Imperial Party forum Forum Index Imperial Party forum
Looking from a great past towards a great future!
www.imperialparty.co.uk
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

WE ARE IN OPEN REBELLION AGAINST THE CROWN SINCE 24/3/2003

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Imperial Party forum Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
thomas davison
Party Leader


Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 3204
Location: northumberland

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:28 pm    Post subject: WE ARE IN OPEN REBELLION AGAINST THE CROWN SINCE 24/3/2003 Reply with quote

About Lawfulrebellion.org

Lawfulrebellion.org seeks to supply Audio Interviews, Articles and Videos from the People who are discovering the truth of our reality. We know there is more than the drip fed lie coming through most media; how our Leaders are truly our Leaders and decide what is best. Those are merely captains busy re-arranging the furniture on the Titanic and insisting that, as long as the string quartet is still playing, we should just enjoy the buffett or be classed an extremist.

We have the opportunity, as we have always had, to live in peace and abundance by the virtues of our own nature to nurture. If we are able to live in spiritual and physical balance then we shall surely be a responsible species regardless of our [LAW] Sociteties’ rules. Man is not a war-monger; Tyrants are War-mongers, and too long their rule has been.

Our truest tyrants are ultimately seeking spiritual conquest of man which can only be done by our acceptance and consent to their Rule. A benign order does not require artificial controls, yet we are constrained at all turns.
Worship your opressors - UK Gov & Youtube censors Lawful Rebellion

Worship your opressors – UK Gov & Youtube censors Lawful Rebellion

A slave is only a slave for as long as he or she decides – not knowing that you are a slave is a choice that must be made regardless of it being a conscious choice or not. This is the only way to enslave another living creature.

What may be coined as the New World Order is the continued proliferation of Privately, not ‘Publicly’ controlled Democratic order which is really thinly veiled Fascism. If the collective will is not free to reject and expose the fraud of democracy then then our minds must surely be captured wether we can see our captors or not.

It would appear that The United Kingdom Citizenship has many hands us steering us away from freedom island, and so many more will be needed to help show them they are going the wrong way. We have been sold many deceptions about how establishment, history, law and money that once the truth is fully exposed and the fraud is revealed, every man woman and child can consciously and lovingly choose to change it – and the change will be the right one because it will be heartfelt. Not change out of fear, but of love – for all those around us – all of man.

If actions in the spirit of Lawful Rebellion could ever be guided then I would use these words merely to warn of one thing:

What you resist, persists
What you fight against you will become.
You cannot solve a problem with the same level of consicousness that created it.

If you perceive you have an enemy then your energy pours into fighting it. It is far more powerful to deprive it of your agreement, attention and energy. Your energy is better used to create what you want to see and not spent fighting what you don’t want to see!

When enough of us know to do this the system changes as we create without constraint on our freedom.

The days of control are ending as they have done before. the choices we make must be in the interests of each other. We are all sovereign, we are free to do as we please, we must not harm others or damage their property. We choose to live well naturally when we are not forcefully controlled into a decaying system.


Lawful Rebellion and the practical application of the law. (Layman’s guide By David Robinson)

THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES

Lawful rebellion and the practical application of the law (Plus three complete examples of successful processes used, most of the replies and all of the notices we served).

“A nation can survive its fools, and evepioon the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero

This publication has been written in layman’s terms as much as possible to provide the reader with the necessary tools to stand up against an incredibly corrupt system of administration in Britain and the commonwealth today, peacefully and whilst standing entirely under the protection of the law using nothing but legal evidenced facts.
Please understand that the common law judicial system in Britain and the commonwealth has been systematically dismantled since at least 1848 when the grand juries were removed from service. The grand jury process is a fundamental part of the law of the land and should never have been allowed to be replaced by the corporate magistrate courts that we have today, especially without the consent of the people. More on this later.
To change ANY constitutional safeguard without first obtaining the consent of the people is treason. High treason is to hand over the authority and decision making processes which governs the people to any foreign entity, without first being beaten in open battle.
What most people consider to be law these days is not law at all. The ‘banksters’ have sought to take control over governments for many generations now, and have largely succeeded in doing so on a global scale by controlling the flow of information, education, wealth, and by manipulating common concepts. Amchel Rothschild quote, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws,”.
Illegal wars have been created by false flag terrorism events that are destroying other sovereign nations on earth, its a war on sovereignty as there is no place for sovereignty within the “Big Society” Camoron mentioned (NWO). millions of civilians have been culled in the middle east by our so called leaders, done in our names under the guise of a war on terrorism, but many lives are also being destroyed at home more covertly, although it is being done in plain sight if we care to look at all the evidence. I don’t intend to go into all of the problems here.



ALL true law in Britain and the commonwealth is protected by the constitution which was created by the peoples uprisings against tyranny in the past. The law also complies with the 10 commandments in the Christian faith which is at the heart of British law. The constitution is consented too by the good people because it is natural law, it guarantees justice for all and is very simple to understand. It protects the innocent and vulnerable and is simply common sense. The sovereign peoples of Britain and the commonwealth consent to be ‘governed’ by the common laws of the realm because they are just, not ‘ruled’ by corporate policies that do not comply with the constitution and are unjust, which is what we have going on today.
It is not denied by those pretending to be in service to the people that we are policed by consent in Britain. This simply means as said, we consent to be governed by a fair and just system of service as subjects of a constitutional monarchy under the common laws and customs of the realm. The monarchy today is anything but constitutional therefore we all have a duty under the law (Article 61 MC 1215) to reject the crown until the constitution is once again properly observed. We have a duty to ourselves, ancestors and to those yet unborn to safeguard the laws that protect us all equally against injustices.

My name is David Robinson and I have been standing in open rebellion against the crown (as demanded by law) since March 2010. I have enjoyed a 100% success rate with every process that I have completed by using Article 61 of the Magna Carta against all demands made upon me (and upon others) by the present illegal administration. I have acted successfully with power of attorney for two other people as well as protecting myself from aiding and abetting a rogue government.

I began my individual legal/lawful stance against the corrupted system in 2010 by conditionally accepting an £80 fine that I had received from DVLA for not displaying a tax disc. After completing a simple process of putting all concerned on Notice (i.e., police, courts, DVLA etc) that I was standing in lawful rebellion, and that I had lawful excuse not to consent to their illegal demands for tax, summonses, fines etc, and that it would be a criminal offence for me to do so, I achieved a stalemate situation whereby nobody would act against me because if they did they would be acting against the British constitution in full knowledge of the facts, therefore evidently aiding and abetting high treason at common law, a very serious crime indeed.

The death penalty still exists in Britain for high treason never mind what the so called government may say. ‘They’ claim that the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act was repealed in 1998 when the Right Dishonourable Tony Blair introduced the Crime and Disorder Act, in chapter 36 he attempted to repeal the 1795 Act and the death penalty for high treason but Blair had no lawful authority to do so, and he committed treason in his attempt. He committed three counts of high treason in all (among other very serious crimes). He would be in prison today if only the people would stand united under the common law in lawful rebellion as the law demands.

The remedy to this mess relies on the people uniting and rejecting their demands, whilst at the same time demanding that the police act according to the evidenced facts and assist the people in this monumental struggle, all it takes is numbers. Your country needs YOU!! The corporations (led by the Bankster’s) have taken over the governments of Britain and the commonwealth alike. All elections for the past few decades have been rigged, allowing the corporate elite criminals to rule by deception and coercion. This can only continue if the people are kept in the dark or decide to do nothing once they have been informed of the facts. Personally, I will never aid and abet such a disgusting regime as that would make me equally guilty for their acts of terrorism, paedophilia, genocide and many other very serious crimes, which are all well evidenced. I don’t intend to go into all of the problems within this publication but you already know things aren’t right. Its time to focus on the remedy whilst we still can.

I first entered into lawful rebellion in March 2010 by serving two affidavits on the crown (Buckingham palace) with the first affidavit demanding that the Nice treaty (France) be repealed and parliament be prorogued (ended its term and calling for a general election). I provided them with 40 days (as is required by constitutional law – Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215) to remedy their unconstitutional behaviour. After 40 days had elapsed with no response I denounced my presumed allegiance to the crown within the second affidavit. From there on in my lawful duty is to distress the crown and reject its alleged authority until redress has been achieved.
I didn’t need to individually petition the crown however because previously in 1999 a committee of 68 barons had convened to discuss whether or not it was unconstitutional to enter into the EU’s treaty of Nice (France). The evidence proved that it was an act of high treason to enter into such an agreement so they dutifully (according to the correct protocols of British constitutional law) petitioned the crown, demanding that she (QE2) not ratify the Nice treaty. After their petition was only vaguely replied to and the treaty of Nice was passed into law anyway, the barons committee invoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta on the 23rd day of March 2001. It has not since been revoked publicly by the barons which means that Britain and the entire commonwealth is in a state of open rebellion i.e., the law demands that ALL British and Commonwealth subjects rebel against the crown in order to protect the British constitution, whilst doing so we are protecting our god given rights and freedoms that the constitution defends (our individual and collective sovereignty).


By courageously invoking Article 61 the committee of the barons provided us all with a peaceful remedy against the systematic deconstruction of our ancient laws and customs by imposters within Westminster. Britain (constitutionally) has a very good system of justice but it has been denied us for generations, and most people think that the corporate rules being used today are laws! Any rule that does not comply with the British constitution is NOT a law. Rules require your consent (tacit or otherwise) and the law of course demands that nobody consent to treasonous rules. The common law has our consent because it is fair to all.

Britain has ‘National Sovereignty’ within a common law jurisdiction. If this is not the case today then treason MUST have been committed. Indeed treason has been committed many times and is still being committed to this very day.
National Sovereignty means that we are all literally kings and queens in our own land, it has to be that way if real equality under the law is to exist. ONLY those who are working within the system as public servants are at that time, not sovereign beings because they are in service to the sovereign (people) until they clock off from work, and once they have, they automatically revert back to their natural sovereign state of being.
To cut a long story short I ended up conditionally accepting demands to attend their court summonses (for alleged driving offences), not paying any fines that were imposed on me in my absence and refusing to consent to an arrest warrant issued by the so called court. I have never paid a penny of said fines, never been to court and the police wouldn’t arrest me when I walked into Bath city police station (in 2012) to report the crimes being committed against me by various public servants, including a police chief inspector for roads traffic policing, a court manager, legal advisor, the attorney general at the time (Dominic Grieve) and, an agent of the DVLA.
Five years on (2 years doing the process) and still nobody has acted against me for the unpaid £700.00 fine or my none appearance in their corrupt courts, yet I am also ignored as I demand a trial by jury on the matter(s) of treason, coercion, torts against me etc in a properly convened court of law (court de jure – court with jury), because it is unlawful for me (or anyone else) to consent to their de facto courts, which are nothing more than private corporate entities trading for profit by deception, whilst using treasonous rules against us. There are NO courts of law in Britain because they all gain their authority from the deposed crown.
I later went on to help others stand against the system when I moved to Glastonbury because nobody in the judiciary, police or government would communicate with me, so I went to the people. I later acted with power of attorney for a couple of people to further prove article 61’s validity and won every battle that we entered into.
None of these battles went to a hearing in front of a jury as we demanded of course, the demands against my clients just fizzled out, summonses were not acted upon by the police, warrant officers or process servers and bailiffs did not act upon their threats either. We even stopped a 7 day committal order to prison for contempt of court issued by a so called district judge process included). Two years on and my client has never been dragged into their corporate courts, nor has she served any time in prison or police stations, no fines have ever been paid by her nor has she complied with charges for water and sewage either (which is what the matter was all about).
We also had HMRC refund £1700.00 to another client whom had previously paid fines for not filling in tax returns for a few years. The fines kept on coming even though she had paid some of them under duress because of the threats she had received, so we decided to put the agents of HMRC on Notice of the fact that the crown has no authority to make such demands.

After HMRC agents realized that they had opened the flood gates by eventually zeroing her account and refunding what she had already paid, they sent a debt collection agency after her, I believe as a damage limitation exercise. The debt collection agency were put on Notice and they handed the matter back to HMRC who again zeroed her account. The ONLY argument we used was that they have no authority to make any demands since article 61 came into effect…..another rebel brother whom has had a similar result against HMRC is now attempting to claim back all the tax he has paid since the 23rd March 2001 when article 61 was invoked….there is no reason why he shouldn’t succeed but we will see.

I began my rebellious career by claiming to be a ‘freeman’ within my documents, I was a free man as I wasn’t in prison and have never been. I stood stubborn on the first point and did not go too deeply into their rules until jurisdiction was proven and it never was of course. The freeman on the land movement is a very different movement than the lawful rebellion one. A ‘free man’ (to my understanding) means someone not already incarcerated and therefore not restricted. Sadly the freeman movement misdirects good people into using their rules against them. I soon realised that by using their rules and attempting to remedy any lawful/legal matter within their courts was double think, illegal, and would never remedy the fact that treason is being committed. Instead I decided to only use the laws (not rules) of the land (British Constitution) to challenge the system and by doing so, defend myself and others against their corruption.
To deny/denounce the British constitution publicly is sedition which is another very serious crime and is why they ignore our Notices. By ignoring us they tacitly agree to the contents of our notices by acquiescence under the law. The same applies if we ignore their notices which is why we don’t.
All demands on you are unenforceable if you use this remedy correctly but that wont stop them trying to scare you into consenting. Courts are not courts of law and they all know it. Police constables are nothing more than corporate policy enforcers today, most police men and women don’t even know what real law is or where it comes from because they have never been educated with regard to the British constitution.

THE BASIC PROCESS WITH EXAMPLES OF NOTICES:

Step 1. Create an Oath of allegiance to the committee of the barons or declare your standing under article 61 within a ‘Notice’ served on a Police chief inspector (or above the rank of) or an alleged judge, magistrate or any other agent of the crown that has an oath of office.
The Oath of allegiance can either be sent by recorded post to one of the accepting barons or simply kept as a document proving your intent. It needs to be signed and dated by yourself and three signatory witnesses to make it a legal instrument, which can then be used as evidence of your lawful standing (intent) within any process you may undertake. If your oath is returned or gets lost (if you post it to a baron) it doesn’t matter, the fact that you posted it proves intent and intent is very important in law. You are no longer an outlaw once you join the rebellion.
Example of an oath of allegiance to the Barons.
To: Lord Craigmyle (for example).
Scottas House,
Knoydart,
Invernesshire
PH41 4PL
From: Joe Public.
Glastonbury
Somerset
BA6
Sent by recorded post.
Date:
Dear Lord, Craigmyle,
In full knowledge of treason being committed in Parliament, by delivering the Sovereign Peoples of this Common law land into the hands of foreign powers, in understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the office of Sovereign, from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons’ committee whom invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 as long as they act strictly according to the constitution at all times, and in accordance with the protocols set out within article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 until such times as redress of these present wrongs is achieved.
Sworn and subscribed on: (Date)
Signed.
3 Signatory witnesses (anyone on or over the age of 21 can witness your oath, they do not need to be professional people and nobody is going to question the validity of your witnesses anyway).
Note…you can word your Oath as you wish as long as you follow the basic structure of its intent and purpose. The same applies with all Notices, Affidavits etc.

List of Accepting Barons
Lord Craigmyle [Definitely Accepting]
Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire PH41 4PL
Lord Strathcarron
3 Elizabeth Court, Milmans Street, London SW10 0DA
Otterwood, Beaulieu, Hampshire SO42 7YS
Marquis of Aberdeen
House of Formantine, Methlick, Ellon, Aberdeenshire AB41 7EQ
Earl of Cromer
6 Sloane Terrace Mansions, London SW1X 9DG
Earl of Devon,
Powderham Castle, Exeter, Devon EX6 8JQ
Lord Dormer
Yew Tree Cottage, Dittisham, Devon TQ6 0EX
Viscount Exmouth,
The Coach House, Canonteign Falls, nr. Exeter, Devon EX6 7NT
Lord Newall
18 Lennox Gardens, London SW1X 0DG
Wotton Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 0RZ
Lord Milne,
188 Broom Road, Teddington, Middlesex
Lord Oaksey
Hill Farm, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9HS
Earl Cathcart,
Gateley Hall, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5EF
18 Smith Terrace, London SW3 4DL
Lord Ailsa,
Cassillis House, Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7JN
Lord Napier of Magdala
The Coach House, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1HU
Lord Sudeley (Merlin Charles Sainthill, interesting name)
25 Melcombe Court, Dorset Square, London NW1 6EP
——————————————————————————————
2. Send a ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ to any individual acting as an agent for the crown with regard to any demands that you may receive. You are not saying that you wont comply with their demand(s) you are instead stating that you will comply with all of their demands as long as it is legal for you to do so since article 61 was invoked.
Example of a successful notice of conditional acceptance used.
To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).
HMRC
DMB 380
BX5 5AB
From: Joe public
xxxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx ,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6 xxx
Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx
Date Notice served:
Sent by recorded post.
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.
Dear Mrs C Graham,
I am writing to you after I received a demand for a payment of £1,200.00 for ‘Overdue Tax, Tax Return & Penalties’ dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Please be aware that this is a Notice, a lawful instrument that requires your urgent attention. This ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ may be used as evidence in my defence.
Whereas I, Joe public, stand entirely under the tenets of constitutional law in lawful rebellion as to my duty under the law and, that it is to my understanding entirely unlawful to pay any monies to HMRC at this time and since the 23rd March 2001 and, that I have withdrawn ANY/ALL presumed allegiance to the office of Sovereign (including HMRC) due to my individual duties under the law (see exhibit ‘D’, Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons), those duties being stated within Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (see exhibit ‘C’, Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 text), invoked by royal command according to the correct protocols of British constitutional law on the 23rd day of March in the year of our Lord 2001 (See exhibit ‘B’, Letters between the barons’ committee and the office of sovereign), therefore it is to my understanding that the law forbids me to comply with your demands for monies.
Whereas it cannot be denied that the invocation of this most important constitutional tenet did occur on the aforesaid date and, that it stands as the CURRENT LAW of the realm, please provide me evidence in substance to counter this claim within 7 (Seven) days from your receipt of this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ and I shall promptly comply with your demand for payment.
I do not wish to break the law Mrs Graham, if I am coerced/forced under threat into breaking the law by you, then you shall be solely liable for the consequences.
Maxim in law: ‘Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus’ – “Any act done by me against my will is not my act”.
The Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 on the 24th March 2001. An article by Caroline Davis (see exhibit ‘A’) which can also be viewed online under the title ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’.
Magna Carta Society wrote: “The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September (2009) that Magna Carta, sealed 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.”
Therefore I, Joe Public does conditionally accept that HMRC has the lawful authority to make demands on me for tax or fines, on proof that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today and, that the ratification of the treaty of Nice has been revoked and, that the crown does indeed, according to British Constitution law, have the legal/lawful authority to make and enforce such demands.
Whilst the law provides me with ‘lawful excuse’ to distress the crown and its institutions at this time, it is to my understanding that I CANNOT BY LAW consent to the fine demanded by you Mrs C Graham as an officer for HMRC. British constitutional law forbids me to aid and abet the crown until Article 61 has been publicly revoked by the barons’ committee. It also forbids me to aid and abet any other man or woman who is not also standing in open rebellion in compliance with the law under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215. I must (by law) also compel you Mrs C Graham to abide by the constitutional law yourself, and to stand with us in lawful rebellion as the law demands.
Failure to respond to this ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’ within the reasonable time frame allotted, or without providing evidence in substance that clearly defines that article 61 is no longer in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including interested third party interlopers) that HMRC has NO lawful claim against I, Joe Public and, that any further attempt to extract monies or goods from me over this matter would be harassment, which may invoke a counter claim for damages against HMRC and you personally Mrs C Graham.
Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.
We are ALL responsible and culpable for our own actions or omissions under British Constitutional law. Please check the facts for yourself before replying. Ignorance is no defence in law.
Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to appear vexatious and, with all of my inalienable Constitutional rights reserved.
Signed: Joe Public.
Witnessed by:
Signature. Printed name: Date:
1.–—————————————– – –———————————–
2.——————————————- – –————————————
3.—————————————— – –————————————
Enclosed evidence.
Exhibit ‘A’ (Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of MC 1215 on the 24th March 2001).
Exhibit ‘B’ (communications between the Committee of the Baron and Sir Robin Janvrin, Queens private secretary)
Exhibit ‘C’ (Article 61 of MC 1215 text)
Exhibit ‘D’ (Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons).
EXHIBIT ‘A’.
Peers Petition Queen on Europe. Daily Telegraph.
By Caroline Davies
12:00 AM GMT 24 Mar 2001
FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.
The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter’s Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.
The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.
The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.
They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta’s provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.
EXHIBIT ‘B’.
The petition of the barons and letters from both parties in full.
The Petition.
A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61of 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, andiii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;
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.
(signed)
Notes:
The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straws aid as much on 1O ctober 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 [ie: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Articles 29 and31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).
Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.
Article 17 –establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: “The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed.” Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.
The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU “competence”, including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.
Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.
Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [ie: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta 1215, the Declaration of Rights, 1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.
Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee the country.
The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “ Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.” (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)
In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.
Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark the 300 th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was “still part of statute law…on which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.” The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details: “…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.”
Both Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between the sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.
List Of Signatories Peers signing the petition:
Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel), Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.
The petition was also signed by:
Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich,Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney,
Earl Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.
Letter To The Queens Private Secretary
Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
23 March 2001
“You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.
The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.
We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.
As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone,directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.
We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty’s ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.
Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty’s obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.
From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is 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.
Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogativa regis is merely declaratory of the common law…
The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.
For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance. Indeed,faced in due course with a Bill seek in gratification 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 any time 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 subject.
The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib.Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.
It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.
We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite? These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:
1.That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)
2.That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
4.That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is further protection of our common law rights.)
In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others– have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops..until redress has been obtained. We are and remain Her Majesty’s most loyal and obedient subjects.”
Signed:
Ashbourne, Rutland, Massereene & Ferrard, Hamilton of Dalzell
The Reply
“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.
The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”
EXHIBIT ‘C’.
Article 61 the whole translated text;
“61.Since, move-over, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.”
——————————————————————————————
3. Send a follow up ‘Notice of default and opportunity to cure’ once the time frame for you receiving a response to your first notice has expired or they have ignored your conditions (we normally give between 7-14 days for a response depending on the urgency of the matter). This second notice is providing them with another opportunity to respond to the first Notice of conditional acceptance if you have been ignored, or the question within the Notice has been ignored. You can offer more opportunities to ‘cure’ (make good) if you like? the law demands that we offer at least one opportunity to cure to remain in honour. It is important to remain in honour in law.
Example of a Notice of default and opportunity to cure:
From;
Joe public.
xxxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx ,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6 xxx
Date Notice served:
NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
Dear Mrs C Graham
I, Joe Public do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This is a lawful notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says. I do not stand under the Law Society’s ‘legalese’ and there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein. If you fail to comply with this Notice then you will be deemed to be in absolute agreement with the points raised. Do not ignore it.
A reply to this notice is REQUIRED and is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full name and on his or her full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Your response is required within TEN (10) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice; failure to comply will represent your tacit acquiescence with the FACTS of this Notice or that you are unable to provide lawful proof-of-claim.
You are hereby put on Notice of my standing and the lawful facts. Do not ignore this Notice unless you agree to acquiesce to the facts, thereby agreeing in full with the lawful points that I made in the previous Notice served on you dated: xxxxxxxxxxx and delivered by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery date xxxxxxxxxxx – tracking number xxxxxxxxxxxx and signed for by xxxxxxxxxxxx (basically just roughly copy the signature, if illegible provide a idiot/screenshot of it and add it to the evidence file).
If you fail to respond to the aforesaid Notice in ‘substance’ or within the reasonable time frame provided herein, without first legally rebutting the points raised within previous Notice(s) served, it shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that all points and concerns raised by me herein/therein are true and indisputable lawful fact and, that you agree to them entirely and without exception. It will also be taken to mean that any further action taken against myself as a living wo/man or legal fiction would be deemed by all interested parties to be harassment or coercion to commit crime under common law.
I, Joe Public over the age of twenty one years, competent to witness and with first hand knowledge of the facts do say the following, that:
STATEMENT OF TRUTH: I have asked you previously to provide the evidence to confirm or deny whether Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is still in effect at this time.
I am concerned that by complying with the demands of HMRC that I shall be in breach of the laws of this land since said Article came into effect and, that I would also be in breach of my sworn Oath of allegiance to the committee of the barons. I do not wish to break the law Mrs C Graham, please advise me in accordance with the truth in law so that I may do the correct thing according to law.
Being the second Notice to be served I use this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ as a reminder of the first preceding notice, which was either ignored or mislaid or not answered to correctly according to the points raised within it – in SUBSTANCE.
Allowing for a reasonable time frame for you to respond to this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ I provide a further TEN (10) days from your receipt of this document for you to reply in substance. I hereby offer you this further opportunity to rebut or confirm my understanding of the common law as referred to in my previous Notice(s) so that you may remain in honour and thus by doing so, enabling an opportunity to remedy this matter amicably to save any breach of the peace.
I hereby attest and affirm that all of the above is the truth and is my lawful understanding.
Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with my natural, indefeasible and unalienable rights reserved.
Sworn and subscribed on the date:
Signed:
Witnessed by:
1:_________________________
2:_________________________
3: ________________________
—————————————————————————————-
4. Send a ‘Notice of Default’ to put an end to the matter. By ignoring you they will have tacitly agreed to all the points you made within your Notices, they are in dishonour and cannot legally pursue you further. ALL public servants have a ‘duty of care’ to respond to any concerns of the public.
Example of a Notice of Default:
To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).
HMRC
DMB 380
BX5 5AB
From: Joe Public.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxxx,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6
Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx
Date Notice served:
Sent by recorded post.
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.
Dear Mrs C Graham,
You have failed to respond to the two (2) previous Notices that I served on you, which is now taken to mean that you and all interested parties agree entirely with the points of law that I previously stated and, that HMRC has no claim against I, Joe Public since you have provided your tacit consent to said Notices.
I provide you with a further seven (7) days from receiving this ‘Notice of Default’ to respond to the Notice of Conditional acceptance in substance and in full.
You are in dishonour at this time as you have a duty of care to respond to the very serious constitutional points that I refer to within said Notices. Any further action taken by HMRC against I, Joe Public, whilst my lawful claims remain un-rebutted without substance providing evidence to the contrary of said claims, shall be agreed to be harassment by all interested parties and a counter claim may ensue against you personally Mrs C Graham. Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury and within reasonable time.
Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to be vexatious and, with all my inalienable constitutional rights reserved. On my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.
Signed: Joe Public.
Witnessed by:
Signature. Printed name: Date:
1.–—————————————– – –———————————–
2.——————————————- – –————————————
3.—————————————— – –————————————
——————————————————————————————
5. If the demands continue however (they are sometimes automated) we serve a Notice of Misprision of Treason on the individual(s). This Notice contains evidence that treason is being committed and, that the agent is aiding and abetting a criminal administration. Everybody has a duty under British constitutional law to stand in defence of the constitution under article 61 when it is in effect, and we also have a duty to compel others to stand with us. The bottom line is that by taking this stance we are only acting according to the laws of the land. Nothing more.
Example of a Notice of Misprision of Treason:
To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).
HMRC
DMB 380
BX5 5AB
From: Joe Public.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxxx,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6
Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx
Date Notice served:
Sent by recorded post.
NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OF MISPRISION OF TREASON Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.
Dear Mrs C Graham
Please read the following ‘notice’ thoroughly and carefully. It is a NOTICE, a LAWFUL DOCUMENT and EVIDENCE. It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION.
Please be aware that failure to act on this LAWFUL NOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act, which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/any British sovereign man/woman within or without the realm of the English Isles and Commonwealth and, is an OFFENCE under the ‘misprision of treason Act 1795,’ SECTION 1 (Misprision of treason).
Whereby;…it is an offence at common law for any person(s) who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace.
Also please be aware that the penalty for committing ‘misprision of treason’ in this day is life imprisonment and total asset stripping, and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not malice, menace, frivolity, vexation nor ill will.
Whereas you persist to harass I, Joe Public despite being notified of the facts and that you have made UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself/legal fiction, and that you are continuing to coerce me to comply with unlawful statutes by threat of enforcement and, that you are acting for a ‘corporation’ whom has at this time no lawful claim against I Joe Public, a sovereign man standing in lawful rebellion and, that the crown is committing high treason against the sovereign peoples of the British Isles and Commonwealth at this time therefore I cannot lawfully nor morally support financially, or in any other way, a treasonous administration of governance or any private entity not also standing under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DO SO ! Therefore…
It is to my understanding that you must now by the common laws of this realm and, with the evidence herein/therein supplied, STOP all actions against I, Joe Public. I have lawful excuse to deny payment to HMRC or to deal with anyone/entity not also standing under said article 61.
In light of the evidence reported to you personally Mrs C Graham herein this notice, this evidence by LAW must now be reported by YOU to the police for you to stay within the bounds of constitutional law, failure to do so would contravene the 1795 Treason Act section 1 and would therefore be an act of ‘misprision of treason at common law’. I will be forced by law to report any further unlawful demands from you to the police.
THEREFORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that:
1.) A long range deception to overthrow the sovereignty of the British Isles, by controlling its currency and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalized by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion.
Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled ‘Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’ (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as ‘European Economic Community’. The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.
2.) Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.
3.) The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-Frenchpro-federal European lobbying body posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. The documentation evidencing these events are present on the discs FCO 10 30/48.
4.) The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.
5.) The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
6.) Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970-72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents ha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Imperial Party forum Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com


For Support - http://forums.BizHat.com

Free Web Hosting | Free Forum Hosting | FlashWebHost.com | Image Hosting | Photo Gallery | FreeMarriage.com

Powered by PhpBBweb.com, setup your forum now!