THE THEFT BY DECEPTION of THE GREAT BRITISH CONSTITUTION
by EE Spenser, BA(Hons)
The British Constitution
Let us get one thing crystal clear from the start. Great Britain has Constitutional Law which is very much intact and valid, regardless of what misinformation or disinformation you may have been given.
It is sometimes falsely asserted that we do not have a written Constitution. Our Constitution is not written in a single article like the US version, it is spread over several documents.
The Constitutional Laws of our country are the most important and powerful laws that we have. These laws protect our liberty, rights to self-governance, limit the powers of the Government and the judiciary, maintain the imperative right of Britons to a trial by our peers, a right to redress, and our right to enforce these laws. However, we can only use these laws and protect them if we know of them and insist upon their use. Unfortunately, as you are about to read, a very long-term and elaborate plot exists which is deceiving the majority of their rights in an attempt to subvert the British Constitution.
In a nutshell, our Constitution was designed to protect our human rights. It was the first Human Rights law, although much more powerful than an ‘Act’ of parliament because it’s an immutable law which was designed by the people and cannot be lawfully taken away from the people without completely transparent, lawful and democratic consent, or defeat by open war.
Our Constitution is, in fact, the grandfather of the constitutions of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. It is the ultimate law of the land, designed to keep the executive and governing bodies in check. The law has been created by the people over many generations and includes various treaties, Bills, Declarations and sworn Oaths. We the people agreed with the law in its proper state which is why we are only policed by consent, or supposed to be.
Our parliament and the Queen are subordinate to the Constitution, and the Monarch is lawfully bound by the Coronation Oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the people. Failure of the Monarch to protect the Constitution is an act of Treason against the people. Any attempt made by a minister of parliament to deceive the Monarch regarding the process of assent of legislation is a crime of sedition or potentially treason. Treason is the most serious breach of law on this land.
The Constitutional Law cannot be changed by parliament; it can only be changed via a constitutional convention of the people.
The Invocation of our Constitutional Law’s Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215.
On 23rd March 2001, a fundamental aspect of our Constitutional law was triggered, yet the majority of the British people do not know about it, even today twenty two years later. This was invoked in response to very serious corruption at the highest levels of authority in this country, a group of highly honourable peers from the House of Lords were forced to use our most fundamental rights granted under the 1215 Magna Carta to urge the Queen to redress several infringements of our Constitutional Law by members of parliament. Their petition, presented under the security clause of our great Constitution, Article 61 Magna Carta, urged the Queen to withhold Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty which unlawfully gave imperative rights of self-governance away to foreign powers. The petition was sanctioned by Leolin Price Q.C. and had the backing of 65 peers from the House of Lords, led by Lord Ashbourne.
When interviewed, Lord Ashbourne 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.”
The core of the Petition was as follows:
“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 June 1953…. We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.”
The Queen had 40 days to respond. Her secretary responded on the 39th day, acknowledging the validity of this law, but failed to deal with the issue according to her constitutional and contractual duty as per her Coronation Oath. Her representative claimed that she was bound to follow the instructions of Her ministers and had no veto, which is in contravention of her duty to protect Constitutional law.
Article 61 is therefore now invoked and shall remain so until a remedy has been approved by the Barons Committee. This is very real and of fundamental importance to our British sovereignty. (Please find supporting information in the appendix)
Article 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 lost the confidence of the people, leading to his abdication and fleeing the country.
The Magna Carta is a treaty, not an Act of Parliament. Like all treaties, it cannot be repealed. As a contract or covenant between sovereign and subjects, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach, it still stands. It is a mutual, binding agreement of indefinite duration. Any breach merely has the effect of giving the offended party rights of redress. The Queen referred to the Magna Carta as a peace treaty in a speech in New Zealand in 1997.
So, the Magna Carta is an affirmation of common law based on principles of natural justice. These principles – and the document itself – pre-date the first model parliament of 1295 created
under Edward I. Although the 1215 Great Charter pre-dates parliament by 80 years it was subsequently enacted in 1297 with the passage of the King’s Confirmation of the Great
Charter (Act), which included the words:
“And we will that if any judgement be given henceforth contrary to the points aforesaid by
the justices or by any other (of) our ministers that hold plea before them against the points
of the charters it shall be undone and holden for nought.”
Common law is the will and custom of the people. Statute law is the will of parliament. Statute can and does give expression to common law, but that common law cannot be disregarded by parliament, nor can it be repealed. It can only be extended – “improved” is the word used, but it is open to misuse. No Briton, including members of the police and armed forces, is above the law. We are all subjects of the crown first. Parliament is made by the law, and is not above it. Parliament is answerable to the people, is elected by the people to protect their interests for a maximum of five years, after which time power is returned to the people who may grant it to another parliament for a further five years – and so on ad infinitum. (Thus is the sovereignty of the people established over parliament.)
Those who state that the UK Parliament is supreme, and that the Monarch is merely a ‘figurehead’, have been fooled. Queen Elizabeth II is, by Constitutional Law, supreme to Parliament as the ‘elected’ sovereign representative of the People. That is, the Common Law of Kingship as given by Sir John Fortescue Chief Justice in 1420 in his book “On the Laws and Governance of England”, as well as the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and by Parliamentary vote on the 8th March 1784, when a vote was taken on where ultimate Sovereignty lay, either with the Lawfully anointed King George III or with the House of Commons as the elected House. The King won the vote and, by Parliamentary vote, absolute supremacy lies with Queen Elizabeth II as our lawfully anointed Queen.
It is sometimes mistakenly believed that most of the Magna Carta has been repealed. These claims are only relevant to the less significant Statute version. In 1297 the Model Parliament added the Magna Carta in statute law. Much of this statute has indeed since been repealed. Yet while Parliament can repeal or amend any Acts of Parliament (Statutes), it was not a party to the original Common Law contract of the 1215 Magna Carta and cannot amend or repeal it lawfully, and thus its original provisions remain very much intact today.
All of our Constitutional Law is still very much as valid and powerful today as the day that the ink was wet. Attempts are made at times, by either the misinformed or those with vested interests, to discredit old Constitutional Law as relics of law, however, the increasing age of a Common Law does not make it any less valid. As an obvious example is the offence of murder will not be found in the form of a Statute or Act of Parliament, it is a Common Law offence and it, like our Constitutional Law, grows no less valid with the progress of time.
Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls from 1962-1982 described the 1215 Magna Carta as “The greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing recently that the 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:
“The Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”
As law abiding members of this country, we have a lawful responsibility and duty to stand under the conditions set out in Constitutional Law as defined by the Magna Carta and other documents. When the security clause, Article 61, has been invoked, as it is today, the good people of this land must unite and peacefully seek a remedy to the breach.
Britain is governed by Parliament which consists of the House of Commons which create Statutes and Acts, the House of Lords which scrutinise these, and the Monarch who gives the Royal Assent or approval if the legislation is in the best interests of the people.
Halsbury’s Laws of England at Vol.44 clearly describes Magna Carta 1215 as a “constitutional statute”. It is important to bear in mind that the legal term “statute” has two meanings. The original, which predates the first Parliament in 1297, is “A re-statement of the law by the Sovereign as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative”. Acts of Parliament are also described as statutes. They can be repealed by the institution which made them by the Common Law rule that no Parliament may bind its successor.
On the subject of Magna Carta 1215 Winston Churchill also writes, “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).
Remember, the Magna Carta 1215 is a lawfully binding agreement between the monarchy and the people which pre-dates the establishment of the Houses of Commons and Lords, and therefore parliament has no authority to abrogate or repeal it. The Bill of Rights binds successive parliaments, whether they like it or not. Often one argument proffered is that no legislation can bind successive parliaments, this is a true common law regulation of parliament, however, this does not apply to Constitutional Law. The Magna Carta 1215 or the Bill of Rights are binding in perpetuity, or at least until an open and transparent convention of the people decides otherwise, or Britain is defeated in open warfare and taken over.
In a 1988 speech, the Queen stated, “The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of Parliamentary democracy rests.”
The Glorious Revolution of 1689 would not have occurred if not for the lawful validity of Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta. The petition to the Queen would not and could not have been lodged, it would not have been backed by 65 peers, and it certainly could not have been sanctioned by Leolin Price Q.C. Additionally, the Queen would not have replied to an unlawful claim of rights.
The terms of Article 61 will remain in force until a Constitutional Convention under the Barons Committee decides otherwise.
As proof of the invocation of Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 with prima facie evidence, here is photographic evidence from an original UK publication, from page 16 of the 24 March 2001 Telegraph, along with a certificate of authenticity.
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.
Sovereignty theft by stealth
The global financial elite operate very much in the shadows through a network of secretive and so-called ‘think-tanks’ such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, all with one common purpose, global governance by the elite. In the UK, one of the more well-known groups is the Fabian Society.
In 1884 the Fabian Society was formed by a group of elitists, with the purpose of ushering in a one world oligarchic collectivist state through a process known as Gradualism –
a policy of gradual reform from within a system rather than sudden change or violent revolution. This would become the basis for what is today called Fabian Socialism. The word Fabian derives from the Roman general Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemy over an extended period of time. This is similar to the way Fabian Socialism works to implement its agenda of a one world state. It’s no coincidence that the international symbol for Fabianism is the slow-moving turtle, this replaced their older shield which gives their game away displaying a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
That the Fabians consciously sought the company, collaboration and support of the wealthy and powerful is evident from Fabian writings such as Beatrice Webb’s Our Partnership, which abound in references to “catching millionaires,” “wire-pulling,” “moving all the forces we have control over,” while at the same time taking care to “appear disinterested” and claiming to be “humble folk whom nobody suspects of power” (Webb, 1948).
In fact, the Webbs were in regular touch with the likes of Arthur Balfour and Richard Haldane (a member of the Fabian Society) who served as contacts between the Fabians and the powerful and wealthy. As their social circle expanded, the Webbs’ frequent dinners, informal meetings, and “little parties” enabled them to mingle with leading members of the ruling elite like Lord Rosebery, Julius Wernher (of the gold and diamond mining company Wernher, Beit & Co.) and Lord Rothschild, and talk them into backing their subversive projects.
It is essential to understand, however, that this was far from being a one-way affair. The leading elements of liberal capitalism – the big businessmen, industrialists and bankers – who had amassed great wealth in the wake of the industrial revolution, were no selfless philanthropists. They aimed to strengthen their own position of power and influence by two means: by monopolising finance, economy and politics; and by controlling the growing urban working class.
The Fabian Society has easily traceable links with the international banking families. It also appears to be very opposed to the British monarchy and wishes to see it removed. Which again is in violation of Constitutional Law. A republican state, if desired, should be the open democratic choice of the people in accordance with Law.
Former British Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are linked with the Fabians, and it’s probably no coincident that Margaret Thatcher, responsible for some of the greatest politically motivated national asset stripping of the last century, when asked at a speaking commitment in 2002 what she regarded as her greatest career achievement, replied “Tony Blair and New Labour”!
The window carries the logo: “Remould it [the World] nearer to the heart’s desire,” the last line from a quatrain by the medieval Iranian poet Omar Khayyam which reads:
“Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits, and then remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!”
In the UK, Common Purpose is an example of an organisation involved in these operations. Disguised as a charity organisation, it is designed to be the Trojan Horse in British Society with the primary objective of getting the first Common Purpose ‘future leaders’ into place, from where they could open many doors to many more of their own. But alongside infiltration by the political charity Common Purpose comes the wider socio-political agenda of common purpose; an agenda which is being promoted by a host of different organisations and initiatives. These include Diversity Courses, Community Empowerment, Leadership, Visioning, Community Activism, Social Entrepreneurs and Disrupters – in fact there is now a vast web of these ‘vehicles’ which are primarily working to promote the change agenda to destabilise our historic organised society.
Throughout Britain Common Purpose already has over 20,000 leaders and 80,000 trainees culled from influential sections of society such as the NHS, the BBC, the police, the legal profession, many of Britain’s 7000 quangos, local councils the Civil Service, government ministries and Parliament.
Many of the people caught up in the recent sex scandals in Rotherham, whether members of the Council, Social Services or Local Police, have been reported to be either graduates of Common Purpose or involved in some way with this sinister political cult. The vast majority of the individuals involved with Common Purpose will have been duped and are unlikely to be fully aware of the organisation’s real role in the despotic global agenda.
This Fabian style of subversive and secret theft of sovereignty was recognised many years ago in the America administration by Kennedy. In the following world-famous speech, which probably got him shot (in conjunction with his attempts to free the States from the bankers’ grips by shutting down the Federal Reserve), he said:
“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of ‘clear and present danger,’ then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” – JFK, April 27, 1961.
Former Congresswoman, and US Presidential candidate, Dr.Cynthia McKinney has been outspoken in her experiences of shadow elements and deeply underhanded practices within the US Government for many years. She whistle-blew on the secret pledge. During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were pressured to sign pledges of support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to Israel. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate’s campaign, and the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), and the controlled media crush them and they lose office. According to McKinney, the pledge also included a vow to support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel! It doesn’t take a genius to work out which of the elite financial families is most linked with the ‘Greater Israel Project’.
The One Percent
Here in the UK, during our election campaigns, politicians and their supporters repeatedly offer potential voters the word ‘hope’. This is a word that is all too often used by empty and powerless politicians in order to entrap and ensnare people to vote for them. Today the people do not need ‘hope’, what they do need are solutions and the truth.
The unfortunate truth is that the ultimate power to govern the British people does not lie with our democratically elected ‘representatives’ in Parliament, it lies with the dynastic bankers and financiers in the City of London. The so-called ‘Square Mile’ has evolved over the centuries into becoming the very center of the global banking and financial system that drives and controls the entire world’s economy.
This system, a system that allows the ‘1%’ to rule over the rest of humanity, has created for nearly all of us a nightmare situation. Centered around the controversial process of ‘globalisation’, this system has but one ultimate objective – to deceive the peoples of the world into accepting eventual global governance on its own corporate and financial terms, terms that defy common sense and common decency and that George Orwell would immediately recognise.
Sometimes referred to by senior politicians, like the former Prime- Minister Gordon Brown, as ‘The New World Order’, this elaborate system of complete corporate and financial control results in the entrapment, exploitation and enslavement of nearly all of humanity. It creates dreadful unhappiness amongst ordinary decent people and causes wars, unemployment, starvation, pollution and environmental destruction – ‘fracking’ being just the latest example of this. It feeds on greed, fear, stress and division. It bypasses and undermines accountable and democratic processes. It forces people onto the corporate treadmills of mass mindless production to meet mass mindless consumerism whilst hoodwinking everyone into believing that there is an absolutely crucial ‘global economic race’ that we must all take part in and win at all costs.
It creates and uses secrecy, fear, lies, deception and intimidation at all times, the very threat we were so clearly warned about by President John F. Kennedy. It is a system that is so clever and so cunning that much of the world is still completely oblivious to its existence. It is a system that allows a few winners at the expense of a huge number of losers. It is a system that considers itself to be unbeatable and indestructible and is now so arrogant that it believes it can control everything and everyone on its own terms and by its own rules. It is a system that promotes huge transnational corporations at the expense of human-scale economies. It is a system which selects and allows psychopaths, sociopaths and people of low empathy to flourish.
And finally, this system has now become so embedded and so confident that transnational corporations are maneuvering to ‘endgame’ by taking complete control over sovereign nation states. High level politicians and lawyers are currently passing, in almost complete secrecy, international legislation (TTIP) that will allow corporations to legally (but quite definitely not lawfully) dictate terms to sovereign nations, even when a government of such a nation has a lawful and democratic mandate from its people to reject such legislation.
This appalling situation for humanity has been allowed to happen because we, the British people, are totally ignorant of Fractional Reserve lending. We are totally ignorant of how the private corporate bankers and financiers in the City of London have perfected and utilised this simple device of creating and conjuring up money completely out of thin air as debt. Not even the majority of bank employees know about this. Quite simply, just 3% of all the money in the UK is created as physical money (coins and notes) by the Bank of England on behalf of HM Treasury. The rest, 97%, is created by the private banks from absolutely nothing. And the evidence for this is there for all to see and read, as the Bank of England says “Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money”.
This complete lack of awareness about how money is actually created also extends to our elected representatives, those MPs who are not actively and treasonously involved with paving the way for this Orwellian nightmare of global financial control. It would seem that our decision-makers, not to mention system-serving economists and mainstream media opinion-formers are all currently wading through a cesspit of woeful ignorance, selected memory and intellectual arrogance along with a smidgen of cognitive dissonance.
Everyone needs to take a questioning look at the huge and provable deception that underpins the entire central banking system of the world. Deceived politicians and economists, not to mention almost the whole of humanity, all believe that the world’s central banks, such as the Bank of England, the Banque de France and the US Federal Reserve, are all primarily answerable to their sovereign nations and their elected political masters. Nothing I’m afraid could be further from the truth!
Despite appearances, these central banks are in fact fully fledged private banks and are ultimately controlled and run by the world’s major banking and financial dynasties including the House of Rothschild, the Warburgs, and the Rockefellers. These extremely powerful families are able to achieve this through their very little- known and highly secretive Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
Based in Basle, Switzerland, this organisation, by directly controlling sixty central banks, is able to oversee 95% of the world’s money supply. When Mark Carney, the current Governor of the Bank of England, goes off to his high level, highly secretive bi-monthly BIS meetings in Basle to receive his instructions from the banking elite, are we seriously expected to believe that Chancellor George Osborne has the final say when it comes to decisions being made by the City of London’s Bank of England? Common sense suggests that this is extremely unlikely.
Now we come to the ‘biggest lie’ that the City of London and its system of financial enslavement needs to perpetuate if it is to survive. We are told repeatedly by our political and economic masters, that if a country’s tax receipts and other forms of income are outweighed by the nation’s expenditure needs, then that nation’s government has to go to the private banking and financial sector to borrow money that has simply been conjured up out of thin air in order to make up the difference. It’s all a scam! A scam that is currently costing the British nation one billion pounds a week, or £52 billion a year, just to pay the interest back to the ‘Banksters’ for something that never actually existed in the first place! This appalling scam has to be exposed.
This system of fraudulent government is not unique to Britain, it is worldwide. The excellent history researcher and author G. Edward Griffin describes how his research, which spans no less than five decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental reshaping of society.
Griffin discusses the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right in the false political paradigm and how this highlights a recurring theme – collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism and believes that the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number, explains Griffin, uniting the doctrines of communism and fascism. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are committed to advancing collectivism and this is why the same policies are followed no matter who is voted into the White House.
“All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state because that’s the only way you can hold it together,” warns Griffin.
Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda.
Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to steer the destiny of America.
Griffin also talks at length on a myriad of other important subjects, such as the move towards a Chinese-style censored Internet, the Hegelian dialectic, the power of tax-exempt foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations, the movement towards world government, and the question of whether the elite are really worried about the growing awareness of their agenda amongst Americans and the world.
In the following interview, “1972 Bank of England governor: we control all the press & politicians – Justin Walker”, Justin Walker of the British Constitution Group explains how he became interested in the money system due to having an uncle, Lord Harry Pilkington, who was the Bank of England governor from the 1950s until the 1970s. In 1972 his uncle explained to him as a teenager that the bankers control the press and politicians here in Britain, and went on to advise him to ignore anything coming from the politicians or the media as it was all controlled by the banks.
Justin Walker has spent the last twenty-five years researching globalisation and written an excellent short and free e-book which I can recommend as a quick and informative read: What Exactly Is Austerity? Answer, It’s Just A Huge, Provable Lie. As a researcher he relies on proven historical facts along with the common-sense approach of always following the money trail, asking ‘cui bono?’. By concentrating on who is behind the world’s money supply he was led to ‘rediscovering’ the very little known Bradbury Pound.
In his book, he provides a factual and evidence based exposure of the huge criminal fraud that is behind our money creation and supply:
“The banking and merchant elite, who set up the Bank of England in 1694 and who went on to extend and consolidate the power and influence of the Crown Corporation of the City of London, perfected the quite brilliant financial scam of ‘fractional reserve banking’ which ‘allows’ the banks and financial institutions to fraudulently create money completely out of thin air as debt from your deposits.
The leading banking dynasties, with their complicit and ‘paid for’ politicians, have globally used this financial debt-creating mechanism, along with their excessive use of usury, to put nations, communities and families into unsustainable levels of unlawful debt. And with severe debt, of course, comes ruthless, top-down Orwellian corporate control and, in many cases, blatant corporate theft However, just as a point of interest, if you go into your local bank and ask any of the front line staff there have they heard of fractional reserve banking, almost certainly you will get a negative response. it would appear you have to be quite senior in the pecking order before you are allowed to know the truth about how the private bankers actually create their vast profits completely out of thin air!”
The truth about this scam and the bankers’ unethical practices has now been exposed by whistle-blowers and insiders, including two former directors of the Bank of England.
What can be done?
This is a fight which is being fought from within Government and on the outside, but very big changes are required. If you look into Iceland’s recent political history you will see that they are ahead of us in arresting, convicting and incarcerating their criminal bankers.
Hopefully they will next spearhead the first independent sovereign national currency outside the fraudulent international fiat fractional reserve currency system.
In Britain, there is a campaign to reintroduce the Bradbury Pound and reveal the truth about our Constitutional Law.
By escaping the grip of the global financial currency scam and using the power of law within our brilliant Constitution, we can start to bring those who are guilty to justice and protect the future for our children.
Changing small parts of the system will not achieve anything. The whole system of Government as we know it at the moment needs to be reformed to come back into alignment with our Constitution.
You have every right to dismiss this information and all the supporting evidence in a state of cognitive dissonance. As a maxim of law states ‘Let he who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.” We can choose to see the deception and stop falling for it or go along with it like fools and let our kids deal with the consequences.
If you have a group of friends and family who are also aware and informed, get your facts straight and make an appointment to see your MP as a small group to discuss some other local concerns. This is far more effective than emailing or writing. When you get to the appointment, take evidence and interview him/her about our Constitution and the invocation of Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta. If the MP is ignorant to this provide him/her with information and request a follow-up appointment. Perhaps serve a notice upon the MP stating that you require him to uphold his duty of office. If the MP is non-cooperative, ask him if he understands the offence of ‘misprision of treason’.
Inform as many people as you can. Pass this information on. Preferably print this as it’s too easy to ignore electronic documents.
Hold members in public office to account. Demand to know what position your local politicians, councilors, mayor, senior Police Officer and the PCC are holding in relation to the lawful invocation of the Article 61 security clause. Inform your bobby, firefighters, clergy, union representatives, local newspaper and other key people of this information. Don’t let them fob you off and dismiss it as irrelevant or invalid. The terms of Article 61 will remain in force until a lawful Constitutional Convention under the Barons Committee decides otherwise. (www.lawfulrebellion.info )
Anyone who has taken their Oath of Allegiance to Article 61 will lawfully possess immunity from any crown or parliamentary mandate or law, if committed with the express intention of distressing or distraining the Crown under A.61. This is called “Lawful Excuse.” However, individuals are not excused from common-law crimes and torts, except under duress of circumstance.
Once you become aware that Article 61 has been invoked and you understand its implications, it is your lawful duty to seek redress:
- Common Law absolutely must be observed – keep the peace, cause no harm to persons or property.
- Know the facts and inform, inform,
- Exercise your lawful right and obligation to withhold taxes to the best of their abilities.
- Organise local groups, leafleting, marches, sit-in protests in Crown and local authority buildings.
This movement is gathering numbers and momentum in the country and has rebutted Crown Prosecution Service court summonses, HMRC are being forced to ignore tax avoidance and even refund monies of subjects standing under A.61, warrants of arrest are impotent and will continue to be so until redress of grievance is achieved.
There are good people on the ‘inside’ of the system working on behalf of the people. When enough people in society are behind them, we will start to see change and take our right to self-governance back.
Magna Carta 1215 Article 61
 Since, moreover, for God and the betterment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the discord that has arisen between us and our barons we have granted all these things aforesaid, wishing them to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we give and grant them the under-written security, namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe, hold and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in any way against anyone or transgress any of the articles of the peace or the security and the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us, or to our justiciar if we are out of the kingdom, and, laying the transgression before us, shall petition us to have that transgression corrected without delay. And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days, reckoning from the time it was brought to our notice or to that of our justiciar if we were out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons together with the community of the whole land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely, by seizing castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can, saving our person and the persons of our queen and our children, until, in their opinion, amends have been made; and when amends have been made, they shall obey us as they did before. And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress us as much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling of themselves and of their own accord to take an oath to the twenty-five barons to help them to distrain and distress us, we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command. And if any of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country or is in any other way prevented from carrying out the things aforesaid, the rest of the aforesaid twenty-five barons shall choose as they think fit another one in his place, and he shall take the oath like the rest. In all matters the execution of which is committed to these twenty-five barons, if it should happen that these twenty-five are present yet disagree among themselves about anything, or if some of those summoned will not or cannot be present, that shall be held as fixed and established which the majority of those present ordained or commanded, exactly as if all the twenty-five had consented to it; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the things aforesaid and will do all they can to get them observed. And we will procure nothing from anyone, either personally or through anyone else, whereby any of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing is procured, let it be void and null, and we will never use it either personally or through another.
For those of you who are intrigued by Article 61, you might care to look at some of the other Articles. For those experiencing trouble with the police for example – take a look at No.45:
 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.
On the question of unlawful detention, arrest or other rights, we are entitled to a trial by jury BEFORE any action is taken against us:
 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
If a judge refuses to “permit” a jury trial:  To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
THE PETITION FROM THE BARONS AND LETTERS FROM BOTH PARTIES IN FULL
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 in 1707;
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 June 1953.
We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.
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 and 31 – 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 a 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 spelled 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.”
Letter Accompanying The Petition To The Queen Secretary
Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen Buckingham Palace
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 have 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 splendor, 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 prerogative 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:
- That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)
- 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.
- 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
“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.”
Did the Queen even see the petition? There is no proof either way.
Some useful definitions:
Treason – To hand over the sovereignty, the decision-making ability of the nation to a foreign entity, without first being beaten in open battle or by the expressed consent of the people.
Sedition – To publicly write or speak with the intention of inciting the destruction of the constitution.
Misprision – Misprision (of treason) is to know of an act of treason being planned or committed within or without the realm, and not to report the crime to a justice of the peace. Then you are also guilty of the crime, or an accessory to it.
Lord Craigmyle is one lord that accepts oaths of lawful rebellion. Address: Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire, PH41 4PL