that Whitehall considered an attempt to boycott it. Lord Hewart said in a speech,

“I will be no party to the doctrine, that a Lord Chief Justice, summoned to the House of Lords, as he is, not merely to vote, but also to advise, is condemned to a lifelong and compulsory silence on the affairs of State.”

The unconstitutional loss of a significant amount of national legislative control to the EU only served to speed up this process by giving the appearance of improved rights on the surface, while underneath aiming to strip away our most precious constitutional rights without us noticing, which, even though it is happening in our faces, to many it is invisible. Sure, the EU appears to offer attractive benefits to many, including improved worker’s rights et cetera, but these are sugar- coated cyanide pills designed to lure us into big-government, keeping us tip-toeing like fools towards an increasingly Orwellian state. There should be no reasonable and democratic rights or policies that we cannot self-serve with our own Government if its working as it was constitutionally intended.

The attempts to ‘power grab’ started as far back as 1609 when the House of Commons first tried their luck. They wrote to the House of Lords claiming to be the Knights, Burgess’s and Barons of the High Court of Parliament. The House of Lords replied saying they would never accept the Commons as Barons and that without them (the Lords) they were not a true court.

Next in 1667 the House of Commons told the House of Lords they could not amend a money bill. A ten-year argument between both Houses ensued until in 1677 the House of Lords agreed not to amend any money bills. This was the start of the problems we have today.

In 1714 Queen Anne died and King George I came to the Crown. He spoke no English and so unlike all previous Kings and Queens, he did not attend parliament or cabinet meetings. The government of the day in the Commons were left to do as they liked. King George II spent his entire reign complaining that his ministers were Kings in his Kingdom and that he was discouraged from attending parliament or cabinet meetings. We know that King George III fought back and in part reversed that trend. On the 8th March 1784, a vote was taken in Parliament and the King won the vote.

When King George V came to the throne, following Edward VII’s death, he was told by a government minister that he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them unless he had the backing of a government minister! When the King accepted this, it was the final nail in the coffin of England. At the same time, Asquith put through the 1911 Parliament Act which purported to remove from the House of Lords their ability to reject a bill. So we now have a situation where Asquith (a Fabian prime minister) had usurped the Royal Prerogative, a clear act of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and a clear act of the subversion of the constitutional arrangements of Parliament. The 1911 Parliament Act was a clear case of High Treason against the Constitutional arrangements of Parliament at English Common Law.

Similarly, the 1999 House of Lords Act which removed the hereditary Peers from their rightful place in Parliament is also High Treason. The Peers should have a constitutional right of personal audience with the Sovereign. This is intended to avoid the problem of “evil counsellors” keeping the Sovereign in ignorance of the people’s grievances. If this were maintained, we may not be where we are today.

Therefore, it can be seen that according to our Constitutional Law, every Parliament since 1911 has been an unlawful assembly and all laws passed since then are void under English Common Law.