Anda di halaman 1dari 93

LAWFUL REBELLION

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


uphold the law

Compiled by; a lawful rebel.

Our coat of arms contains;


the red border signifying the Royal Command;
the green cross symbolizing true, peaceful Christianity;
the tablets of the Ten Commandments, representing Gods law;
the crown of a sovereign to uphold the law;
the symbol of the hand of living men, pledging allegiance to the barons'
committee as commanded in Article 61;
the Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta, bearing the Royal seal;
the multi-ethnic handshake showing that the Royal Command is to "all
those of our land", and that race makes no difference.

There was a fish that went to a Queen fish and asked;


"What is the sea?"
The Queen fish said:
"You live in the sea, you eat in the sea, you breathe in the sea, you
have your being in the sea, you were born in the sea and you're
going to die in the sea. The sea surrounds you as inseparable from
your own being."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/
Links to this book
Word format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/1561647267442824/LAWFUL%20REBELLION%20GUID
E%20V6.0.doc
Text format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/593959377406866/Lawful%20rebellion%20guide%20v6.0.t
xt
Blog post (Always the latest version);
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-guide.html
Printable shield designs here:
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-printables.html
6th posting; 07/04/15.
Added sections; 22, 23, 24.

PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.


IF PRINTING FOR HANDOUT, JUST PRINT THE NECESSARY SECTIONS
(INTRODUCTION, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 21), or the ones you feel relevant.
DON'T FORGET TO LEAVE THE GROUP LINK IN
https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/
*There may be repetition of text found elsewhere in section 13, as it has been left complete so it may
be printed out on its own and complete.

Contents
DUE PROCESS OF LAW - an opening message
1. INTRODUCTION
2. WHAT IS OUR LAW?
2(a) what about atheists?
2(b) what about other religions?
3. WHY LAWFUL REBELLION?
4. THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND in
September 1993
5. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT BY THE MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY, WHICH PRECEDED THE
2001 BARONS' PETITION
6. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INVOKATION OF ARTICLE 61
7. THE PETITION FROM THE BARONS AND LETTERS FROM BOTH PARTIES IN FULL
8. WHO SIGNED THE PETITION?
9. INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER INTO LAWFUL REBELLION
10 ADDRESSES OF BARONS TO SEND OATHS TO
11 INVINCIBLE NOTICE TO REMOVE ANY AUTHORITY FROM POLICE, BAILIFFS OR ANY
OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR CROWN INSTITUTION
12 LAWFUL REBELLION NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR COURT DECISIONS
13 DANIELLE DELIONESS LR PROCESS AGAINST C COURT AND WESSEX WATER.
14 MAGNA CARTA 1215 ARTICLE 61
15 MAGNA CARTA 1215 FULL TEXT
16 THE CHARTER BREAKER'S CURSE
17 MAGNA CARTA QUOTES
18 LAWFUL REBELLION FACTS
(AS USED IN AFFIDAVITS)
19 ARTICLE 52 OF MAGNA CARTA 1215
20 CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS TO PARLIAMENT'S POWER
21 IS ARTICLE 61 OF THE MAGNA CARTA 1215 VALID TODAY?
22 A TREASON, WITHOUT PRECEDENT
23 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW BEFORE MAGNA CARTA
24 WHAT TO SAY IF DRAGGED INTO COURT

DUE PROCESS OF LAW


-An opening message from Danielle DeLioness Davidson, someone who has been through the fire.
Due process of law here;
https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/
Article 61; Magna Carta. This ancient law was invoked by constitutional protocols on the 23rd March
2001; it is now the supreme law of this land. Not to be underestimated, it gave the power of our
common laws back to us, and means the crown has no authority over anyone standing under article 61.
Its the origination of all our law and in reality cannot be repealed as it predates parliament.
The fact is that our government have been committing treason most importantly, drawing us into the
EU without our consent, this they knew about. It has been eroding our rights and laws ever since.
Since Article 61 was invoked its unlawful to vote and unconstitutional to vote. Its been
unconstitutional to vote since 2001 as that was when Article 61 was invoked according to constitutional
protocols; however Government has been committing treason since 1911, first with the Parliament Act
which unconstitutionally took away the need for the Royal Assent. Royal Assent given to any act of
parliament meant it was in keeping with the constitution that is meant to protect our rights and
freedoms in this country and the commonwealth. Without apparently needing Royal Assent meant the
government could make up any random unlawful statute it thought it liked. The fact that this has been
going on makes all those politicians working unconstitutionally and against the law of this land.
I have used article 61 to rebut a warrant from the county court (over contempt of court), in process of
my council tax, and we successfully seized our town hall. Article 61 works as it is the law. This may
sound confusing to some but its very simple, this is the lawful rebellion. If you are interested in the
lawful remedy (really its your lawful duty to do so) please see this group and its files.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/
We need to have a peaceful lawful rebellion to restore the rule of law; there is no other way to get
justice, without the treason issue being remedied. Whilst we still have criminal courts in place we will
never see justice. Article 61 gives us lawful excuse to rebel.
There is a process and method which is honorable, lawful and peaceful which involves informing
others of the truth and evidential facts, as well as dissent. People who join the group above can find out
more there, there are many discussions but it is fairly simple and can be used with effect immediately
for personal circumstances involving corporate bullies and institutions gone outlaws, which will in turn
affect the whole as is its intent, written in law.
...., friend, if you are asking for a constitutional reform, you must defend the realm, by standing under
Article 61. As that is the lawful duty of every man woman within or without the realm. This is the letter
of the law; you wont get a reform unless you follow it by the letter. Lucky for us Article 61 was
invoked making it the supreme law of this land. Have you read what article 61 demands? Use the
rebellion to create the revolution, as you've said before the answer is to not comply, well, thats what
the law tells us to do as well in the form of the rebellion.
Our ancestors did not fight their way to freedom and use their wisdom and intelligence for their
descendants to be treated like this. It is royally wrong, and we will bring these criminals to trial in
properly convened courts de jure, together we can make sure this happens.
But you have to use the remedy they left us for institutionalized treason, to restore the rule of law, and
to compile evidence against them and also to educate them, and also its your defense, (as youre doing
what the law demands).
We are letting parliamentarians bomb people, cover up for pedophiles, turf people out of their houses,
nick homeless peoples food, and they are meant to be our representatives and public servants, but they
are not.

Due process of law here

Kind Regards
Danielle

1. INTRODUCTION
Our law is lost!
Over centuries, our law has been abrogated by successive governments which have enforced
statute law and procedures that are not lawful. They have given the power of the creation of
money to private institutions thereby allowing the creation of debt for the benefit of those
institutions, and thereby reducing the people to being slaves of those institutions. Many
people are aware of this.
Unlawful statutes have been used to commit many injustices against people.
The management of the criminal takeover of our government has involved many despicable
practices, to bribe and to create blackmail levers on those involved.
Now even the power of law in the UK has been given to the EU, which is a foreign
corporation.
THIS IS NOT ALLOWED BY OUR LAW AND IS INVALID AND VOID FROM THE
BEGINNING.
The Monarch is our only protection from unlawful governance. The very contract which we
each have with the Monarch, which gives the Monarch authority, is that the Monarch will
uphold the law. This is why all legislation is supposed to be given Royal Assent before it
becomes law, so that the Monarch can, indeed MUST refuse to pass any legislation which is
not lawful;
Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their
prejudice. (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to
sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)
Nichols v Nichols 1576
Lawful rebellion is a process written into our law 800 years ago, which provides the only
remedy we have when the Monarch has broken the contract to uphold the law.
It is a process which must be formally invoked by a petition to the Monarch from the Barons'
committee, and this was done on 23rd March 2001. It allows us to seize castles, buildings and
lands in order to restore the law, but in order to do so lawfully we must have taken the
necessary step to place us under the protection of that law, which is to send an oath of
Allegiance to a member of the baron's committee. By doing that we remove our constitutional
allegiance and subjugation to the Monarch. This does not make us subjects of the barons; it
means that we swear to follow their direction in order to restore the law.
When there are enough people in lawful rebellion we can peacefully and lawfully seize the
buildings of power and restore the law.

2. WHAT IS OUR LAW?


In order to be beyond reproach our actions must be both lawful and constitutional. Therefore we cannot
just "make up" which law we claim to be bound by.
The law in England was written in the DOOM BOOK. All subsequent law must agree with this law,
which has been re-affirmed in documents such as the MAGNA CARTA. We call it the "common law",
but it must not be confused with;
1. The Commonwealth Laws Common Law being the Statutes passed by Westminster since Henry
3rd in 1224 right up to the present day have never honored the Golden Rule of Law that all are equal
under true law and none are above it; and
2. The very fact that there are dozens and dozens of different definitions for Common Law, with none
of them matching; the very fact that some claim it is the collected precedents of the courts, while others
refer to the body of statutes of their own country; while others again speak of Common Law in terms of
only the maxims embedded in both as if it is somehow equivalent to Natural Law means there is no
clarity even to what Common Law is meaning it cant possibly be Law, because any law that is unclear
cannot possibly be true law.
(More on this here: http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/06/there-is-nothing-lawful-about-common-law.html)
From Wikipedia:
The Doom Book, Code of Alfred or Legal Code of lfred the Great was the code of laws ("dooms",
laws or judgments) compiled by lfred the Great (c. 893 AD) from three prior Saxon codes, to which
he prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses and incorporated rules of life from the Mosaic Code and
the Christian code of ethics.
The title "Doom book" (originally "dom-boc" or "dom-boke") comes from dom (pronounced "dome")
which is the Anglo-Saxon word meaning "judgment" or "law" for instance, see lfred 's
admonishment: Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom
one doom to your friend; another to your foe! [1] The following reflects Mosaic Law: "You shall do no
injustice in judgment! You shall not be partial to the poor; nor defer to the great! But you are to judge
your neighbor fairly!" (Leviticus 19:15).
F. N. Lee extensively documents Alfred the Great's work of collecting the law codes from the three
Christian Saxon kingdoms and compiling them into his Doom Book. [2] Lee details how Alfred
incorporated the principles of the Mosaic Law into his Code. He then examines how this Code of
Alfred became the foundation for the Common Law. The three previous codes were those of
thelberht of Kent (c. 602 AD), Ine of Wessex (c. 694 AD) and Offa of Mercia (c. 786 AD).
In his extensive Prologue, Alfred summarized the Mosaic and Christian codes. Michael Treschow
reviewed how Alfred laid the foundation for the Spirit of Mercy in his code:[3] Treschow states that the
last section of the Prologue not only describes "a tradition of Christian law from which the law code
draws but also it grounds secular law upon Scripture, especially upon the principle of mercy".
References
1. Thorpe, Benjamin, ed. (1840). Ancient Laws and Institutes of England: Comprising Laws Enacted Under the Anglo-Saxon
Kings from thelbirht to Cnut, with an English Translation of the Saxon; the Laws Called Edward the Confessor's; the Laws of
William the Conqueror, and Those Ascribed to Henry the First; Also, Monumenta Ecclesiastica Anglicana, from the Seventh to
the Tenth Century; and the Anciety Latin Version of the Anglo-Saxon Laws 1. G.E. Eyre and A. Spottiswoode. p. 55. Retrieved
13 November 2014.
2. "Alfred the Great and our Common Law" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-11-19. [Dead link][Self-published source]
3. Michael Treschow, The Prologue to Alfreds Law Code: Instruction in the Spirit of Mercy, Florilegium 13, 1994 pp79-110.

2(a); what about atheists?


There must be a model for law.
If your model is based on the concept that there is no God, then there is no good or bad, right or wrong,
only matter in motion. Whatever is is. Defacto.
If your model is based on the concept of a Divine creator then each of us that lives has been given the
gift of life by God and that gift forms a contract.
Our life is given in trust from God and no man may intercede in that.
We have the duty to God to respect all others, as the life they hold in trust is Divine as is ours, and that
is why we have the "Golden rule", to treat others as we would have ourselves treated.
So no matter what your spiritual beliefs may be, to use the divine model as a basis for law is essential if
you are to avoid the rule of psychopaths, who will always be more cohesive, determined and actually
ruthless than normal people in their struggle to control absolutely everything. The only way that such
people have been able to operate is by abrogating God's law.
God's law must not be confused with so-called law from the Catholic Church, which is not an
instrument of God, and has been opposed to the God-given freedoms of man from the beginning. This
Vatican canon law, or Admiralty law which has been exercised throughout the world is not true law at
all, it is a system of rules for dead things. The ones who purport to control the dead things in their socalled "law courts" wear black robes. This distinction is important because A Papal Bull was issued
claiming to annul the Magna Carta and we must be clear that no Papal Bull has jurisdiction over our
land. This has been the very argument since the Magna Carta was written.
2(b) what about other religions?
The constitutional law of England has a long history and was based on Christian beliefs. Those beliefs
provided a sound code for people to live by, and it was only by abrogating that code that the ruling elite
have been able to treat us unjustly.
This is not a matter of what religion you believe, it is a matter of understanding that the Traditional law
of the land is based on Christian concepts (which were intended to find common ground amongst all
religions). When we were invaded, the foreign kings had to agree to accept our law, and so too anyone
who has ever come here to be a part of us is expected to follow our law. It has always been that way. If
you do not agree to this, you do not agree to law at all.

3. WHY LAWFUL REBELLION?


1. This is by ROYAL COMMAND from the Magna Carta 1215, Article 61.
"all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the
twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our
command, to swear as aforesaid.
2. The Article was properly invoked when the Barons presented a petition to the monarch in
accordance with Article 61, for the Treason of government to be addressed, as our land has been placed
under the rule of a foreign power by our government, and that petition was then replied to by the
monarch, who stated that the queen would not address the grievances, but instead take the Treasonous
advice of parliament.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html
3. This means that the power of Royal Assent has been lost. The Royal Assent exists so that the
monarch may ensure that only lawful acts are passed through parliament. Without Royal Assent our
law has no protection from abrogation by PSYCHOPATHS. Furthermore, the most important function
of the monarch is to protect the law.
*DO NOT PROGRESS UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND POINT (3)
(Royal Assent was actually unlawfully removed long ago; however it is only through the petition made
according to Article 61 that this has now been formally evidenced).
4. In the present situation, the law commands that we each remove our constitutional allegiance to the
monarch by swearing allegiance to the Barons' committee for the purpose of bringing about the
restoration of law. By so doing we remove ourselves from the authority of all Crown agencies. (The
law does not state that we must each swear an oath in front of a convened baron's committee. We can
swear our Oath, in front of witnesses and then send the witnessed oath to a member of the Barons'
committee, and that act HAS LAWFUL STANDING).
5. Being in LAWFUL REBELLION means that we must not cede authority to the TREASONOUS
GOVERNMENT in any way, whether by paying taxes, signing petitions, voting etc. ANYTHING
which cedes authority to agents of the Crown or its bodies including their unlawful courts
(administrative courts have no authority in any case, yet they claim it and so are therefore unlawful) is
now DISALLOWED BY LAW. (It is understood that in order to live, people are forced to cede
authority in some way, such as using their paper money, because one would die otherwise. These
things are all done under duress and therefore have NO STANDING IN LAW. In other words you have
lawful excuse).
WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND ALSO that even without the invocation of Article 61, the funding of
crime, terrorism and Treason are ALL ILLEGAL UNDER STATUTE LAW and therefore nobody
should be paying taxes or funding or otherwise supporting the government in any way, in any case.
DO NOT PROGRESS UNTIL YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD POINT (5).
6. THE BARONS HAVE RUN AWAY. They have not acted as commanded by Article 61, after their
petition to the Queen was dishonoured. As it is a LAWFUL ROYAL COMMAND which they have
ignored it is our duty to either compel them to obey or if that is impossible to somehow ensure that the
posts of the baron's committee are filled with people who will act under the law and obey the Royal
Command in Article 61.
7. The barons represent the people in their interface with the Crown. The authority of the barons comes
from the sovereignty of the people. Just as with the delinquent Monarch, when the barons abrogate
their duty they lose their authority automatically, and that sovereignty returns to us.

8. Point (7) creates a unique circumstance in a constitutional monarchy, where sovereignty is passed
through barons to the monarch, whereby the people find themselves holding their own sovereignty in
their hands. We are at this point all actually sovereign individuals.
9. Article 61 says we can seize the buildings of power, and in doing so we may eject the Traitorous
regime (or compel the monarch to).*(actual wording: "shall distress and harass us by all the ways in
which they are able [9]; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions [10], and by
any other means in their power").*
We just need the numbers, as all action must be peaceful and in accordance with the law. Our job now
is to draw all people to stand under Article 61. A copy of an oath which has been sent and proof of
posting proves that you are standing under Article 61 and places you under the full protection of the
Magna Carta 1215.
10. The EU troops or the UN "world army" will descend on us to impose global governance via the EU
if they get the excuse to intervene, and there will be slaughter and the loss of anything we ever cared
about just like you have seen recently in far too many places. The ONLY way to prevent this is to stick
to our World-known and respected CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and insist on restoring it. Any other
kind of action, including especially the street protests that enemy agents like Russell Brand will have
people doing will only give the enemy a chance to stage provocations and create an excuse to act. And
should we all behave anyway, beware, for the main modus operandi of our enemy is to stage faked
events and broadcast them as news to created a precedent.
We must peacefully occupy the buildings of power when we have enough people to do so, and we must
be prepared to be absolutely ruthless if we have to stop agitators amongst us from causing trouble. We
have to understand this. The agitators are the enemy and they must not be allowed. If you are not
certain about this beforehand, you will fail to act appropriately when necessary. However you prevent
agitators from creating violence, you can rest that you are doing so to prevent greater harm. Nobody
wishing our success will create violence in our lawful rebellion.
11. If everyone hides away and ignores the situation then provocations will be staged and we will get
the intervention forces anyway.

4. THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN


ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND in September 1993
The following are the charges which Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter laid before the
magistrates court in Hexham, Northumberland on 9th September 1993, under Misprision of
Treason.
The charge of misprision is applicable to those who know of acts of either treason or terrorism and
who, in the event that they did NOT report them to the proper authorities, would themselves be guilty
of those crimes.
All the informations laid before the magistrates were preceded by the following words:
It being an offence at Common Law (see Halsbury 4th edition vol 11 at 818) for a person who
knows that Treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he can to a
justice of the peace, we hereby lay the following information.
Case 1:
Whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the treason Act 1795 within the realm or withoutto
deviseconstraint of the person of our sovereignhis heirs or successors.
On 7th February 1992 the Rt. Hon Douglas Richard Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, King Charles Street, London SW1 and the Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Anthony
Aylmer Maude at that date Financial Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury, Parliament Street,
London SW1 did sign a Treaty of European Union at Maastricht in the Netherlands, according to
Article 8 of which Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union (confirmed by the
Home Secretary in the House of Commons: Hansard 1st February 1993) therefore subject to the duties
imposed thereby, subject to being arraigned in her own courts and being taxed under Article 192 of
the integrated Treaty and thereby effectively deposed as the sovereign and placed in a position of
suzerainty under the power of the European Union.
Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of
treason.
Case 2:
Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions tending to the
overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdometc. Hurd
and Maude.etc. did sign a Treaty of European Unionaccording to Article 8 of which every person
holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union and according to Article 8a of
which such citizens shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of any member
state and according to Article 8b of which such citizens shall have the right to vote and according to
which Declaration on nationality in the Final Act the question whether an individual possesses the
nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state
concerned.
And that therefore the British people and Parliament will have no right to determine the numbers or
identity of non British nationals to whom other European Union member states can give residence
rights and voting rights in the United Kingdom.
And whereas according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 The Laws of England are the birthright of
the People.
And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch77, 89)
has stated that
And a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save
the power to destroy its omnipotence.

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of
treason.
Case 3:
Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any person born out of the Kingdoms
of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereuntoshall be capable to bea Member of
either House of Parliament
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution of the country is an act
of treason.
And whereas the term municipal has been defined by the European Court of Justice in 1972 as
meaning national:
..the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no
provisions of municipal law whatever their nature, can be involved., and similarly defined by Lord
Justice Cumming Bruce giving the majority verdict in McCarthys v Smith 1979 ICR 785,798:
If the terms of the Treaty (of Rome) are adjudged in Luxembourg to be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970, European ? Law will prevail over that municipal legislation
Hurd and Maudeetc. did sign a Treaty .etc. according to Article 8b of which Every citizen of the
Union residing in a member state of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as
a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides.
Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.

Case 4:
Whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchy in which Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign and Head of State and a democracy, whereby the people of
that United Kingdom rule by delegating their authority for periods of up to 5 years to the Parliament
and Government in London.
And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 The laws of England are the birthright of
the people
And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89)
has stated that
As a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save
the power to destroy its own omnipotence.
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the Constitution is an act of treason.
..Hurd and Maudeetc did sign a treatyetc. according to Article 8 of which the British people,
without their consent have been made the citizens of the European Union with duties towards the same
and according to Article 192 of the integrated treaty the British people can be taxed directly by that
European Union without further process in the Westminster Parliament and according to Article 171 of
which the British State can be forced to pay a monetary penalty to the European Union.
Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurdetc.
CASE 5.
Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II swore at Her
Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects according to their laws.
And whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 within the realm or withoutto
deviseconstraint of the person of our sovereignhis heirs or successors
Hurd and Maude.etc. did sign a Treaty.etc. which extended the powers of the European
Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament in the new European Union
to make and enforce in the United Kingdom laws which do not originate in the Westminster

Parliament. And that this loss of democratic rights was without the express consent of the British
people.
And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 The Laws of England are the Birthright of
the people
And whereas Lord Justice Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch
77,89) has stated that;
As a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the
power to destroy its omnipotence.
Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason.etc.
CASE 6.
Whereas it was established in 1932 that No Parliament may bind its successors (Vauxhall Estates v
Liverpool Corporation IKB 733)
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.
Hurd and Maude etc. .did sign a Treatyaccording to which Article Q of which the Maastricht
Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period and from which there is no right of nor mechanism for
secession.
Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason etc..
This is one of the more extraordinary aspects of the Maastricht Treaty since it provides a direct parallel
with that other Union, the American Union signed by the Southern, confederate states on the
assumption that they could leave that Union whenever they wished. But they had omitted to ensure that
both the right to and mechanism for withdrawal were included specifically in the Union declaration. As
a result, the American President Abraham Lincoln (inaugural address 4th March 1861) justified war
against the southern states by saying:
No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union
It was this issue and not the question of slavery (for which Lincoln had expressed accommodation in
his inaugural address) which caused the American Civil War in which 600,000 died. The northern
states were engaged not on a moral crusade but on an imperialist adventure, using the industrial and
military might of the North to conquer the largely rural, raw material producing south.
Although the European Union as yet possesses no significant armed forces, this is the ultimate intention
and an embryo Franco German force has already been set up. The possible exit from this Union of
Britain, the second biggest paymaster, with the richest coal, oil and fishing reserves in Europe and with
the worlds largest investments in the American economy might one day tempt this new breed of
Eurofascist to use the logic of Abraham Lincoln.
CASE 7.
Whereas it is established by a statute in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) confirmed in 1297 and last
reviewed at the passing of the Statute Law Repeals Act 1967 that:
No freeman may bedisseisedof his liberties
or free customsnor will we not pass upon him but by the law of the land.
This most durable pillar of the constitution is destroyed by a Treaty of European Unionetc..which
disseises all free men of their liberties and free customs under the law of this land by subjugating their
Government to the extension of the powers of the European Commission, Court and parliament (in
which latter the United Kingdom members form a minority of 87 of 567 voting members). Under
Article 192 of the integrated treaty our free men are open to be taxed without further process of the
United Kingdom Parliament and according to the Declaration on nationality in the Final Act of the
treaty the number and identity of non British nationals given residence and voting rights in the United
Kingdom will not be determined by the British Government. And further that the treaty extends
majority voting in the Council of Ministers thus permitting other states to determine laws which govern

British people. Under Article 8 of the Treaty free men are required to become citizens of the European
Union subject to the duties imposed thereby.
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.
Therefore Hurd and Maude.etc
CASE 8 (IN SCOTLAND).
Whereas it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795:
within the realm or withoutto devise.constraint of the person of our sovereignhis heirs or
successors. and
to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the
United Kingdom
and whereas to destroy the constitution per R v Thistlewood 1820 is an act of treason.
Hurd and Maude etcdid sign a treaty.for an unlimited period and without right of or mechanism
for secession. This treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby
it is established per Article III of that Act the people of the United Kingdom be represented by the one
and the same Parliament and none other and per Article XVIII that no alteration be made in laws which
concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
Under the treaty, the rule of a Parliament other than that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is
established where under, contrary to the Act of Union, subjects within Scotland become subject to laws
made in an assembly in which their representatives form a minority seven fold more slender than in the
parliament of the United Kingdom.
Therefore Hurd and Maude.etc
Since the United Kingdom has no formal codified constitution in the manner of the USA or Germany,
we rely on certain critical statutes and precedents in case law to formalize and hold fast for future
generations the wisdom of the laws which have established and guaranteed our rights and liberties and
the institutions of parliament, government and courts.
It is one of the major safeguards for the people that past rights are enshrined in specific statutes and
specific clauses. Imprecise words, confused sentences and contradictory clauses are a danger since they
allow potential tyrants to exploit or bypass uncertainty in the law. It has therefore always been accepted
as vital that any repeal of a statute or part of a statute should be made specific in new legislation. This
is not just to tidy up the law books but more important so that everyone voters, Parliament,
ministers and journalists should know precisely how their historic guarantees are being affected.
But in the text of the Maastricht Bill laid before Parliament there was no mention of any of the many
contraventions of historical statutes by the terms of the Treaty. The only reference to another Act of
Parliament was to that of the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act, the terms of which would
have been contradicted had a specific Parliamentary approval not been obtained.
The British people were deliberately kept in the dark about the destruction of their constitution and how
the Maastricht Treaty and the European Community Amendments Act effectively threw out many of
the most important statutes in British Parliamentary history. The first strategy of the tyrant is secrecy.
The second is to lose the detail in a mass of superficiality and generalization. Both were evident in the
passage of the Maastricht Treaty Bill.
Some statutes within the British system of an informal constitution could perhaps, at some stretch of
the imagination, be regarded as less critical. But this could certainly not be said about the Union with
Scotland Act, for in 1706 the Scottish people decided to share a Sovereign and a Parliament. Since the
new Parliament of the UNITED Kingdom was to be in England (and the physical existence of the
Scottish parliament dispensed with) the terms of the Act of Union were absolutely vital. The Act is the
nearest we possess to an actual constitution. The Scots, effectively, gave up their Parliament only in
return for the guarantee that the new (English dominated) Parliament would not curtail or in any way

diminish their rights. If they did so (as has now happened under the Maastricht Treaty) then the Act of
Union would be null and void and not only would the United Kingdom cease to exist but so would the
authority of the Parliament at Westminster which was spawned by the Act of Union.
This is exactly what has happened and the British people, once the full enormity of the betrayal has
dawned upon them, will exact a terrible revenge on those who purport to be their democratic
representatives.

5. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT BY THE MAGNA CARTA


SOCIETY, WHICH PRECEDED THE 2001 BARONS' PETITION
Sovereign Authority
We have already argued that the ultimate powers of sovereignty remain in the sole possession of the
monarch. Indeed, it is the unique covenant between sovereign and people that stands as the bulwark
supporting our constitution and rights.
The sovereign is the court of last resort, the only person who can stand finally between the people and
renegade politicians. Indeed, we would go further. It is the sovereigns sworn duty, as laid down in
Magna Carta (see above).
The Coronation Oath is a contract for life between the sovereign and the nation.
The present Queen swore:
to govern the peoples of the United Kingdomaccording to their laws and customs. She also
swore to preserve for the people all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of
them.
The Coronation Oath is not a contract between the sovereign and parliament. It is a contract between
the sovereign and each individual subject. It cannot be broken by a vote in parliament. It can be broken
only by the sovereign or by the individual.
Like all contracts, if one party to the contract believes the terms are at risk, the other party can be called
to account.
As we have indicated already, today just as for nearly a thousand years, if an individual believes his
freedoms, rights and liberties are at risk, the sovereign can be called upon to protect those rights as
promised in the contract.
Likewise, the sovereign can call individuals to arms to protect the realm.
We know of two occasions in modern times when the covenant between sovereign and subjects first
established in Magna Carta, and renewed in every Coronation Oath since, has been put to the test by
one party to the contract or the other. Conveniently, the two examples come from opposite sides of the
covenant.
1975 - Australia. The Governor General, acting on behalf of The Queen, dissolved the Australian
parliament and called new elections, when the then government attempted to pass legislation which
was held to infringe the rights of all Australians.
1982 - Falklands. Sovereigns call to arms to prepare and despatch a task force to rescue the Falkland
Islanders whose rights and sovereignty were threatened by war.
Actions of this kind enhance the status and strength of the monarchy, and re-affirm to the nations
subjects that their rights and freedoms are being preserved. They also demonstrate in a modern context
that Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are alive and well.
The sovereign is the ultimate protector of the nation and guarantor of the rights of each individual, and
those responsibilities are the sovereigns, and the sovereigns alone.
At least one constitutional commentator (Allott) agrees with us:
"For parliament to develop or improve on a fundamental right is one thing. But to enact legislation
which expressly removes an already existing fundamental right, and to have that enactment blindly
upheld by a court, is quite another.

If there is one thread which runs through the whole turbulent history of British constitutional
development, it is the belief that we (parliament and the courts) are the servants of fundamental
constitutional rules which were there before us and will be there after we are gone.
The Ultimate Test
Despite all those rights, freedoms and protections, established over centuries, today our common laws,
rights, freedoms, liberties and customs are being demolished with the speed and thoroughness of a team
of statutory bulldozers.
Long ago, Magna Carta dealt with the problem of a sovereign acting above the law. Later, the
Declaration of Rights confirmed the estates of the realm and their relationship to one another - a series
of checks and balances. Today, that relationship has been seriously undermined. We now have a House
of Commons acting above the law, plainly contemptuous of the (remaining) powers of The Queen and
the House of Lords.
Such an overwhelming concentration of power in the hands of the executive, especially one with a
huge parliamentary majority, means that we are currently faced with an extreme example of what Lord
Hailsham famously called an elective dictatorship.
Writing of Magna Carta in his History of The English-Speaking Peoples, Winston Churchill said:
and when in subsequent ages the state, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride
roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and
again been made, and never, as yet, without success.
The Magna Carta Society, and tens of thousands like us, believe the time has come - indeed, it is
overdue - to put the great principles and rights enshrined in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights
to the test once again.
Eventually, the issue of the EU's right to rule over the UK must be tested in the highest court in the land
and - given the speed and comprehensiveness of present EU legislation and its destructiveness - that
test must be made as a matter of the highest priority.
Already faced with the most fundamental concerns for the structure and protection of this nations
constitution it now appears that the battle over the EU has developed a second front - the dismantling of
our parliamentary institutions and the most cavalier disregard for our constitution and rights.
Given the extracts above, there is good reason to believe that, under Magna Carta, 25 hereditary peers
can convene themselves as a quorum, and sit as a House of Lords, despite the recent passage of a bill
purporting to restrict its hereditary numbers.
We have reason to believe that such a quorum can be assembled.
Furthermore, under the terms of Magna Carta, that House has an obligation to hear petitions brought by
free men, and take them to The Queen, who - equally - has an obligation to hear them.
That is the ultimate consequence of the unique contract first established with Magna Carta and renewed
at each coronation.
To those in government and the judiciary who might try to argue that we no longer have the right of
petition and appeal to The Queen, there are serious questions to answer:
When do they claim that right was taken away? By whom? And how? On whose authority? And by
what right?
(We believe the last monarch to receive and act on a petition was Queen Victoria, and we can find no
evidence of any attempt to prevent or hinder any such petition subsequently. Nor does there appear to
be any legislation which attempts to defy the contract made between sovereign and subjects in Magna
Carta and the Coronation Oath. We acknowledge that it has become custom in the last few years for
petitions to be passed to ministers of the crown for action, but that is not to say that the monarch can no

longer act in her own right. Indeed, in current circumstances, the ministers themselves are party to our
complaint, and cannot therefore deal with the matters complained of.)
In any case, the sovereign cannot be absolved from her obligations, responsibilities and duties to her
subjects, and certainly not on the mere advice of ministers. Otherwise the Coronation Oath would be
meaningless.
Which is why we are preparing a petition to be submitted to the hereditary House of Lords for
presentation to The Queen, based on the following terms:
We the undersigned seek to draw attention to and seek redress from the imposition of foreign laws,
directives, regulations and judicial decisions by and from the European Union and its institutions, to the
detriment and prejudice of your sovereignty and to our rights and freedoms as defined in Magna Carta,
the Declaration of Rights, and by the customs of your people, and which you, our sovereign, swore to
uphold and preserve inviolate in your Coronation Oath of 1953.
If Magna Carta stands, we have a right to enter such a petition.
If it does not, this kingdom stands in dire peril, the executive have some momentous questions to
answer, and all free men of this kingdom should hear the call.
Whether Magna Carta stands or not, action is needed, and we intend to take it.
The Magna Carta Society

OTHER ACTIONS
The objective of this document has been to make a case for the constitutional repudiation of the United
Kingdoms membership of the European Union.
There are, of course, other means by which the UKs membership of the EU may end - the government
of the day might withdraw; the EU might throw us out (we should be so lucky); parliament might vote
for repeal of the 1972 Act; private prosecutions of government ministers for treason might be
successful. Any one of these events would have much the same practical effect as we seek.
Whichever event prevails, we argue that there are other actions, legal and otherwise, which need the
urgent attention of those in a position, and with the knowledge, to take them:
Immediately
1. Determine how best to test in the courts the claim that European law is supreme in the United
Kingdom.
2. Examine the direct conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counselors and EU commissioners. At
the very least, we advocate that those who have taken the commissions euro should be publicly
stripped of their status as privy counselors.
3. Examine the constitutionality of the two separate recent attempts made by parliament acting under
instructions from the EU and the European Court of Human Rights to interfere with the oath of
attestation made by all members of the armed forces. The first involves the setting up of an embryo
European Army, and the second with the setting and interpretation of standards of behavior likely to be
detrimental to the efficiency of the forces. In both these actions parliament appears to have exceeded its
authority, and had the effect of compromising the sovereignty of The Queen.
4. Examine the issue of citizenship (Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty - "Citizenship of the union is
hereby established"). British citizenship (we prefer the term subject of the crown) is a birthright.
Citizenship is not in the gift of a self-appointed foreign institution, which in any event is unaccountable
to the British electorate and, we argue, has no standing here.
The notion of dual citizenship, implied under this Treaty, is nonsensical. Across the world, applications
for dual citizenship are entirely voluntary. Furthermore, the European Union is even now only an

association of sovereign nation states. It is not in itself a state, much as it might like to pretend
otherwise. It is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. At the very least, therefore, that legal nonsequitur needs to be
disputed in the courts, with the outcome providing individual subjects with a practical and effective
means of rejecting so-called citizenship of the EU, and all its pathetic paraphernalia - passport covers,
driving licenses and the like.
5. Examine the constitutionality of the 1975 referendum and the referendum proposed on the euro, both
of which concern changes which appear to have been forbidden under our constitution and, if possible,
instigate proceedings to have them set aside.
6. Investigate potential cases of treason against all the plenipotentiaries acting under the royal
prerogative and who signed the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam on behalf of the United
Kingdom.
7. Test the legality of all new EU legislation, directives and regulations, as attempts are made to
introduce and enforce them. To date, insufficiently vigorous opposition has been applied. There are
huge battles ahead, including: the euro and tax harmonization, weights and measures, a European
defense force, Europol and Corpus Juris. As the EU attempts to enforce its policies and law on the UK,
contrary to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and common law, each and every one must be
disputed to the utmost of our resources and will-power.
Post-Membership
8. The restitution of the constitution will release an avalanche of cases of maladministration, involving
whole industries (fishing, for example) and many thousands of individuals and businesses, and going
back over many years.
The desire for an immediate and gigantic bonfire of EU inanities will need to be balanced with an
equally important desire to achieve rapid but orderly abolition of (now) illegal regulations. An
immediate moratorium on enforcement seems the most practical and desirable first step.
The vital issue of making good the damage suffered by the people will come a close second. This might
perhaps be addressed in much the same way as restitution and reinstatement was handled after the
second world war, with the state leading a programme of national re-building. What redress do the
people whose livelihoods have been damaged or destroyed over the last 30 years have against
government ministers and enforcement agencies past and present? And how can it be delivered quickly
and fairly, without time-consuming and expensive civil proceedings? It is possible that justice itself
will demand that the state foots the bill.
We urge that a powerful independent body be set up as a matter of the highest priority and charged,
primarily, with determining the best means of achieving rapid and equitable redress for all those
affected by the enforcement of EU law, regulations, directives and judicial decisions in the UK since 1
January 1973.
9. Investigate potential cases of treason against all prime ministers since 1972
10. Investigate, with a view to prosecution, the past actions of ministers and officials who exceeded or
may have exceeded the authority delegated to them by the people, and who attempted to defy the clear
intentions of the constitution of the United Kingdom.
And Finally
11. The people are sovereign. The monarch is the embodiment of that sovereignty. So it was and still
should be. But these tenets of the constitution have been seriously threatened by the erosion of the
checks and balances between the sovereign, the houses of parliament and the people - an erosion which
has been insidious, lengthy and allowed to thrive by the negligence of the people, who have failed
sufficiently to exercise vigilance.
It was 473 years after Magna Carta that a further treaty became necessary between the sovereign and
the people. Another 312 years have passed since the Declaration of Rights.

Events of recent years, and the momentous issues raised in this document, convince us that a new treaty
between the monarch and the people is now essential. It should re-state the true relationship between
sovereign, the two houses of parliament and the people, re-establish the checks and balances between
them, and re-affirm the covenant between sovereign and subjects.
Nothing else will do.
___________________________________________________________________
This document was researched and written by the founding members of
The Magna Carta Society
signed:
25 January 2000
Founding members of The Magna Carta Society:
David Bourne Mike Burke
Idris Francis Adam Hartman
John Hurst Bob Lomas
Brian Mooney Ashley Mote
Bob Sims Bryan Smalley
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely
David Robinson.
++++++++++
Email from Inspector Nicholson:
Good Morning David,
I so sorry for my elusiveness over the last few months, but the service has undergone a massive
overhaul over the last few months which has led to a big impact on my time.
Anyway David, another apology in that having sought advice from the Police Federation, I am not able
to get involved or encourage my staff to do so, as it is apolitical matter and we need to remain
impartial.
Good luck though David, and I will watch with interest as to how things develop.
Inspector Mark Sarah Nicholson
+++++++++++++
My reply....
Dear Mark Nicholson,
By your comment it seems that the politicians of this country are above the law if they are not to be
investigated for crimes against the state i.e. treason, then they are free to do whatever they like without
penalty. I cannot accept that as a reasonable response from you and I must (under the constitutional
laws of this country) remind you that we ALL have a duty under the law to stand by the constitution
under the tenet of Article 61 since the time it was invoked (23rd March 2001).
We are all equal under the law and you sir have a duty under Oath to act according to the law without
fear nor favour, The facts are the facts and cannot be denied. The treason being committed (along with
many other crimes) is EVIDENTIAL and also the FACT that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has been
invoked.

As is the case within a regime of institutionalized treason your superiors (police federation) cannot be
relied upon to give you lawful advice and, the Nuremburg trials at the end of world war two show that
'just following orders' is no defense in law. The Misprision of treason Act also makes those who have
been informed of the treason facts, to be liable under the law if the crime is not then reported to a
justice of the peace.
I find your response disappointing as I did when I found that you had not provided the constables under
your direction with the information that I supplied (in disc and literature format) as you said you would
do in a previous email.
I would like a recorded interview with you so that you can defend the position you are taking on this
matter with clarity and, documented evidence that your position is lawful.
David.

6. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 61


Media Coverage
1.

Peers use Magna Carta to oppose EU charter


By Sarah Womack, Political Correspondent 12:00AM GMT 07 Feb 2001

A GROUP of peers will today use ancient rights granted under Magna Carta to urge the Queen to block
further European integration.
Their petition, presented under Clause 61 of the ancient charter, asks the Queen to withhold Royal
Assent from the Nice Treaty. It has the backing of 65 Euro-sceptic peers led by Lord Ashbourne and
has been organised by Sanity (Subjects against the Nice Treaty).
Clause 61 of Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in June 1215, permits the Sovereigns
subjects to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition which four of their number are then obliged to
take to the Monarch who is obliged to accept it. She then has 40 days to respond. The enforcement
powers granted by King John when he signed the Magna Carta were last used in 1688 at the start of
the Glorious Revolution.
Lord Ashbourne, a Conservative hereditary peer ousted from the Lords under Tony Blairs reforms,
said: These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed.
Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1321462/Peers-use-Magna-Carta-to-oppose-EU-charter.html

2.

Peers petition Queen on Europe


By Caroline Davies 12:00AM GMT 24 Mar 2001

FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block
closer integration with Europe.
The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne
were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the
Charters 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 Queens 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 Cartas provisions,
if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing
castles, lands and possessions until they have redress;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html
Magna Carta Society Research Paper proving the invocation of Article 61;
http://magnacartasocietyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/magna-carta-society-research-paper.html

7. THE PETITION FROM THE BARONS AND LETTERS FROM


BOTH PARTIES IN FULL
The Petition;
A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta,1215
February 2001 To Defend British Rights and Freedoms
Maam,
as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majestys 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 Queens Commission, and
iii) the United Kingdoms obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
e) which remove the United Kingdoms 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 Majestys power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a
similar threat to the security of the Realm in1707;
WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from
any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the
United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval; to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms

and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you,
our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June1953.
We have the honour to be Your Majestys loyal and obedient subjects.
(signed)

Notes: (Provenance unknown, but possibly from the MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY).
The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September [sic] that Magna
Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much
on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsburys Laws of England says:
Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.
The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:
Article 24 transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other
states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified
Majority Voting.
Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with
ambassadorial status.
Article 191 assumes for the EU the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at
European level [i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not
contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free
political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions taxation without
representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Articles 29 and31 establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).
Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the
door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing
and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol
law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article
280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at
least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.
Article 17 establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force.
The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: The entire chain of command must
remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed. Her
Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her
Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of
The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.
The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU competence, including indirect taxation, the
environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has
plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty
negotiations.
Charter of Fundamental Rights signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.
Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them
meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human
rights [i.e.: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also
contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on
behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London
in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the
confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee
the country.
The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: Prerogative is created for the benefit of the
people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice. (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by
the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)
In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent
that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queens 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, parliaments will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the
security of the realm.
Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark
the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was still part of statute
lawon which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.
The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:
the said Lordsand Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit
andmake 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 observedand 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 selfevident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.

List of Signatories
Peers signing the petition:
Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel)Lord Hamilton
of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.
The petition was also signed by:
Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl
Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne,
Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of
Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as
Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart
title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Letter To The Queens Private Secretary

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB


Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
23 March 2001

You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty.
Thank you.
The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and
freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be
considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution
and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.
We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition
to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years clause 61 of Magna Carta, which
were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.
As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have
that transgression redressed without delayAnd 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 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 parliaments power, and the Queens
Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn
obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary
obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for
the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.
The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations.
The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps
clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional an essential part of the checks and
balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect
us from government by tyranny.
We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition
highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the
political freedom of Her Majesty's subjects.
The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level
[i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to
forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It
also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions taxation without representation and the use of
state sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her
Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. Libertatis
Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.
It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the
question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite
which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.
We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables,
sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.
How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?

These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:
1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority
without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)
2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie
as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of
Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is
further protection of our common law rights.)
In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her
Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by
contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted
earlier, we the undersigned, and others have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be
available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops
..until redress has been obtained.
We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects.
Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Reply
I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition
to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.
The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of
feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her
Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of
Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this
entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.

8. WHO SIGNED THE PETITION?


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

9. INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER INTO LAWFUL REBELLION


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

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

Oath of allegiance
[ Put the title and address of the baron here ]
From : (Your name and address).
Date: _____________
Sent by recorded post No.:___________
Dear [ Title of baron],
In full knowledge of treason being committed in Parliament, by delivering the
Sovereign Peoples of this Common law land into the hands of foreign powers, in
understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the office of Sovereign,
from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into
lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons'
committee whom invoked lawful rebellion, in accordance with article 61 of Magna
Carta until such times as redress of these present wrongs is achieved and for as long
as the committee of the barons abide by the constitution without deviation.
Sworn and subscribed on the (Date).
Signed: _____________________
Witnessed by: _____________________
Witnessed by: _____________________
Witnessed by: _____________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The witness is optional, but 3 makes it fully lawful. Photocopy it before you send it. Make 2 copies.
Get a friend to post it (at the counter, costs 1.72 recorded delivery). Photocopy the receipt. Get your
friend to write this:

I XXXXXX of (address) confirm that on the (date) I placed the document "Oath of
allegiance to the Barons" signed by XXXXXXX in an envelope addressed as follows;
[ Put the title and address of the baron here ]
and I posted the envelope by recorded delivery No. ___________
Signed__________ Date_________________

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

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

10 ADDRESSES OF BARONS TO SEND OATHS TO


Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton),
Pimm's Cottage, Man's Hill, Burghfield Common, Berkshire RG7 3BD
Tel: 01189 832399
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Craigmyle
Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire PH41 4PL
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Strathcarron
3 Elizabeth Court, Milmans Street, London SW10 0DA
Otterwood, Beaulieu, Hampshire SO42 7YS
Tel: 01590 612334
+++++++++++++++++++
Marquis of Aberdeen
House of Formantine, Methlick, Ellon, Aberdeenshire AB41 7EQ
Tel: 01651 806897
+++++++++++++++++++
Earl of Cromer
6 Sloane Terrace Mansions, London SW1X 9DG
Drayton Court, Drayton, Somerset
+++++++++++++++++++
Earl of Devon,
Powderham Castle, Exeter, Devon EX6 8JQ
Tel: 01626 890253
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Wise
- died 2012 Christopher John Clayton WISE 3rd Baron WIES (has yet to establish his claim to the title
and appear on the Roll of the House of Lords) b 19 March 1949, unm. His brother and hp is the Hon
Martin Highfield WISE (b 1950) unm. No others in line of succession to the barony.
+++++++++++++++++++

Viscount Exmouth,
The Coach House, Canonteign Falls, nr. Exeter, Devon EX6 7NT
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Dormer
Yew Tree Cottage, Dittisham, Devon TQ6 0EX
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury
still sits in the house of lords but has had a leave of absence since April 2011
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Newall
18 Lennox Gardens, London SW1X 0DG
Wotton Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 0RZ
Tel: 01844 238376 Fax: 01844 237153
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Milne,
188 Broom Road, Teddington, Middlesex
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Oaksey
Hill Farm, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9HS
Tel: 01666 577303 Fax: 01666 577962
+++++++++++++++++++
Earl Cathcart,
Gateley Hall, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5EF
18 Smith Terrace, London SW3 4DL
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Sandys
Died feb 2013 On the death of the 7th Baron Sandys the Barony of Sandys passed to his third cousin
three times removed, Nicholas Wills [Hill], 9th Marquess of Downshire, a great-great-great-greatgreat-grandson of Baroness Sandys.
+++++++++++++++++++

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


Clifton Castle, Ripon, North Yorkshire HG4 4AB
Tel: 01765 689326
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Ailsa,
Cassillis House, Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7JN
Tel: 0129-256310
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Napier of Magdala
The Coach House, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1HU
Tel: 01672 512333 Fax: 01672 512333
E-mail: rob.napier@clara.net
+++++++++++++++++++
Earl Kitchener
Died Dec 2011 On the death of the 3rd Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome the Earldom of
Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome became extinct
+++++++++++++++++++
Earl of Romney
Gayton Hall, King's Lynn, Norfolk
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Napier & Ettrick
Gowan Cottage, Westley, Waterless, Newmarket, Suffolk
Down House, Wylye, Wiltshire BA12 0QN
Thirlestane Castle, Ettrick, Selkirkshire
+++++++++++++++++++
Viscount Norwich
24 Blomfield Road, London W9 1AD
Tel: 020 7286 5050 Fax: 020 7266 2561
+++++++++++++++++++

Viscount Cowdray
Cowdray Park, Midhurst, West Sussex GU29 0AY
Tel: 01730 812461
+++++++++++++++++++
Lord Sudeley (Merlin Charles Sainthill, interesting name)
25 Melcombe Court, Dorset Square, London NW1 6EP
(Known to have received numerous oaths and not written back to deny allegiance to the B.
committee.).

11 INVINCIBLE NOTICE TO REMOVE ANY AUTHORITY


FROM POLICE, BAILIFFS OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
OR CROWN INSTITUTION
TAKE NOTE THAT I HAVE PLEDGED MY ALLEGIANCE TO THE BARONS
AND AM IN LAWFUL REBELLION in accordance with Article 61 of the Magna
Carta 1215 and under the full protection of our Constitutional Law.
As those in government are committing Treason, then the law demands that I hinder
the operation of said Treasonous government by all peaceful means which can include
the following;
Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support
and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.
Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in
place by said unlawful governance that is in breach of the Constitutional safeguard.
To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land,
who have breached the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in
anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and
Article 61.
Therefore our constitutional law demands that in the present circumstance of lawful
rebellion I must not do anything to assist any operation of government or its
institutions. In view of this any continued attempt by you to enforce Statute law on me
will constitute an act of Treason.
Note that I am a man known as xxxxx, and as a living man I reserve all rights in
accordance with The Statute in Force "Bill of Rights 1689 "The Said Rights
Claimed".
If you feel so inclined as to enforce statutes I will report your conduct to ALL relevant
bodies and will pursue you privately using Proof of Claim for Tort, Damages and/or
injury in Affidavit form, under your full commercial liability and under the penalty of
perjury.
You are deemed to have been served this notice with immediate effect.

12 LAWFUL REBELLION NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL


ACCEPTANCE FOR COURT DECISIONS
Lawful Rebellion Notice of Conditional Acceptance for court decision warrant of arrest, contempt of
court, water bills.
To : Mr. ....... (doing business as Court Enforcement Agent)
Address
From: Meself
Address
Case ref..
Date notice served.
Sent by recorded post No.____________
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
Notice to agent is notice to principle
Notice to principle is notice to agent
Dear Mr. .....,
I am writing to you after receiving a letter of arrest and imprisonment for seven days
for contempt of court.
Whereas I, XXXXXXXXXX do Not consent to the presumed jurisdiction of ...... County Court nor
does your service have jurisdiction to lawfully carry out an arrest warrant for contempt of court, whilst
the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect and, that I XXXXXXXXXXX ( the living
(wo)man) stand fully behind the committee of the Barons whom invoked said article, which is the
constitutional duty of ALL British subjects at this time. Not to do so would be ancillary to treason,
therefore, enforcement of the detainment of xxxxxxxxxx would be an act of unlawful kidnap at
common law.
Any hearing must be conducted in a properly convened Court de Jure so that justice can be seen to
be done. I demand remedy under due process of law where constitutional law is fully observed.
Please be aware that this is a 'Notice of conditional acceptance' it informs you and means what it
says. The matter raised herein is of a very serious nature and requires your immediate and urgent
response.
Please also be aware that the fact that this 'Notice of conditional acceptance is hand written does Not
detract its validity under the common law. This document may be used as evidence in my defense.
Definition of a Notice
A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact has reason to know it, or has been given
notification of it.
A reply in full to this notice is required within five (5) days from receipt of it.
Failure to reply to this Notice in 'substance' (meaning to respond to the points raised) shall be
deemed to mean that they/you are in full agreement with all the points of law raised herein and, that no
further actions will be taken against I Danielle Delioness nor the legal fiction that I lawfully reject to
represent and, that I have 'lawful excuse' to do so.
Whereas you may be in ignorance of the evidential thus provable fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta
1215 was invoked according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional Law on the 23rd day of

March 2001 and, which stands on this day as the political position of the British Isles and
Commonwealth.
TAKE NOTICE THAT : This fact was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the
24th March 2001 and can be seen online under the title of 'peers petition Queen on Europe' and that we
are all responsible 'individually ' to comply with the law and that there is No defense in law by pleading
ignorance.
IT is the common law duty of all British subjects to defend the Common Law and to stand under
article 61 when it has been invoked. Therefore ;
1. I conditionally accept that ..... County Court has the authority to carry out its threats against me
and, that I have a lawful obligation to comply to its orders on proof being provided, in substance and
within the reasonable time allotted, that ....County Court and 'HM courts and tribunals service', can
lawfully make such demands whilst article 61 of Magna Carta is currently in effect.
2. That ....County Court is functioning under the constraints of the British Constitution and that the
Crown has any authority whatsoever in these treacherous times.
I xxxxxxxxxx do have 'lawful excuse' to reject, , distress and rebel peacefully and entirely lawfully
under the protection of Constitutional law. Anyone who would seek to deprive me of due process under
constitutional law will be committing a very serious offense indeed.
Mr...., I urge you strongly to investigate the facts referred to herein. I do urge you to stand in defense
of the British Constitution and under Article 61 yourself.
Without malice, frivolity or ill will, with all my inalienable Rights reserved and on my full
commercial liability and penalty of perjury.
Any response is required to be made on penalty of perjury and on your personal commercial liability.
Signature
Printed name
Three Signatory witnesses and dated
1
2
3

13 Danielle DeLioness LR process against C Court and Wessex


water.
Lawful Rebellion Notice of Conditional Acceptance for court decision warrant of arrest, contempt of
court, water bills.
This is the letter that began this process. Danielle DeLioness (A very naughty rebel) had ignored the
first two summonses (which I don't advise) and received this sentence for contempt of court.
From: Mr. Markey
HMRC & Tribunals Service
Yeovil County Court
The Law Courts
Petters way
Yeovil
BA20 1SW
URGENT
CONTACT: COUNTY COURT YEOVIL
Case number 3JA10324
WARRANT OF ARREST FOR Mrs. Danielle Delioness
FAILURE TO ATTEND COURT WHEN ORDERED TO DO SO.
YOU HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO 7 DAYS IN HMP Eastwood park....FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT.
To prevent loss of liberty and the embarrassment of a Police officer/Enforcement officer arresting you,
you are strongly advised to contact
YEOVIL COUNTY COURT
WITHIN THE NEXT 48 HOURS
FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING ARRESTED.
Mr. Markey
County Court Agent
Yeovil County Court
Tel........
Danielle, being a very naughty rebel indeed, decided she didn't want to consent to 7 days in prison. She
was advised to contact Mr. Markey to give her just a little more time to draft the following Notice and
serve it to begin the rebuttal process, which she did.
Being a sweet talker she convinced Mr. Markey that she needed a couple of weeks to convene a
meeting with the so called court in Yeovil.....instead she wrote and served this up:

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


Yeovil County Court
The Law Courts
Pelllers Way
Yeovil
BA20 1SW
From: Danielle...
Address.....
Case reference number 3JA10324

Date Notice served: 20th January 2015.


Sent by special delivery.
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.
Notice to agent is notice to principle, Notice to principle is notice to agent
Dear Mr. Markey,
I am writing to you after receiving a letter of arrest and imprisonment for seven days for
contempt of court.
Whereas I, Danielle Delioness do Not consent to the presumed jurisdiction of Yeovil County Court nor
does your service have jurisdiction to lawfully carry out an arrest warrant for contempt of court whilst
the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect and, that I Danielle Delioness (the living
woman), stand fully behind the committee of the Barons whom invoked said article, which is the
constitutional duty of ALL British subjects at this time. Not to do so would be ancillary to treason,
therefore, enforcement of the detainment of Danielle Delioness would be an act of unlawful kidnap at
common law.
Any hearing must be conducted in a properly convened Court de Jure so that justice can be seen to be
done. I demand remedy under due process of law where constitutional law is fully observed.
Please be aware that this is a 'Notice of conditional acceptance' it informs you and means what it says.
The matter raised herein is of a very serious nature and requires your immediate and urgent response.
Please also be aware that the fact that this 'Notice of conditional acceptance' is hand written does Not
detract its validity under the common law. This document may be used as evidence in my defense.
Definition of a Notice:
A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact has reason to know it, or has been given notification
of it.
A reply in full to this notice is required within five (5) days from receipt of it.
Failure to reply to this Notice in 'substance' (meaning to respond to the points raised) shall be deemed
to mean that they/you are in full agreement with all the points of law raised herein and, that no further
actions will be taken against I Danielle Delioness nor the legal fiction that I lawfully reject to represent
and, that I have 'lawful excuse' to do so.
Whereas you may be in ignorance of the evidential, thus provable fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta
1215 was invoked according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional Law on the 23rd day of
March 2001 and, which stands to this day as the political position of the British Isles and
Commonwealth.
TAKE NOTICE THAT: This fact was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th
March 2001 and can be seen online under the title of 'peers petition Queen on Europe' and, that we are
all responsible 'individually' to comply with the law and that there is No defense in law by pleading
ignorance.
It is the common law duty of all British subjects to defend the Common Law and to stand under article
61 when it has been invoked. Therefore;
1. I conditionally accept that Yeovil County Court has the authority to carry out its threats against me
and, that I have a lawful obligation to comply to its orders on proof being provided, in substance, and
within the reasonable time allotted, that Yeovil County Court and 'HM courts and tribunals service', can
lawfully make such demands whilst article 61 of Magna Carta is currently in effect.
2. That Yeovil County Court is functioning under the constraints of the British Constitution and that the
Crown has any authority whatsoever in these treacherous times.

I Danielle Delioness do have 'lawful excuse' to reject, distress and rebel peacefully and entirely
lawfully under the protection of Constitutional law. Anyone who would seek to deprive me of due
process under constitutional law will be committing a very serious offence indeed.
Mr. Markey, I urge you strongly to investigate the facts referred to herein. I do urge you to stand in
defense of the British Constitution and under Article 61 yourself.
Without malice, frivolity or ill will, with all my inalienable Rights reserved and, on my full commercial
liability and penalty of perjury.
Any response is required to be made on penalty of perjury and on your personal commercial liability.
Signature
Printed name
(Three Signatory witnesses and dated)
Witnessed by:
1 David Robinson: Signature, Date.
2
3
[No response was forthcoming]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------After the time frame for the first response had expired the second Notice was served:

To: Mr. Markey (DBA Court enforcement officer).


Yeovil County Court
The law courts
Pellers way
BA6 9PF.
From: Danielle.......
Address.....
Case ref number....
Date Notice served:
Sent by recorded post.
NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.
Notice to principal is Notice to Agent.
Dear Mr. Markey.
Whereas I have received no reply to the 'Notice of conditional acceptance' posted to you on the 20th
January 2015 and received by your office on the 21st January signed by STEELE. I am providing an
opportunity for you to remedy the matter, please be aware of your duty of care to reply to my concerns
as said in the previous Notice served.
You are required to make a response on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury within
7 days to remain from being in dishonor.

If no reply is forthcoming then you agree there is no claim against me as stated in the previous Notice.
Without vexation, frivolity nor ill will, with all my inalienable rights reserved.
Signed...
Danielle .........
Three Signatory witnesses and dated
1 David Robinson: Signed...dated.
2
3
(No reply was forthcoming and after the time frame had elapsed the third Notice was served).
----------------------------------------------Third and final Notice as no response was forthcoming from the other two.
TO: Mr. Markey (Doing business as Court Enforcement Officer)
Yeovil County Court
The Law Courts
Pelllers Way
Yeovil
BA20 1SW
FROM: Danielle....
Address..
Case ref Number.
Date Notice served: 4th March 2015
Sent by recorded post
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Notice to agent is Notice to principal.
Dear Mr. Markey,
Whereas no response has been forthcoming from two previous notices served on you and, that they
have been received therefore accepted in law. It is now clear that No further demands nor arrest warrant
shall be enforced against I Danielle Delioness of the above address. Whereas you have tacitly accepted
the claims of non jurisdiction that I made within said Notices this matter is therefore closed. Thank
you.
Without frivolity, vexation, or ill will and, with all my inalienable common law rights reserved.
Signed
Witness signatures
1. David Robinson: (Signature) Date 04/03/15
2.
3.
This is a simple process that anyone can do. It has been effective as the so called County Court
enforcement officer is in dishonor and therefore would have NO claim in any proper court of law and,
she (Danielle DeLioness), would not accept anything else.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Whilst the above process was being carried out Danielle also wrote to Wessex water who had brought
the matter to Yeovil County Court.
Lawful Notice to Water Company over charges.
To : Chris Hunt (Doing business as Wessex water billing services limited credit administrator).
Address:
Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd
Clevedon Walk
Nailsea
Bristol
BS48 1WA
From: Danielle Delioness
Address:..........
customer ref: C24135874
Date Notice served:
Sent by recorded post
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
Notice to agent is notice to principle, Notice to principle is notice to agent
Dear Chris Hunt,
I am writing you this Notice to put you on notice of the facts. I am standing under Article 61 Magna
Carta 1215 according to our British constitution as invoked on 23rd March 2001, evidenced by the fact
that it was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001 and, can be
seen online under the title of 'peers petition Queen on Europe.'
Whereas Margaret Thatcher, PM, privatized water services in 1989 and created the National Rivers
Authority and at the same time as OFWAT was created, all public procurements in the UK are
governed by the EU treaty, the 'EU procurement directives and UK procurement regulations', which is
an act of treason at common law, allowing foreign jurisdiction the regulatory powers over British
services.
Also the signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making
powers further, by extended majority voting in certain areas of policy making was a further act of
treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.
Whereas I, Danielle Davidson, a law abiding constitutional subject is standing under the invocation of
Article 61, I conditionally accept that I can pay your demands according to the rule of law on proof
being provided that it is lawful to do so.
To accept the privatization of public services would be to accept a treasonous administration to my
understanding, which would be a criminal offence according to common law.
I implore you to check the facts alluded to above and to abide by the British Constitution Article 61 of
Magna Carta 1215 yourself.
A reply to this lawful notice is required to be made in substance within 10 days on receipt of this
'Notice of conditional acceptance'. I have put the alleged court on Notice of the same and I am waiting
for a response.

A failure to respond to this notice in substance and within the reasonable time frame allotted, will be
taken to mean by all parties (including third party interlopers) to mean that you agree wholeheartedly to
the facts alluded to within this document and that no further claims against I Danielle Davidson is
lawful and, all claims are null and void.
TAKE NOTICE: We are individually liable for our actions and omissions under constitutional law.
Ignorance is no defense in law.
Any reply must be made upon your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.
Without vexation, frivolity or ill will, with all my nature inalienable common law rights reserved and,
on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.
Kind Regards
Signed: Danielle.....
printed:
(No signatory witnesses to this first one - not as necessary at this stage unless dealing with the so called
courts).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONSE from Wessex water (FROM A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATOR).
Dear Miss Danielle ..........
Thank you for your letter received on the 3rd February 2015.
Under section 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991, any person who uses the water services at a
property is liable for all charges accumulated during their time in the property. You are using the
services provided, and are liable for the balance outstanding.
Please contact me by 19 February 2015 to set up a payment arrangement for your ongoing charges and
arrears for (address).
Failure to contact me by 19th February 2015 will result in debt recovery action continuing.
If you have any questions about this letter (yadda yadda yadda)
Yours Sincerely
Alex Carter
Credit Administrator.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notice of default and opportunity to cure to water board in reply (2nd notice)
TO: Alex Carter (doing business as Credit Administrator)
Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd,
Clevedon Walk,
Nailsea,
Bristol,
BS48 1WA

FROM: Danielle DeLioness


Address:........
Ref No.
Date Notice served:
Sent by recorded Post
NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
Notice to agent is notice to principle.
Dear Alex Carter,
Thank you for your letter dated 6th February 2015, which acknowledges the receipt of my 'letter'
(Notice of conditional acceptance) received on the 3rd Feb 2015.
The first Notice sent to you was addressed to Wessex water employee Chris Hunt. I must advise you to
read said previous Notice and to respond to it in full.
I hereby give you a further seven (7) days to respond to the 'Notice of Conditional acceptance', in full
and with proof of only lawful claims to monies, properties of I Danielle Delioness.
I am disappointed by your reply dated 5th Feb 2015 wherein you failed to respond to the two (2)
serious, lawful points raised therein.
Section 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991 Is an Act of Parliament which has no authority over I
Danielle Davidson at this time or since Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 was invoked. Therefore the law
forbids me to abide by it.
Please add the answer to this question on reply. Along with the two previous questions as yet
unanswered:
Are you Alex Carter standing under the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 in Lawful
Rebellion?
I f you are not I cannot aid you in any way. I am putting you Alex Carter on Notice of the above article
being in effect today and, that you also have a duty by law to stand in defense of the British
Constitution.
Any debt recovery action taken against I Danielle Davidson whilst my serious questions as to the
lawfulness of your demand are unanswered, will constitute unlawful coercion to act against British
Constitutional law and, would thus be harassment with intent to extort monies under false pretences.
This would cause me a tort, of which you and Wessex Water would be held liable for.
If you fail to respond to any of these three (3) questions that require answering, or address any letter to
me with the title Miss then I may ignore any further correspondence from you and/or Wessex Water
with no dishonor on my part.
By failing to respond to reasonable and lawful questions you are in dishonor, please cure the matter.
Without frivolity, ill will or vexation with all my natural inalienable common law rights reserved.
Signed: Danielle....
&
3 Witness signatures.
-Footnote(Anyone standing under article 61 would suffice as a signatory witness but also, anyone in agreement
with your Notice also if that is too hard to find).

------------------------------------------The response was yet again by a different administrator....oh they think they are so clever...fools!
From: Samantha Heeney
Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd
Clevedon Walk
Nailsea
Bristol
BS48 1WA
19th Feb 2015
Miss Danielle.........
Address......
Customer reference .....
Premises supplied.......
Balance 1,229.94.
County Court Claim: 3JA10324 (now evidently revoked).
Dear Miss Delioness
Thank you for your letter received on the 18th February 2015.
The water industry Act 1991 sets out the statutory mechanism for payment of water and sewage
charges. This applies to all occupiers of the property receiving water and sewage services.
The Magna Carter is not relevant to the payment of water charges and does not overrule the 1991 act.
You have asked us to address the issue raised in your previous letter of 1 February 2014. (NOTE: they
cannot even get the year correct!). I can confirm that the privatization of the water industry and the
signing of the single European Act 1986 are not relevant to the payment of water charges and do not
provide you with any exemption from payment.
You have a balance outstanding of i,229.94 which is broken down in the following way. You have a
balance outstanding of 737.21 which covers the period 27 October 2012 to 20 November 2014 and is
for your on-going consumption. I can accept a minimum of 64.72 a month.
You have a balance outstanding of 492.73 which covers the period 1 November 2011 to 26 October
2012 and is subject to County Court claim 3JA10324. I can accept a minimum of 20.53 a month.
I have extended the hold on your account until 5 March 2015 to allow you time to contact and arrange
payment. Failure to contact by this date will result in debt recovery action being taken.
If you have any questions about this letter, please call me on 01225 524327 Monday to Friday 8.30am 6.00pm or email customerservices@wessexwater.co.uk
Yours sincerely
Signature (copy, not a wet signature)
Samantha Heeney
Credit Administrator.
-------------------------------------------------

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


TO: Samantha Heeney (doing business as Wessex Water Billing Services Credit Administrator);
Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd.
Address:
Clevedon Walk
Nailsea
Bristol
BS48 1WA
From: Danielle ....
Address: ........
Date Notice Served: 04th March 2015
Sent By Recorded Post
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Samantha Heeney,
Thank you for your timely reply to my 'Notice of Default and opportunity to Cure,' received by you on
18th February 2015.
As previously stated the 'Water Industry Act 1991' is an Act of Parliament created by quislings and
does Not comply with the rule of law in Britain and, whereas that being the evidential truth in law, I
Danielle Davidson cannot at this time abide by said Act and remain within the boundaries of
constitutional law.
Are you, Samantha Heeney, attempting to coerce me into breaching constitutional law?
Furthermore, I am not an occupier but a dweller of the property and a constitutional subject of the
realm of Britain. You also wrongly addressed your letter to 'Miss' Danielle Delioness. I do not accept
this title as it implies the legal fiction of which I revoke entirely.
Considering the fact that you cannot even spell Magna Carta correctly I will presume that you have not
looked into the fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect today and, that once invoked it
does indeed overrule the said 1991 Act. Your statement therefore is tantamount to Sedition at Common
law and I strongly advise you to check the facts for yourself as ignorance is no defense in law.
Again you are wrong to suggest that the privatization of the Water Industry and the treasonous signing
of the 'Single European Act 1986' are not relevant to the payment of Water charges! To do so is to aid
and abet high treason at common law and I will NOT DO SO.
Passing on each of my lawful Notices to a different admin to respond does NOT make you any less
liable for your unlawful coercive demands. I now possess evidence of collusion against all three
administrators whom have dealt with this matter.
I hereby demand that you CEASE AND DESIST in this coercion and pass my Notices onto the head of
your department. If you continue this harassment you may invoke a counterclaim against you
personally, whereby you will be cross examined as a hostile witness in a properly convened Court de
Jure. Ignore British constitutional law at your peril Samantha.
Any further coercive demands made against I Danielle Delioness by Wessex Billing Services Ltd, will
be harassment that will be considered to be a tort.

Samantha Heeney I stand by constitutional law for the sake of our rights and our childrens. I would
implore you to look at the facts and to do the same. We cannot allow further corruption to go on.
Fee schedule:
For any letter sent to I Danielle Delioness with coercive demands for payment shall incur a penalty fee
of 200.00 (two hundred G.B pounds) per letter.
Any further response made by myself to unlawful demands shall be charged at 150.00 (one hundred
and fifty G.B pounds) per hour or part thereof.
The above charges will be invoked by ANY individual making further unlawful demands.
Wessex Water Billing Services limited are in dishonor whereas you/they have failed to respond to the
points of law in truth within previous notices served. Any further letters received may be ignored by me
with NO dishonor on my part.
Any reply to this 'Notice of default' must be made on penalty of perjury and on the individuals personal
commercial liability.
Without ill will, vexation or frivolity and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.
With no admission of liability whatsoever and with all my inalienable common law rights reserved.
With prejudice.
Signed
Witnessed
1. David Robinson: Signature, Date...
2.
3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Footnote by David Robinson.
(She will also demand a properly convened court for any counterclaim of harassment and breach of fee
schedule....I would be happy to act with power of attorney in that matter...bring it on Wessex water!)
To: Miss Danielle Delioness
Address
Dear Miss Delioness,
Customer Number:
Property Address:
Balance: 1,229.94
County Court Claim: 3JA10324 : 492.73
Thank you for your letter dated 4th March 2015. I am sorry you are unhappy with the response letters
you have received.
As previously discussed, the legal points raised in your letter are irrelevant and do not excuse you from
paying your water charges. We will only respond to new enquiries and will not repeat ourselves.
Please contact me by 24 March 2015 to set up a minimum payment arrangement of 89.00 a month.
This should cover your ongoing charges and clear your arrears over 24 months.

If you are unable to afford this, we have schemes to help customers who have arrears or are unable to
pay their bill in full. All we need is a financial statement prepared by a free debt advice agency. We can
then work it out what help we can offer to clear any arrears and make ongoing bills more affordable.
The advice agency will
Check you are getting all the benefits you are entitled to,
Prepare a budget so you can stay on top of spending,
Work out a realistic payment plan to repay your debts and make sure the most serious debts are dealt
with first.
I have enclosed a list of debt free advice agencies. Citizens Advice Bureau or similar can apply on your
behalf, and telephone or online services, such as Step Change and National Debt Line, can give you a
budget statement to attach to your application.
Whichever agency you choose, please contact me by 24 March 2015 to let us know when you have an
appointment so we can hold any further debt recovery action.
Failure to contact me by 24th March 2015 will result in further recovery action.
If you have any questions about this letter, please call me on 01225 524... Monday to Friday 8.30am 6.00 pm or email customer.services@bristolwater.co.uk
I enclose a copy of our Code of Practice for Enquiries and Complaints for further information.
Yours Sincerely
Alex Carter
Credit Administrator

lawful response..
TO:
Alex Carter; Wessex Water Billing Services Ltd.
ADDRESS
From:
Danielle Davidson
ADDRESS
DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:
Sent by recorded post.
NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OFMISPRISION OF TREASON
Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.
To Alex Carter (doing business as Credit Administrator for Wessex Water Billing Services Limited).
Please read the following 'notice' thoroughly and carefully. It is a NOTICE, a LAWFUL DOCUMENT
and EVIDENCE. It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the
UTMOSTIMPORTANCE and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION.
Please be aware that failure to act on this LAWFULNOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act,
which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/any British sovereign
man/woman within or without the realm of the English Isles and Commonwealth and, is an OFFENCE
under the misprision of treason Act 1795,' SECTION 1 (Misprision of treason).
Whereby;...it is an offence at common law for any person(s) who knows that treason is being planned
or committed, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace. Also please be

aware that the penalty for committing 'misprision of treason' in this day is life imprisonment and total
asset stripping, and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not
malice, menace, frivolity, vexation nor ill will.
Whereas you persist to harass me despite being notified of the facts and that you have made
UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself/legal person, and that you are continuing to coerce me to comply
with unlawful statutes (Industries Act 1991) by threat of enforcement and, that you are acting for a
'corporation' who has at this time no lawful claim against I Danielle Davidson, a sovereign woman
standing in lawful rebellion and, that the crown is committing high treason against the sovereign
peoples of the English Isles and Commonwealth at this time therefore I cannot lawfully nor morally
support financially or in any other way a treasonous regime of governance or any private entity not also
standing under article 61of Magna Carta 1215, Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DOSO
! Therefore...
It is to my understanding that you must now by the common laws of this realm and, with the evidence
herein supplied, CEASE AND DESIST in all actions against I Danielle Davidson, I have lawful excuse
to deny payment for a stolen water and sewage 'service or to deal with anyone/entity not also standing
under said article. With light to the evidence reported to you personally Alex Carter, herein this notice,
this evidence by LAW must now be reported by YOU to the police to stay within the bounds of
constitutional law, failure to do so would contravene the Treason 1795 Act and would be an Act of
'misprision of treason at common law'. I will be forced to report any further unlawful demands to the
police.
THEREFORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that:
1.) A long range deception to overthrow the sovereignty of the English Isles, by controlling its currency
and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalized by the Geo-political centre of the
third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily,
they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka
fascism), and political subversion. Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled
'Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft' (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821).
Translated into English as 'European Economic Community'. The chapter headings of this Nazi
document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.
2.) Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology,
have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.
3.) The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the
European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-French pro-federal European lobbying body
posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. The documentation evidencing these events
are present on the discs FCO 10 30/48 herein provided.
4.) The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a
European constitution.

5.) The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the
treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
6.) Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 197072 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents have been
released after the thirty year rule.
7.) The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are
all born free to do whatever we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm, injury or loss to
another's life, liberty or property or their rights to life, liberty or property.
8.) England, within the United Kingdom(corporation) of Great Britain is a common law jurisdiction
and British parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender land or transfer, even
temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war.

9.) No man (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is
above the common law of Great Britain that forms the British constitution (Magna Carta 1215, The
Declaration and Bill of Rights1688/89, the Coronation Oath Act 1689 and the Act of Union succession
and settlement 1701-1707.
10.) The Declaration of Rights 1688 is an un-rebutted claim of Right by the people and therefore
beyond the reach of parliament and still stands to this day. The Declaration includes the clause: No
foreign prince, person, prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power,
superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. This is mirrored in
the Bill of Rights1689 which still stands as legislation.
11.) Treason in statute law was redefined by the Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include; a)
compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his/her spouse or eldest son; b) levying war
against the sovereign in his/her realm, which includes, any insurrection against the authority of the
sovereign or of the government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder; c) giving aid or comfort to the
sovereigns enemies in wartime.
12.) Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government of a state to
which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.
13.) Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by
the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes the
subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.
14.) The evidence presented in the 'Shoehorned into the E.U.' files shows that the Heath Government of
1972was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with
the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if
brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.
15.) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European
law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy
of the British parliament, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.
16.) The signing of the single European Act in1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making
powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of
Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.
17.) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992,based on the original EEC Berlin document1942,
surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, this was an
Act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.
18.) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997increased the European Unions powers for action at
community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs
and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair
administration.
19.) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government repealed
the Treason legislation in section 36 of the ' Crime and Disorder Act 1998.'abolishing the death penalty.
This included the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law
still stands as common law has primacy.
20.) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further Acts of
Treason at common law by the Blair administration.
21.) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government
removed the word sovereignty' from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002
(section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers
(section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

22.) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008surrendered further control of policy including that
relating to immigration and borders. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Brown
administration.
23.) The present Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum
on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the
British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is
evidence to prove that this is an Act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.
24.) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by
professional accountants of their books in the last 15years. One year of non-publication is a criminal
offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U's own court of auditors for the
past15 years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former
MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance
of British taxpayer's funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.
25.) The six European Treaties since 1972 are all unlawful and should be struck completely from the
statute books.
26.) All of the documented evidence pertaining to these allegations can be viewed on the 'Shoe horned
into the EU' discs herein.
The evidence submitted herein is to my understanding precise and factual and is in no way whatsoever
intended to deceive, mislead, cause mischief or as an act of frivolity, vexation or ill will. Whereas this
document is required to be responded to in its entirety within 28 days on your receipt of this 'Notice of
understanding of Misprision of treason' please respond as to your lawful standing in light of this
evidence presented on your full commercial liability and penalty of perjury..
Our constitutional law demands that we ALL take up lawful rebellion in support of the barons petition
of the 7th ofFebruary2001 and, to continue to distress those that refuse (as to the terms and conditions
laid down under Article 61 Magna Carta1215), which was Invoked by the barons' committee on the
23rd March2001 and reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davis on the24th March 2001, under
the title 'Peers Petition Queen on Europe' the invocation of Article 61 still stands to this day as the
lawful position of the English Isles and commonwealth.
The evidence confirming that treason has and is being committed, is provided within a computer disc
format compilation of public records documents amounting to almost 500pages entitled 'FCO 10
30/48Shoehorned into the EU'. Within this compilation of signed and sometimes stamped
documentation the evidence of both sedition and treason are proven. This information can be found on
the internet for your perusal.
I am also obliged to provide the following information for your immediate investigation:
The evidence presented in the 'Shoe horned into the E.U.' files shows that the Heath Government of
1972 was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with
the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if
brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.

a.) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European
law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy
of the British parliament, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.
b.) The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making
powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of
Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.
c.) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original EEC Berlin document 1942,
surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, this was an
Act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.

d.) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 increased the European Unions powers for action
at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs
and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair
administration.
e.) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government
repealed the Treason legislation in section 36 of the 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998.' abolishing the
death penalty. This included the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at
common law still stands as common law has primacy.
f.) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further Acts of
Treason at common law by the Blair administration.
g.) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government
removed the word 'sovereignty' from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002
(section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers
(section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.
h.) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 surrendered further control of policy including that
relating to immigration and borders. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Brown
administration.
i.) The present Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum
on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the
British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is
evidence to prove that this is an Act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.
j.) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by
professional accountants of their books in the last 15 years. One year of non- publication is a criminal
offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U's own court of auditors for the
past 16 years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former
MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance
of British taxpayer's funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.

FEE SCHEDULE.
Whereas you are continuing to harass I Danielle Davidson I now include charges for ANY unlawful
harassment due to your continued unlawful demands which causes me a tort.
For ANY unlawful demands sent to me via email, letter or by any other means of communication
whilst ignoring the rule of law, you shall incur and accept the charges of 300.00 (Three hundred GB
pounds) per each demand made.
For ANY visits to my home made by ANY representatives of Wessex water or by any third party
representatives involved in this matter i.e., bailiffs, whilst ignoring the rule of law, you shall incur and
accept charges of12,000.00 (Twelve thousand GB pounds) per incident.
The above fee schedule is a non negotiable instrument. Any breach of fee schedule will invoke a
demand for payment against the directors of Wessex water billing services limited, and will constitute a
criminal offence at common law that shall be reported to the relevant authorities.
I now AFFIRM that all of the information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and first
hand experience and that I am of lawful age and mentally competent to serve this 'Notice of misprision
of treason'.
I hereby affix my own name to all of the affirmations and claims made herein this document with
explicit reservations to all my natural, unalienable sovereign Rights and habeas Corpus, and to my
specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract nor obligation which I have not knowingly,

willingly, voluntarily and without misrepresentation, duress or coercion entered into, and that any
hearing with regard to this matter(s) is to be heard under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land
in open forum, as this matter is of course in the public interest and, that this is in accordance with my
constitutional rights.

Signed:
Witnessed by:
Witness 1).
Witness2).
Witness3).

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

EVIDENCE.
Copy of the Daily Telegraph report 'Peers petition Queen on Europe' 24th March 2001. Exhibit A.
Copy of the letters between the barons Committee and the office of Sovereign in 2001. Exhibit B.
The entire text of Article 61'Enforcement clause'. Exhibit C.
Maxim:
Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.

EXHIBIT 'A'.
Peers Petition Queen on Europe. Daily Telegraph.
By Caroline Davies
12:00AM GMT 24 Mar 2001
FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block
closer integration with Europe.
The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne
were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with
the Charter's Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at
Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be
defended.
The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede,
allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their
number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the
Glorious Revolution.
The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that
quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, with the petition signed by 28
hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of
members of the public.

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

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

The Petition
A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta,1215
February 2001 To Defend British Rights and Freedoms
Maam,
as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majestys 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 Queens Commission, and
iii) the United Kingdoms obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
e) which remove the United Kingdoms 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 Majestys power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a
similar threat to the security of the Realm in1707;
WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from
any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the
United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval; to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms
and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you,
our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June1953.
We have the honor to be Your Majestys loyal and obedient subjects.
(signed)

Notes:
The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September that Magna
Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much
on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsburys Laws of England says:
Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.
The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:
Article 24 transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other
states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified
Majority Voting.
Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with
ambassadorial status.
Article 191 assumes for the EU the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at
European level[i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not
contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free
political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions taxation without
representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Articles 29 and31 establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Euro just).
Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the
door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing
and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol
law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under
article280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in
part at least following heavy pressure from British Euro-realists.
Article 17 establishes a common foreign and defense policy for the EU, with its own military force.
The House of Commons was told on 11 December2000, that: The entire chain of command must
remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed. Her
Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her
Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of
The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.
The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU competence, including indirect taxation, the
environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has
plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty
negotiations.

Charter of Fundamental Rights signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.


Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them
meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human
rights [i.e.: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also
contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.
Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet)acted on
behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London
in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the
confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee
the country.
The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: Prerogative is created for the benefit of the
people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice. (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by
the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)
In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent
that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queens 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, parliaments will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the
security of the realm.
Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark
the 300thanniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was still part of statute
lawon which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.
The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:
the said Lordsand Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit
andmake 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 observedand 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 selfevident 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 delayAnd 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 Majestys obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen
has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in
Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all
rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.
From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce
from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is assigned contract.
Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise
any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majestys 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 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 parliaments power, and the Queens
Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn
obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary
obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for
the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.
The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations.
The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps
clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional an essential part of the checks and
balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect
us from government by tyranny.
We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition
highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the
political freedom of Her Majesty's subjects.
The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level
[i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to
forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It
also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions taxation without representation and the use of
state sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her
Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib.Def. Libertatis
Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.
It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the
question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite
which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.
We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables,
sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.
How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?
These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2and 4 of the Bill of Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority
without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)
2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie
as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of
Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is
further protection of our common law rights.)
In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her
Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by
contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted
earlier, we the undersigned, and others have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be
available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops
..until redress has been obtained.
We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects.
Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell

The Reply
I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition
to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.
The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of
feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her
Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of
Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this
entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.

EXHIBIT'C'.
Article 61, the whole text.
61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the
quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that
they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the
underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom,
whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be
observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so
that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards
anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be
notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our
justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that
transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the
event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days,
reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the
realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and
those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and
distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way
they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the
persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old
relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five

and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to
the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and
we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their
own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we
shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and
twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which
would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are
left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the
same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these twenty five
barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after
being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain
or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in
this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause
it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly,
whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such
things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.

14 Magna Carta 1215 Article 61


But since we have granted all these things aforesaid, for GOD, and for the amendment of our kingdom,
and for the better extinguishing the discord which has arisen between us and our Barons, we being
desirous that these things should possess entire and unshaken stability for ever[1], give and grant to
them the security underwritten[2];
namely, that the Barons may elect twenty-five Barons of the kingdom[3], whom they please, who shall
with their whole power, observe, keep, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have
granted to them[4], and have confirmed by this our present charter, in this manner:
that is to say, if we, or our Justiciary, or our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall have injured any one
in any thing, or shall have violated any article of the peace or security[5], and the injury shall have been
shown to four of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, the said four Barons shall come to us, or to our
Justiciary if we be out of the kingdom, and making known to us the excess committed, petition that we
cause that excess to be redressed without delay[6].
And if we shall not have redressed the excess, or, if we have been out of the kingdom, our Justiciary
shall not have redressed it within the term of forty days [7], computing from the time when it shall have
been made known to us, or to our Justiciary if we have been out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four
Barons, shall lay that cause before the residue of the twenty-five Barons;
and they, the twenty-five Barons, with the community of the whole land[8], shall distress and harass us
by all the ways in which they are able[9]; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and
possessions[10], and by any other means in their power[11], until the excess shall have been
redressed[12], according to their verdict; saving harmless our person, and the persons of our Queen and
children; and when it hath been redressed[13], they shall behave to us as they have done before[14].
And whoever of our land pleaseth, may swear, that he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twentyfive Barons[15], in accomplishing all the things aforesaid, and that with them he will harass us to the
utmost of his power[16]: and we publicly and freely give leave to every one to swear who is willing to
swear; and we will never forbid any to swear[17].
But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the
twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our
command, to swear as aforesaid[18].
And if any one of the twenty-five Barons shall die, or remove out of the land, or in any other way shall
be prevented from executing the things above said, they who remain of the twenty-five Barons shall
elect another in his place[19], according to their own pleasure, who shall be sworn in the same manner
as the rest.
In all those things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five Barons, if it happen that all the
twenty-five have been present, and have differed in their opinions about any thing, or if some of them
who had been summoned, would not, or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who
were present shall have provided and decreed, shall be held as firm and as valid, as if all the twentyfive had agreed in it: and the aforesaid twenty-five shall swear, that they will faithfully observe, and,
with all their power, cause to be observed, all the things mentioned above[20].
And we will obtain nothing from any one, by ourselves, nor by another, by which any of these
concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been
obtained, let it be void and null: and we will never use it, neither by ourselves nor by another [21].

15 MAGNA CARTA 1215 full text


English translation
Magna Carta.
Abuses by King John caused a revolt by nobles who compelled him to execute this recognition of
rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including
the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.
"We have also granted to all freemen* of our kingdom, for us and our heirs for ever, all the
underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever."
*Freeman those of free status in the eyes of the law (that is, not villeins) and as such having certain
rights denied to villeins, such as access to the Kings courts in certain actions, freedom to move about
and marry and exemption from certain onerous duties.

The Magna Carta


(The Great Charter)
Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and
Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters,
sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having
regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the
honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have
granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate
of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of
London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester,
William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the
household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England),
and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl
of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold,
Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert,
Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh,
and others, our liegemen.
1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our
heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties
inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of
elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure
and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the
same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we
will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted
to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and
held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.
2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and
at the time of his death his heir shall be full of age and owe "relief", he shall have his inheritance by the
old relief, to wit, the heir or heirs of an earl, for the whole barony of an earl by 100; the heir or heirs
of a baron, 100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s, at most, and whoever owes less
let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.
3. If, however, the heir of any one of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his
inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age.
4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing
but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or

waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the
sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waster of
what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful
and discreet men of that fee, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall
assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein
made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and
discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid.
5. The guardian, moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks,
fishponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land; and
he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and
wainage, according as the season of husbandry shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonable
bear.
6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage takes place the nearest
in blood to that heir shall have notice.
7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage
portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for
the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may
remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be
assigned to her.
8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided
always that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the
consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.
9. Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the chattels of the
debtor are sufficient to repay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the
principal debtor is able to satisfy the debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail to pay the debt, having
nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall answer for the debt; and let them have the lands and
rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are indemnified for the debt which they have paid for
him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he is discharged thereof as against the said
sureties.
10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the
debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall
into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt;
and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping
with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however,
service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
12. No scutage not aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom,
except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest
daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be
done concerning aids from the city of London.
13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by
water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all
their liberties and free customs.
14. And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent the assessing of an aid (except in the
three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots,
earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters; and we will moreover cause to be summoned
generally, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, and others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, namely,
after the expiry of at least forty days, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will
specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall

proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who
were summoned have come.
15. We will not for the future grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free tenants, except to
ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and on each
of these occasions there shall be levied only a reasonable aid.
16. No one shall be distrained for performance of greater service for a knight's fee, or for any other free
tenement, than is due therefrom.
17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.
18. Inquests of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment shall not be held
elsewhere than in their own county courts, and that in manner following; We, or, if we should be out of
the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who
shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county
court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court.
19. And if any of the said assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, let there remain of the
knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as many as may be required
for the efficient making of judgments, according as the business be more or less.
20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the
offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet
saving always his "contentment"; and a merchant in the same way, saving his "merchandise"; and a
villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his "wainage" if they have fallen into our mercy: and
none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the
neighborhood.
21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the
degree of the offense.
22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others
aforesaid; further, he shall not be amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.
23. No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from
of old were legally bound to do so.
24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.
25. All counties, hundred, wapentakes, and trithings (except our demesne manors) shall remain at the
old rents, and without any additional payment.
26. If anyone holding of us a lay fief shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff shall exhibit our letters patent
of summons for a debt which the deceased owed us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to attach
and enroll the chattels of the deceased, found upon the lay fief, to the value of that debt, at the sight of
law worthy men, provided always that nothing whatever be thence removed until the debt which is
evident shall be fully paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfill the will of the
deceased; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the deceased, saving to
his wife and children their reasonable shares.
27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest
kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased
owed to him.
28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone without
immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the
seller.

29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money in lieu of castle-guard, when he is willing to
perform it in his own person, or (if he himself cannot do it from any reasonable cause) then by another
responsible man. Further, if we have led or sent him upon military service, he shall be relieved from
guard in proportion to the time during which he has been on service because of us.
30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for
transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.
31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is
not ours, against the will of the owner of that wood.
32. We will not retain beyond one year and one day, the lands those who have been convicted of
felony, and the lands shall thereafter be handed over to the lords of the fiefs.
33. All kydells for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout
all England, except upon the seashore.
34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any
tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court.
35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one
measure of corn, to wit, "the London quarter"; and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or
"halberget"), to wit, two ells within the selvedges; of weights also let it be as of measures.
36. Nothing in future shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs, but freely it shall
be granted, and never denied.
37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight's
service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or
of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or
burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight's service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy
which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have
wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight's service.
38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law",
without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.
39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we
go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to
tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and
right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war
with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without
injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the
merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the
others shall be safe in our land.
42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in
accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants,
who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land
and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the
allegiance due to us.
43. If anyone holding of some escheat (such as the honor of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne,
Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) shall die, his heir shall give no
other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would have done to the baron if that barony had
been in the baron's hand; and we shall hold it in the same manner in which the baron held it.

44. Men who dwell without the forest need not henceforth come before our justiciaries of the forest
upon a general summons, unless they are in plea, or sureties of one or more, who are attached for the
forest.
45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm
and mean to observe it well.
46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of
England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when
vacant, as they ought to have.
47. All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforsted; and a similar
course shall be followed with regard to river banks that have been placed "in defense" by us in our
time.
48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their
officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve
sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty
days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we
previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.
49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of
the peace of faithful service.
50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks, the relations of Gerard of Athee (so that in future
they shall have no bailiwick in England); namely, Engelard of Cigogne, Peter, Guy, and Andrew of
Chanceaux, Guy of Cigogne, Geoffrey of Martigny with his brothers, Philip Mark with his brothers and
his nephew Geoffrey, and the whole brood of the same.
51. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights,
crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's
hurt.
52. If anyone has been dispossessed or removed by us, without the legal judgment of his peers, from
his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a
dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five and twenty barons of whom mention is made
below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, for all those possessions, from which anyone has,
without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King Henry, or by
our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom
we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those
things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our order, before our taking of the
cross; but as soon as we return from the expedition, we will immediately grant full justice therein.
53. We shall have, moreover, the same respite and in the same manner in rendering justice concerning
the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our broter
afforested, and concerning the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another (namely, such
wardships as we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight's service), and
concerning abbeys founded on other fiefs than our own, in which the lord of the fee claims to have
right; and when we have returned, or if we desist from our expedition, we will immediately grant full
justice to all who complain of such things.
54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than
her husband.
55. All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements, imposed
unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning
them according to the decision of the five and twenty barons whom mention is made below in the
clause for securing the pease, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, along with the
aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to

bring with him for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed
without him, provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five and twenty barons are in a
similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted
in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five and twenty for this purpose only,
and after having been sworn.
56. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the
legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if
a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for the
tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of
Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the
same to us and ours.
57. Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the lawful judgment of
his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, and which
we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have
respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or
an inquest made by our order before we took the cross; but as soon as we return (or if perchance we
desist from our expedition), we will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the
Welsh and in relation to the foresaid regions.
58. We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters
delivered to us as security for the peace.
59. We will do towards Alexander, king of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and his hostages,
and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the same manner as we shall do towards our owher
barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from
William his father, formerly king of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his peers in
our court.
60. Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of which we have granted in
our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed b all of our kingdom, as well
clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.
61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the
quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that
they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the
underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom,
whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be
observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so
that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards
anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be
notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our
justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that
transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the
event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days,
reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the
realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and
those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and
distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way
they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the
persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old
relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five
and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to
the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and
we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their
own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we
shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and
twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which
would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are

left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the
same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five
barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after
being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain
or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in
this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause
it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly,
whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such
things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.
62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay,
from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all
trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the
restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as
far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of
the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops
aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.
63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our
kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely
and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in
all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art
of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent.
Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is
called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year
of our reign.
++++++++++++++++++++++
This is but one of three different translations I found of the Magna Carta; it was originally done in
Latin, probably by the Archbishop, Stephen Langton. It was in force for only a few months, when it
was violated by the king. Just over a year later, with no resolution to the war, the king died, being
succeeded by his 9-year old son, Henry III. The Charter (Carta) was reissued again, with some
revisions, in 1216, 1217 and 1225. As near as I can tell, the version presented here is the one that
preceded all of the others.
The two other versions I found each professed to be the original, as well. The basic intent of each is the
same.
Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300)

16 THE CURSE OF THE CHARTER BREAKERS


The rights and liberties affirmed by Magna Charta were deemed of such importance, in the thirteenth
century, that the Bishops, twice a year, with tapers burning, and in their pontifical robes, pronounced,
in the presence of the king and the representatives of the estates of England, the greater
excommunication against the infringer of that instrument. The imposing ceremony took place in the
great Hall of Westminster. A copy of the curse, as pronounced in 1253, declares that, by the authority
of Almighty God, and the blessed Apostles and Martyrs, and all the saints in heaven, all those who
violate the English liberties, and secretly or openly, by deed, word, or counsel, do make statutes, or
observe then being made, against said liberties, are accursed and sequestered from the company of
heaven and the sacraments of the Holy Church.
William Penn, in his admirable political pamphlet, England's Present Interest Considered, alluding to
the curse of the Charter breakers, says: I am no Roman Catholic, and little value their other curses; yet
I declare I would not for the world incur this curse, as every man deservedly doth, who offers violence
to the fundamental freedom thereby repeated and confirmed.
In Westminster's royal halls,
Robed in their pontificals,
England's ancient prelates stood
For the people's right and good.
Closed around the waiting crowd,
Dark and still, like winter's cloud;
King and council, lord and knight,
Squire and yeoman, stood in sight;
Stood to hear the priest rehearse,
In God's name, the Church's curse,
By the tapers round them lit,
Slowly, sternly uttering it.
Right of voice in framing laws,
Right of peers to try each cause;
Peasant homestead, mean and small,
Sacred as the monarch's hall,
Whoso lays his hand on these,
England's ancient liberties;
Whoso breaks, by word or deed,
England's vow at Runnymede;
Be he Prince or belted knight,
Whatsoe'er his rank or might,
If the highest, then the worst,
Let him live and die accursed.
Thou, who to Thy Church hast given
Keys alike, of hell and heaven,
Make our word and witness sure,
Let the curse we speak endure!
Silent, while that curse was said,
Every bare and listening head
Bowed in reverent awe, and then
All the people said, Amen!

Seven times the bells have tolled,


For the centuries gray and old,
Since that stoled and mitred band
Cursed the tyrants of their land.
Since the priesthood, like a tower,
Stood between the poor and power;
And the wronged and trodden down
Blessed the abbot's shaven crown.
Gone, thank God, their wizard spell,
Lost, their keys of heaven and hell;
Yet I sigh for men as bold
As those bearded priests of old.
Now, too oft the priesthood wait
At the threshold of the state;
Waiting for the beck and nod
Of its power as law and God.
Fraud exults, while solemn words
Sanctify his stolen hoards;
Slavery laughs, while ghostly lips
Bless his manacles and whips.
Not on them the poor rely,
Not to them looks liberty,
Who with fawning falsehood cower
To the wrong, when clothed with power.
Oh, to see them meanly cling,
Round the master, round the king,
Sported with, and sold and bought,
Pitifuller sight is not!
Tell me not that this must be:
God's true priest is always free;
Free, the needed truth to speak,
Right the wronged, and raise the weak.
Not to fawn on wealth and state,
Leaving Lazarus at the gate;
Not to peddle creeds like wares;
Not to mutter hireling prayers;
Nor to paint the new life's bliss
On the sable ground of this;
Golden streets for idle knave,
Sabbath rest for weary slave!
Not for words and works like these,
Priest of God, thy mission is;
But to make earth's desert glad,
In its Eden greenness clad;
And to level manhood bring
Lord and peasant, serf and king;
And the Christ of God to find
In the humblest of thy kind!

Thine to work as well as pray,


Clearing thorny wrongs away;
Plucking up the weeds of sin,
Letting heaven's warm sunshine in;
Watching on the hills of Faith;
Listening what the spirit saith,
Of the dim-seen light afar,
Growing like a nearing star.
God's interpreter art thou,
To the waiting ones below;
Twixt them and its light midway
Heralding the better day;
Catching gleams of temple spires,
Hearing notes of angel choirs,
Where, as yet unseen of them,
Comes the New Jerusalem!
Like the seer of Patmos gazing,
On the glory downward blazing;
Till upon Earth's grateful sod
Rests the City of our God!
1848.

17 MAGNA CARTA QUOTES


Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation
to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna
Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation
which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However,
17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I
spoke loosely and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court.
Where justice is concerned, the principles of Magna Carta are a reference to which we should always
return to ensure that we are proceeding in the right direction.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Danny Danziger & John Gillingham
As a symbol of the struggle against tyranny it will always retain its value
Danny Danziger & John Gillingham are the authors of the excellent book, 1215: The Year of Magna
Carta.
Erwin Griswold, Dean of Harvard Law School
Magna Carta is not primarily significant for what it was, but rather for what it was made to be
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sir Winston Churchill
Here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a
supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone
justifies the respect in which men have held it
Prime Minister of Britain 1940 1945, 1951 1955.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William Stubbs.
The Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation, after it has realised its own identity
Thee whole constitutional history of England is little more than a commentary on the Magna Carta
Bishop of Oxford between 1866 and 1884, in his volume on constitutional history.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas Tany, 1650.
Magna Carta is the being of our being
Influential preacher and self-professed prophet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William Pitt, The Elder.
[Magna Carta is] the Bible of the English Constitution
Former British Prime Minister, 1766 1768.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lord Bingham of Cornhill.


The sealing of Magna Carta was an event that changed the constitutional landscape in this country
and, over time, the world
As well as being a former Master of the Rolls, Lord Bingham was also Lord Chief Justice of England
and Wales, and Senior Law Lord of Appeal. The Bingham Centre continues to promote his work and
the rule of law internationally.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Rt. Hon. Fiona Woolf C.B.E.
2015 is the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta, the single most important legal
document in history. The foundation for global constitutions, commerce and communities. The anchor
for the Rule of Law.
In September 2014 she marked the Global Law Summits one year to go anniversary at Mansion
House.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history. It permeated
the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the Middle Ages. It was written in Magna Charta
This American Presidents Third Inauguration Address in 1941 defended democracy and freedom, as
Europe and many other parts of world were at war. In this speech, the President referenced the Magna
Carta as a precursor to democracy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls.
The greatest constitutional document of all times the foundation of the freedom of the individual
against the arbitrary authority of the despot
Between 1962 and 1982.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David M Rubenstein.
The best money I ever spent
On the US$22m he spent on purchasing a 1297 version of Magna Carta.

18- LAWFUL REBELLION FACTS


(as used in Affidavits)
1. Magna Carta: Chapter 61 of Magna Carta covers the subject's rights to appeal to a committee of
barons for redress against a tyrant.
2. In 1999, after several hundred thousand postcards were sent to Queen Elizabeth II urging her not to
give royal assent to the treaty of Nice, a quorum of 65 peers acting under the Magna Carta chapter 61,
selected 25 of their number to form such a committee. They were satisfied that the conditions required
to justify the use of the procedure specified in chapter 61 of Magna Carta were established.
3. Four of these peers served the petition on Queen Elizabeth II on the 7th February 2001 at noon,
insisting that she should; Withhold the royal assent from any parliamentary bill which attempts to
ratify the Treaty of Nice, unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given their clear and
specific approval; uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set
out in Magna Carta and the Declaration Of Rights, which you, our sovereign, swore before the nation
to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953.
4. (The service of the barons' petition was reported in the Daily Telegraph on the 7th of February
2001.)
5. These things she has conspicuously failed to do.
6. As a consequence of her failure to comply, all loyal subjects are required, Together with the
community of the whole realm, to distress us and distrain us (the crown) in all possible ways, namely
by seizing our castles. Lands, possessions and In any other way they can. Until redress has been
obtained as they see fit.
7. The fact that The whole community of the realm is obliged to support the Barons' committee,
means that individual OFFICIALS HAVE NO AUTHORITY to issue demands in the name of the
crown, and commit the statutory offence of fraud by misrepresentation, if they try.
8. The courts have no authority to deny the subjects' rights. Representatives of the crown may not
breach the common law maxim that, No man may sit in judgment of his own cause. it is for the
Barons' committee to let us know when they are satisfied that redress has been obtained.
9. The Barons' Committee procedure is based on the subjects' common law right of duress of
circumstances- we may commit minor crimes in order to prevent a worse one happening.
10. Transferring allegiance is not Treason because the oaths of allegiance are the office, not the holder.
11. Accordingly, as a loyal subject of the realm, I have entered into lawful rebellion as demanded and
required by chapter 61 of Magna Carta 1215. When redress (as determined by the Barons' Committee),
has been achieved, I will once again be a true and loyal subject to the holder of the office.

19 Article 52 Of Magna Carta 1215


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

20 Constitutional Limits to Parliament's Power


(Found at: http://www.merialvetsite.com/sites/constitution/Limits1510.html)
This Outline of the principles of our Constitution and the enduring values of the English law endeavors
to show the force of the constitutional argument. We commend this as a counter to any further attempt
by those within Parliament, whether elected, appointed or hereditary, who appear to be working to try
to dismantle the constitutional heart of our nation. These same representatives of the people seem to
believe that they have authority and power so to do. In this they are following in the footsteps of
previous governments that have relied on the fashionable opinion of Professor A.V. Dicey who
conveniently overlooked the restraining power of Oaths and argued that "Parliament could make or
unmake any law it wished, (albeit) under the Constitution."
Our arguments forcefully demonstrate that those who govern are not empowered to breach the
Constitution or the law and may never lawfully breach their own sworn oaths of office. This clearly
shows why such constitutional upheaval is beyond the legitimate power of Parliament as it is at present
constituted. That this argument is forceful, was emphasized in 1956 by the late Sir Winston Churchill
and earlier, in the 18th Century, by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. The fundamentals of the
Constitution remain unaltered since their time, so how may it all be legally dismembered now? The
whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the Sovereignty of the nation and the wellbeing and
security of the People by compelling all who govern to uphold our national Sovereignty under oath.
The Constitution exists and provides a positive limit to Parliament's power. It is not codified in a single
document but is in part written and comprises many laws and customs. Sir Winston Churchill was fully
aware of the importance of the Magna Carta: "The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving
rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long
existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in
subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the
rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and
never as yet, without success." (Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956)) An
extract from the Earl of Chathams comments, made to the House of Lords, is included at the end of
this short paper. His comments most eloquently reinforce the above. Over the last two years our
colleagues and we have made a study of the fundamental principles of the English Constitution. We
have consulted original documentation (The Declaration and Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, relevant
Acts of Parliament) and studied written records (Parliamentary Records - precursors to "Hansard" - for
both Houses) contemporaneous with that documentation to establish the full significance of the written
material. We have tried to establish just what the written words were intended to mean at the time they
were actually written and their present relevance. We have discussed our findings with constitutional
experts and with the Offices of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Home Secretary and of the
Lord Chancellor to confirm that we are not labouring under any recognized misunderstanding of these
matters. We have also had the benefit of expert legal advice from leading counsel. The following
material forms only a part of our researches. We believe it is very relevant to the progressive loss of
Sovereignty resulting from recent Government legislation and intentions; as indicated for example in
the Treaty of Nice, awaiting ratification and unconstitutional provisions within the Anti-Terrorism Act.
We believe we have demonstrated that the Constitution does impose limits on Parliament's power and
Parliament may not legally contravene the existing Constitution or the Rule of Law.
The essence of our argument is as follows:- Irrevocable Liberties of the Subject. The Magna Carta
1215 itself states this:- Chapter 39 "Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatu, aut
utlagetur, exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicum parium
suorum vel per legem terre." "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any
way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgement of his
peers or (1) by the law of the land." Chapter 40 "Nulli vendimus, nulli negabimus, aut differemus,
rectum aut justicum." "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice." The
Great Charter was confirmed by the statute law of 25 Edw. 1 cc 1, 9, 29. This is published as the
Magna Carta (which strictly speaking it is not, but merely one of the formal confirmations of) by Her
Majestys Stationery Office as Rights of the Subject I, revised to 30th September 1979. Chapter XXXVIII of this confirmation is the extant statute law confirming the above as follows:- "Nullus liber
homo capiatur vel imprisonet, aut disseisiatur de libo ten suo, vel libertatib libis consuetudinib suis, aut
ultaget aut exulet aut aliquo mod destruatur, nec sup eum ibimus, nec sup eu mittem, nisi p legale

judiciu piu suo, vel p legem terre, Nulli vendem nulli negabim, aut differem rectum vel justiciam." "No
free man shall be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free custom, or be
outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed: nor will We pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but
by lawful judgement of his peers, or* by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny
or (1) defer to any man either Justice or Right." Relevance Crucially, from the Magna Carta, the
absolute rights not to be taken, imprisoned, disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed are formally
ascertained: except by the lawful judgement of his peers and/or(1) by the law of the land. Next and
most importantly this may not be denied or ignored because "To no one will we sell, to no one will we
refuse or delay right or justice." In recent years it has been confirmed on several occasions that no
Minister may advise The Queen to break Her Coronation Oath (2). This limitation on Parliament's
power has thus been acknowledged. It has also been recognized in Leading Counsel's Note (1):
Latitude in translation has left doubt as to whether choice is intended by using "or"; but "and" is most
likely. There is evidence for this view within Magna Carta itself, both logical and literal. The logical
interpretation of Chapter 40 supports this view because it confirms an absolute and irrevocable right to
"either right or justice" as in Chapter 39. In the context of the Latin statement (Ch 40). this clearly
indicates both "right and justice" as appropriate. Literal evidence may also be found in Cassel's Latin
dictionary 24 edition:- "Vel" or, and also even. Government documents however conveniently use "or"
implying choice. recent opinion for the Freedom Association. All must bear "true allegiance". This is a
solemn duty under oath of office and compliance is a prerequisite of office. The Queen accepts the
advice of her Ministers but equally there can be no entitlement to place the Monarch in an
unconstitutional position with wrong advice or "evil counsel" that causes Her to commit perjury. This
is the logic behind the maxim "the king can do no wrong". Under the Constitution Sovereignty belongs
to the people but is vested by them in trust with the hereditary monarch, who is first approved and
confirmed by the people, not by Parliament or government which is elected and empowered to govern
on their behalf. This fundamental principle is exemplified by the coronation service which starts with
the acceptance of the new monarch in waiting who solemnly swears to govern only in accordance with
terms of the Coronation Oath. Only then is the monarch crowned and enthroned (3) (4). The
"Coronation Oath" confirms that we shall be governed according to the laws and customs of the land.
The Coronation Oath Act 1 W & M Ch. 6 1689, in part, states:- "WILL You solemnely Promise and
Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging
according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?" The King
and Queene shall say: "I solemnly Promise soe to doe." Arch Bishop or Bishop: "Will you to your
power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements." King and Queene: "I
will." We may only be lawfully governed in accordance with the principles of the Coronation Oath.
Although the Oath was amended in 1937 to reflect changes of a territorial nature, the principles that
apply to the Kingdom agreed and contracted by the Oath as above, remain in force today and cannot be
renounced. For although, under the constitution Parliament may make or unmake any statute and to that
extent may be regarded as omnipotent, it may not contravene the Constitution. This was alluded to by
Sir Robert Megarry when he observed "Parliament is omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its
own omnipotence"(5). Therefore all Politicians elected or appointed, who actually sit in Parliament, are
there for the purpose of government within the Constitution and not without it. This is the
entrenchment of the Rule of Law and duty of governance that ensures no destruction of parliamentary
"omnipotence". No man, whether he be king or commoner, is above the law. The rule of law is the
absolute fundamental necessity of all democratic society. It is the fabric and limitation of our
Constitution. Such infamous leaders as Hitler and Stalin are prime examples of those who denied the
democratic process and dispensed with the Rule of Law. It is the Coronation Oath, supported by oaths
of office, that requires those who govern, to do so only in full accordance with the Constitution. This is
the means by which the people, through their courts, can ensure that despotism and tyranny may not
take hold and oppress the People. For if the People have no remedy at law to protect their rights they
are by definition oppressed. Note 2: Prime Minister John Major in the Commons (Hansard 15/10/96);
in correspondence from the Home Secretary Jack Straw replying in "light of his constitutional
responsibility" on 20/7/2000; by the Speaker in the Commons Betty Boothroyd 1/8/2001, and by the
Lord Chancellor in Oct. 2001. Note (3): Constitutional Law Wade Phillips p.169 7th ed. 1965 Note (4):
On Constitutional Law Chalmers & Hood Phillips p.143 6th ed. 1946. Note (5): Sir Robert Megarry
Vice Chancellor Manuel v. Attorney General 1983.). Previous abuse and failure resulted in the Petition
of Rights in 1628, which asserted that arbitrary imprisonment without showing cause was unlawful.
Charles I pressed his luck by using the illusory "divine" authority vested in him to dissolve Parliament
for 11 years. So to raise funds he imposed "ship money", an arbitrary tax, through the use of the
prerogative power contrary to the Petition of Rights. This ultimately cost him his head! For although in
Darnell v. R, also known as the "Five Knights" case against unlawful imprisonment and John

Hampden's "Ship Money" trial, judgment found for the King; it was recognized that the King had
violated the Constitution in both cases. This point was forcefully asserted through the Petition of Rights
in 1628, followed by the Civil War from 1642-49. It was ultimately settled in perpetuity by the
"Glorious Revolution of 1688". There is no legal precedence that contradicts the status of our
indubitable rights. Parliament currently claims "unlimited power" over us and that our "rights" are only
residual, but absolute power is contrary to the principles of the Constitution. There are boundaries and
these are indicated. The Constitution only permits a "prerogative power" in dire emergency such as war
or for the good of the nation, but the use of such power may only be a temporary expedient at the
hazard of the minister and therefore subject to correction by the judiciary or the legislature. Such
powers may never be used as a means to accumulate greater or unlawful power as a substitute for
constitutional governance for that would be a violation of the Constitution. It is also the duty of the
judiciary independently and impartially to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Of this there
can be no doubt. Indeed if the People are oppressed, they are entitled to redress and no longer owe
allegiance to the Crown until redress is forthcoming (Magna Carta Ch 61). The Bill of Rights states any
actions taken against its principles are null and void. Any notion that the Bill of Rights is "just an
ancient Statute" and thus no longer relevant under modern conditions must fall. The validity of the Bill
of Rights was solidly re-affirmed in the House of Lords by Lord Bingham (6). "Desuetude" is unknown
to English law. It is therefore the sworn duty of all Parliamentarians to uphold the Bill of Rights and
not to seek to attempt to undermine its principles. These are at the heart of our Constitution and another
fundamental principle of the English law demands that there is a balance of "law" and "remedy" as
illustrated by the very symbol of justice itself "The scales of justice". This equity is demonstrated in the
famous case of:- Ashby v. White 1704. If a person has a right, the law provides a remedy to enforce it.
As Holt, CJ, said in Ashby v. White : "If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to
vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it
is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are
reciprocal." "Where justice or right, there is remedy" - "Ubi jus ibi remedium" First the Coronation
Oath guarantees the Rule of Law and the custom (the Rights and Liberties of the people). Next, Magna
Carta and the law ensure that the liberties of the subject will always apply and be available to them,
particularly the right to trial before conviction and punishment by application of the Rule of Law
through the customary courts. The Habeas Corpus Act and Writs ensure there will be no unlawful or
unreasonable delay in justice, as determined by the Magna Carta and re-affirmed in the Bill of Rights.
Note (6): Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001 The Coronation Oath also guarantees
the rule of our law and crucially, the exercise of a just balance/equity of right and law ("remedy");
"Will you to your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements?
Sovereign: I will." The Petition of Rights 1628, amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of
Rights of 1688/9, ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with without the settled consent
of Parliament as a whole, not by government alone; in other words only by Statute. This ensures that
the "Rule of Law" remains the sole means of constitutional governance and cannot be replaced. Nor
may the people be isolated from their courts by creating statutes under the guise of "emergency
legislation" or otherwise, that by design or inadvertently undermine the Constitution and betray public
trust or usurp Parliament's role, purpose and raison d'etre. To subvert the laws of the Kingdom is
Treason. (7) Treason is the most serious of all crime under the Constitution, in order to protect and
preserve the Constitution for the people, their heirs and successors in perpetuity. (8) The process
whereby a person could be outlawed and not subject to the protection of the law was definitively
extinguished by the Magna Carta in 1215. That there should be no lawful denial of trial by one's peers
(the right to jury trial came later) was the greatest desire of those who drew up the Charter. The Barons
only accepted trial by their equals and the Rule of Law, applied through trial, was ensured forever.
King John had been outlawing and disseising the Barons who were determined to ensure protection and
insulation from the sovereign's tyrannical rule. By the end of the 17th Century in the wake of civil war,
over-mighty parliamentary control and a further dictatorial king, the people's protection afforded by the
Magna Carta was re-affirmed by the Bill of Rights. This was itself a remedy to counter any future
abuses of power by Parliament or Crown for ever. Judgment could no longer be arbitrary nor ever
henceforth precede trial and everyone would invariably be judged by their peers. To exile, imprison or
"put upon" a suspect without trial is contrary to the whole spirit of the Magna Carta. This asserts that
presumption of innocence is an absolute right demanding trial before conviction or punishment and no
punishment without guilt being proven at trial. "Justice in mercy" must "be executed in all judgments".
"The law must be executed" and "justice must be seen to be done" (9). There may be no cruel or
unusual punishment (e.g. deportation without trial) and no excessive bail. There will be no "fine or
forfeiture" before conviction. No pernicious courts may exist, such as that of the Star Chamber. Jurors
will be duly empanelled and returned showing that where jury trial is required, it will be used. Right of

Petition to the Crown may not be denied. As the Bill of Rights states there can be no (legal) suspension
of existing law without the (settled) consent of Parliament, it follows that Parliament must first amend,
repeal or destroy and then reconstruct our Constitution. No government would find that an easy or
popular task. Parliament cannot otherwise "lawfully" pass new laws that contravene a Constitution,
sworn by all who govern to uphold. Certainly constitutional laws such as the Bill of Rights cannot be
replaced by "Implied Repeal". All Parliamentarians have to swear, prior to assuming office; "to bear
true allegiance" to the Monarch and so uphold the Constitution for the People's governance. This is
confirmed in the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT as their duty, the law
and the Custom (10). Note (7): R v Thistlewood 1820 "Cato Street Conspiracy" etc. Note (8): On the
Constitution Chalmers & Hood Phillips pp 439-452 6th ed. 1946 Note (9): Hewart Lord Chief Justice
Note (10): Commons resolution 19 July 1995 The above clearly demonstrates that the recently enacted
legislation against terrorism, rushed through Parliament before Christmas, has, by denying access to
trial before imprisonment by virtue of the so called Third Pillar of the EU, directly contravened the
very core of our Constitution. Similarly ratification of the Nice Treaty would seriously breach the
Constitution and proposed amendments to the 1981 Animal Health Act, at present being forced through
Parliament, are a further blatant potential breach of the People's perpetual rights. These are just three
examples. There are others such as the "Right to Roam" and "fine and forfeiture before trial and
conviction" of lorry drivers found to be carrying alleged illegal immigrants, even if they are handed
over to the authorities on discovery by the driver. Finally the following extracts from statements made
to the House of Lords by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (1708 - 1778), most eloquently describe a
situation that is not dissimilar to the one in which we now find ourselves; "Instead of the arbitrary
power of a King, we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of Commons. If this be true, what
benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords, is detestable in every shape, but none so
formidable as where it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants. But my Lords this is not the
fact, this is not the Constitution, we have a law of Parliament. We have a Statute Book and the Bill of
Rights." - "the principles of the English Constitution. I have been bred up in these principles; and know
that, when the liberty of the subject is invaded and all redress denied him, resistance is justified. If I had
a doubt on the matter, I should follow the example set us by the reverend bench with whom I believe it
is a maxim, if any doubt in point of faith arises, or any question of controversy is started, to appeal at
once to the great source and defence of our religion - I mean the Holy Bible: the Constitution has its
political bible, by which, if it be fairly consulted by every political question may and ought to be
determined. Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights form that code, which I call the
Bible of the English Constitution. Had some of his Majestys unhappy predecessors trusted less to the
comments of their ministers, had they been better read in the text itself, the Glorious Revolution would
have remained only possible in theory, and would not now have existed on record a formidable
example to their successors."
Conclusions
* The above extracts from our studies of the Constitution show a clear and logical argument to the
effect that our Constitution does place definite restraints on the power of Parliament to make laws,
enter into treaties or undertake actions in contravention of that Constitution. For no man is above the
law. Furthermore there can be no right without a remedy to uphold that right.
* It is also apparent that successive governments over a number of years have introduced legislation
that has contravened the Constitution and required HM The Queen to breach Her Coronation Oath by
granting Royal Assent to such legislation.
* In this way the equilateral triangular harmony and authority of Crown, Lords and Commons in
Parliament, governing the nation on behalf of the People, has been usurped and replaced by an overmighty government. The People's trust has been betrayed. The law-makers have become law breakers
and thus the survival of our national independence and sovereignty is now at stake.

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


Without remedy there is no law, and Article 61 is the only remedy written in law to
our current situation of Treason and the abrogation of the law, and the loss of Royal
Assent which means that the law cannot be upheld by the sovereign.
Therefore it MUST be valid.
But even if it was thought that it might not be, for whatever reason, the response made
by the sovereign to the petition, which was patently presented in accordance with
Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 re-affirmed the validity of that Charter just as
surely as if she had just signed it anew herself. This is so ironic, that our cause is due
to the loss of Royal Assent, and our sovereign has given her Assent to our movement.
The reply was not made under duress and therefore regardless of any allegations of
the Magna Carta having being signed under duress, the sovereign has freely
reaffirmed the validity of the process invoked by the peers.
Also in regard to Magna Carta being signed under duress the fact was that before it
there was no remedy in law against an unjust king, and without remedy there is no
law. By providing remedy against unjust rule Magna Carta 1215 was the flowering of
the seed planted by lfred the great. So any suggestion that Magna Carta is invalid
because it was signed under duress is at the same time a claim that there should be no
law, and that tyrants should be allowed to rule as they wish. This has never been a
traditional outlook of the people of these lands.
Our sovereign is unable to restore the law, but has confirmed the duties placed upon
us by Article 61 of the MC 1215. The royal command therein is valid. There is
possibly no stronger act which could have been performed by the sovereign in order
to bring about the restoration of the law.

22 A TREASON, WITHOUT PRECEDENT


(Found at; truth-wars.co.uk/articles-of-interest/bigbrother/this-is-our-land/ (no longer
up), footnotes not available.)
For the first time in our history, the State, whose first duty is to defend the Nation and our Sovereignty,
is actively engaged in destroying it. This is the fundamental nature of the States evil machinations.
Those that feel passionately for their country know that it is this directed malevolence that needs to be
stopped.
Even with the use of new draconian regulations, the treasonous State has problems controlling the
premature hatemongering and violent excesses of its own collaborationist groups and auxiliaries. This
illustrates the gravity of our situation. We have a duty to see that this Great Treason is undone.
An Unlawful Surrender of Our Sovereignty
On Thursday 18th October 2007 Britain's then (un-elected) Prime minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, signed
the Lisbon Treaty. It was an act of Treason.
It is treason to act (or conspire) contrary to the Act of Supremacy 1559, Praemunire 1392, the 1351
Treason Act, the 1848 Treason Felony Act - and Treason at Common Law [1].
Since 1972, Parliament has treasonably surrendered the supremacy of the peoples (our) sovereignty to
an alien foreign power - it has unlawfully, and conspiratorially, allowed the Constitution and the Crown
to be subjugated to the power of the European Union. Our Sovereign representative (The Queen), as
official Governor of the nation, has failed to fulfill her Oath and duty to protect the people against the
treachery of Parliament. It has been observed: "Parliament, having in reality discarded the Crown, the
Monarch and the Constitution, is part of the European Union (EU). The British People are not a part of
the EU, for they never agreed to join it, or give up their inalienable right to be an independent people of
self political determination. Parliament ... is not only an unlawful assembly but a political dictatorship,
for it no longer represents the political aspirations of the people" [3].
The legal obligations, placed on the Monarch by the Oath, are set out in Halsburys Laws. One of the
principal duties imposed on the Crown, by the swearing of this Oath, is: to govern the peoples of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining
to them according to their respective laws and customs; where: the laws of England are the birthright
of the people thereof [4].
Those that seek to live by other forms of law other than English Common Law, or conspire to promote
the adoption of other forms of law (such as the European system of Corpus Juris), are committing
treason. Those that work for agencies of the Crown must swear an Oath of allegiance to the Crown. If
they aid or support these acts, then they are committing common law Treason. Those that know of
these acts, and do nothing, are by default committing 'misprision of Treason' [5].
The Denationalisation Agenda
The political rationale for the destruction of our ancient nations was set out in the early part of the 20th
Century by Marxist ideologues such as Antonio Gramsci: attack the historic pillars of society within a
nation by constant defamation and criticism - the public institutions, armed forces, politicians, the
police, education, and particularly the teaching of national history and national identity; break down the
boundaries between the private and public sectors so that the defined lines of responsibility of
accountability disappear; and (then) install a new (Marxist) controlling system, piece by piece, until the
single party state has been achieved.
It is this subversive agenda that our political masters are following, to 'deconstruct' (a euphemism for
destroying) both our nation and our sense of nationhood.

Our Parliament is now an instrument of State control working against the interests of the people. Our
identity as a sovereign nation is being destroyed by a treasonous political aristocracy that has
institutionalised lying, betrayal, deceit, dissimulation and obfuscation - that: " Britain has a lying
government, which systematically and as a matter of routine falsifies the facts Government lying
amounts to a horrifying assault on civil society, the main reason that mendacity is always embedded in
totalitarian regimes. [6]. Changes of Government do not alter this situation.
Efforts to 'deconstruct' (destroy) the English Church are especially prominent. We recall the warning of
Sir Karl Popper (generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century) who was
of the firm belief that it was the spiritual breakdown occasioned by Marxism that led to the growth of
Fascism in Europe in the 1930s. [7], and now, in the beginning of the 21st Century, an
uncompromising and alien religious 'final solution' is eagerly anticipating our own naive selfdestruction.
Rule by State Thuggery
English philosopher and writer Roger Scruton provides a particularly insightful and succinct
description of the traditional subservient position of the State in Law: "The English law existed not to
control the individual but to free him. It was on the side of the subject against those whether usurping
politicians or common criminals who wished to bend him unconsenting to their will" [8]. The
journalist Peter Hitchins also observes this vital arrangement: "In the English common law tradition,
quite distinct from those of our Continental neighbours, it is the State that is answerable to us. We are
presumed innocent in the widest possible sense. We can walk down any street without being challenged
to prove who we are or explain what we are doing. We are, in short, sovereigns over ourselves, left
alone to live our private lives as we wish provided we obey a law we have made ourselves. Or rather,
this is what we were until our elite State began its great reforms fifty years ago" [9].
In the last few decades State politicians have completely reversed the traditional relationship between
the people, the law, and the law enforcers. Again, Peter Hitchins sums up the old relationship as: "the
British principle [is] that it is the right and duty of each citizen to preserve the peace and bring
malefactors to justice, with its corollary that the police are merely paid to act on the citizens behalf"
[10].
We now have black-uniformed, paramilitary police, who clearly see themselves as servants of the
State.
Diversifism is Moral Cowardice
Diversifism is a political invention, founded upon the concept of the essential subjectivity of ideas
(especially cultural beliefs and values). Those advancing diversifism believe there should be no ranked
or privileged values or beliefs - and (of course) they believe this position should be beyond argument
and unchallengeable. Diversifism provides a refuge for those too cowardly to make a moral choice - or
to act ethically.
The politics of diversity is justified on the supposed moral (and practical) superiority of a society with a
multiplicity of cultural values and beliefs. It is used a political weapon in the 'deconstruction'
(destruction) of monoculture nations, such as the English nation. Not surprisingly the law enforcement
establishment and the police in particular, are being required to embrace diversifism as part of this
process of 'deconstruction'.
"Peace Through Diversity"
[Metropolitan Police Service and Greater London Authority, 2nd Annual Peace Talks, 2006]
Diversifism is used to kill any critical examination of the process of colonization, population
displacement, and population replacement within these Islands. It has been used as a tool to destroy
social inclusivity and cultural homogeneity.
We are seeing a resurrection of 1930s-style totalitarian sloganeering. We have, for example: Strength
in Diversity [Commission for Racial Equality, resource document], and, of course, the universally
applied deceit The Enrichment of Diversity. In even the smallest of local police stations you will see
signs offering translation services in 27 different languages, and posters exhorting us to 'face the
challenge of diversity'. What you probably won't see is much effort in catching villains, or keeping us

safe on the streets and in our homes. The police understand their new priorities. The chatter with the
upper echelons of the police service is of 'community cohesion' - something we already had 50 years
ago before the political classes got busy with their 'deconstruction' project.
Police Anti-English Racialism
The political subversion of the law enforcement agencies is most apparent in the various training
programmes to make the police 'racially aware' - the 'diversity awareness' training programmes, and the
liaison committee meetings with the many political pressure groups supporting 'minorities' rights'.
These are all contrary to the principles of common law - that the police must deal with law enforcement
matters only on the facts of each individual case, on the alleged criminal act itself that a defendants
(or victims) particular skin colour, their gender, their political or religious allegiance, their social class
or their cultural background are (in law) all irrelevant.
In 2005 Avon and Somerset Police unlawfully discriminated against "white" (English) candidates in its
recruitment programme. The force rejected 186 white applicants because, it said, its workforce was
"over-represented by white men". Under the Race Relations Act, short listing or appointing on racial
grounds is unlawful. The Chief Constable was subsequently forced to publish an apology for
"inappropriate" (wrong and insulting) behaviour by the force, and one of the rejected applicants
subsequently won an undisclosed sum in compensation in an out-of-court settlement [11][12].
The embracing of diversifism provides opportunities for sedition and treason. For example, in a written
parliamentary answer in November 2006 the then Labour Home Secretary, John Reid, declared that
those working for the Home Office Immigration and Homeland Security Department would not have to
declare their membership of the fanatical Hizb-ut-Tahrir organisation. This followed the revelation that
the Home Office IT Manager, Abid Javaid, was a member of the extremist organisation. It is well
known that Hizb-ut-Tahrir supports a worldwide Islamic state run under Sharia law and has openly
refused to condemn the 2005 London bombings [13][14].
Thought Control
In the latter part of the 16th Century Queen Elizabeth I, involved in the bitter struggles between
Protestants and Catholics, and the very real danger of insurrection, showed immense political skill (and
great moral courage) by declaring to have: "no desire to make windows into men's souls".
Unfortunately our present political elite have precisely that sinister ambition - they wish to control
people's thoughts, and persecute and punish those who may harbour 'politically incorrect' ideas.
It is therefore hardly surprising, therefore, that we see the political State keen to subject members of the
police service to examination for 'incorrect' thinking. Plans are well advanced, and have already been
trialed in Scotland, to use psychometric tests to "weed out bigots and racists within the force" [15] [16].
Presumably this isn't a reference to the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary.
There is now legislation to enforce State control, and punish dissenters. The enforcement of this new
regime is being implemented with the same political tactics as used by totalitarian states 70 years ago
to identify the "enemies of the people" - the identification of an 'evil' adversary (the indigenous
English, asserting their right to self-determination). We now have: changes to the law to criminalise
dissent; changes to the law to enhance political power; political corruption and electoral fraud; the
suppression of criticism and open debate; the politicisation of the police and judiciary; and the use of
the schools for politically indoctrinating our children.
The use of 'sectioning' powers are deployed via FTAC (Fixated Threat Assessment Centres) as a way
of incarcerating, as 'mentally ill', those who express dissent, or challenge the State.
Securing State Control
One of the most disturbing features of the Great Treason is the role of the security services and law
enforcement agencies in suppressing dissent and protest - and of giving effective assistance to the
treasoners. A case study examination of the complicity of agencies in assisting an unlawful Parliament
- in breach of their oaths of office - can be downloaded here.
War by Other Means
The criminal political elite are actively engaged in aiding a 'war by other means' - a war directed
against the indigenous, sovereign people of these islands. The political elite are the instigators and

principle enablers in this 'war' - in enabling the occupation of our territory; the destruction of our social,
cultural and constitutional institutions; and in genocide. It is a seditious, stealthy form of warfare with
an end objective of destroying the nations and the native peoples of the British Isles.

23 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW BEFORE MAGNA CARTA.


(Found at; http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_time_12th_century.htm)
LIBERTY! THE TIMELINE
Man and woman gallop their horses through surf
In the Middle Ages Brits live in a country of forests, farms, and small towns. Horses and dogs are their
companions. Sailing the sea or riding, Brits feel mobile and free. These experiences spur their love of
liberty.
They end slavery, and establish one of the most powerful ideas in the history of freedom that no one
is above the law, not even a king.

MURDER, MUSCLE PRINCIPLE & INNOVATION


1100 Henry I forced to support Charter of liberties
Ironically, William the Conqueror had to turn to the old legal constitution of England to control his
army and nobles. He retained the local courts of the hundred and the shire, where every free man had a
place, brought these under the jurisdiction of the King's Court, hired his own sheriffs, and made certain
that every tenant swore loyalty to his local lord and to him.
He introduced the "fiction of tenure" - that all land tenure depended on the king whose subjects held
their lands only because he allowed them to - and memorialized his ownership in the Domesday Book.
Showing an efficiency that eludes modern bureaucrats, William's men fanned out across England and
made exactingly clear in the Domesday Book what he owned - everything from castles to duck ponds.
In return, William enforced order, and made the roads safe.
His son the Red King is a very different man. William Rufus owns all that his father owned, but his
robberies and rapes earn him fierce enemies, and Brits are relieved when accidentally or purposefully
he is shot by an archer in the New Forest. The Red King is carted to his capital at Winchester, dripping
blood, perhaps because he is still alive, and dies. His brother Henry, the younger son of William the
Conqueror, who has rushed to Winchester to secure the royal treasure, declares himself King.
The Church and the barons distrust Henry, either because he is William Rufus' brother or because he
may be his murderer. They tell Henry that if he wants the crown, he has to guarantee he will protect
their liberties.
These include ending the plunder of the church and affirming that the church is free; ending the King's
unlimited financial demands on his barons; and restoring the law of King Edward with all its rights and
liberties.
At this distance these freedoms may not seem all that liberating, but one promise will change history.
They daringly establish that the King himself must obey the law of the land.
The principle that no one not a king, not a president or prime minister is above the law is essential
to the freedom and happiness of people today.

1102 Brits end slavery


Until 1102 Brits were still being sold as slaves, "young men and maidens whose beauty and youth
might move the pity of the savage, bound together with cords, and brought to market to be sold"
(William of Malmesbury).
One man was about to change this. Born in Lombardy, Abbot of Bec, Anselm had been in England on
business, when, in 1093, he was dragged before William Rufus, the King of England, and told he
would be Archbishop of Canterbury. A pastoral staff was forced into his hand. William II regretted his
decision almost immediately. Anselm had backbone. "Christ is truth and justice and he who dies for
truth and justice dies for Christ" he wrote. He insists that the Church install him, not the King, and
repeatedly challenges the King's injustice.

After Henry becomes King, and despite having to make several long, hard journeys to Rome since
Henry is as argumentative as his brother about his royal prerogative, Anselm calls a national church
council. In 1102 they meet in London on the small island of Thorney, where the abbey of Edward the
Confessor stands. At the Council of Westminster the British clergy condemn slavery as contrary to
Christ's teaching and declare, "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which
hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."
Unlike most councils this one has an effect. Slavery ends, probably because slavers in that century were
afraid of one thing: Excommunication and the damnation of their immortal souls should they violate
the ruling.
Slaves become villeins (serfs), owing service to a feudal lord, who owes them the use of his land and
his protection. Better to be a serf than a slave, but the Brits hate serfdom, too.

1105 -1130 Henry I wins battles; reorganises kingdom


Henry's older brother invades England to seize the throne, and is joined by many Norman nobles, but
Henry's English subjects support him, and win a decisive victory on Norman soil at Tenchebray in
1105. In turn Henry makes many English his sheriffs and judges. He creates a royal court representing
all his vassals. Members of his court of justice and Court of Exchequer resolve payment disputes by
making a circuit of the shires to hear disputes. This is the beginning of judges' circuits.

1131/33 Henry I grants charter of freedom to citizens of London & their heirs
Henry I recognizes the rights of the citizens of London to appoint their own sheriffs and judges, to limit
their taxes, to arrange their own lands, pledges, and debts, to transport their goods free of tolls; and to
be free of having soldiers billeted on them.
Henry does this because Londoners had leverage he wanted them to support his daughter Matildas
right to inherit the throne.
Londons Charter becomes a model for other towns. Those which grew up around abbeys take longer
to establish their freedoms. Sometimes, as at St Edmundsbury, a rank injustice such as the unjust
execution of the farmer Ketel inflames the citizens. At St Edmundsbury, they win their right to be
acquitted or condemned by a jury of their neighbours when accused of a crime.

1135 - 1148 "The anarchy" reveals power of liberty and women


Henry I wants his daughter Matilda to rule England after he dies. His nephew Stephen and the barons
promise she will, but Stephen changes his mind. Londoners "elect" him King, and he is crowned. At his
coronation Stephen issues a charter promising to all his men of England all the liberties and good
laws that they had enjoyed under his predecessors.
In 1139, Matilda lands with an army to recover her throne. Stephen's mother Adela had handled armed
men and managed estates. Matilda is equally resolute; however she loses the support of Londoners by
refusing to acknowledge their charter of liberties, and is forced to flee to Oxford where she was
besieged by Stephen, who had escaped captivity in Lincoln. Matilda escaped in white robes by a
postern, and crossing the river unobserved on the ice, made her way to Abingdon (Green, A Short
History of England).
England is thrown into anarchy as Stephen and Matilda and their allys battle for the throne.
Throughout, Stephen's wife Matilda is "his constant companion and resolute supporter. In the years of
struggle she took an active role, bringing troops to besiege Dover Castle in 1138, and mustering an
army on the south bank opposite London in the summer of 1141. She took a prominent part in all the
peace negotiations during the reign, including those with the Scots" (Oxford DNB).
With the leadership of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church finally manages to arrange a
peace that pleases Matilda. Stephen will remain King, but when he dies, the crown will go to Matilda's
son, Henry. The people of England are relieved as foreign mercenaries are sent packing and their
castles are razed.
Hot-tempered, witty, and ruthless, Henry II does not strike observers as a natural champion of justice.

1154-1166 Kings gambit Henry II strengthens rule of law


Henry II, Matilda's son and the grandson of Henry I, is always on the go, riding the length of a
kingdom that stretches from the Mediterranean to the far north of England. His kingdom is in some
chaos due to unemployed mercenaries making a living from robbery, but Henry II is an administrative
genius, and he aims to end the violence and consolidate his power.
Henry figures one way to do this is to undercut his barons by drawing Brits out of the barons law
courts and into his, where he can pocket the court fees. Traditionally, twelve local men testify in court
about the facts when land ownership is in dispute. In 1163-64, at the Assize of Clarendon, the
innovative Henry establishes the Grand Jury, and invites 12 men from each hundred and four men from
each township to testify under oath about the facts of criminal acts to his traveling (circuit) justices.
Henrys Grand Juries act as witnesses, and decide whether there is validity to a charge and a person
ought to be brought to trial for a criminal act. The Grand Jurys radical ability to protect freedom arises
because it is locally based and knows the facts on the ground. It determines from the evidence whether
there are any grounds for a trial in the first place. The Grand Jury will evolve into a great shield
protecting the innocent trial by jury.
The Constitutions of Clarendon also attempt to establish the jurisdiction of the civil courts and "the
ancient customs of the realm" and limit the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. The battle between
Henry and the archbishop is underway.
Brits will take the idea of the grand jury and develop it into a powerful shield against government
oppression.

1160s Thomas Becket defends freedom of church


Brave, charming, energetic Thomas Becket threw himself f into the role of Archbishop of Canterbury
when Henry II forced the monks to elect him. He warned Henry, "You will soon hate me as much as
you love me now, for you assume an authority in the affairs of the Church to which I shall never
assent."
Their struggle is fierce. Henry had drawn judicial power into his hands, and had made some positive
decisions. Now he wants to control the Church by trying "criminous" priests and monks in his courts if
they have not been convicted in the ecclesiastical courts. Becket resists. He does not want a king
interfering with what he believes is the church's business. He believes that no person should be placed
in double jeopardy for the same offense.
Henry also wants to control where and when bishops can travel and appoint bishops rather than allow
their election. The right of sanctuary is limited. Becket refuses to agree.
He is harassed. His life is threatened. He flees to the continent, where he stubbornly refuses to agree
despite the urgings of the Pope. When the hand of the Pope is strengthened, and Henry is threatened
with an interdict, he agrees to back down, but he is livid with anger. Becket returns, but doubts that
Henry will honour his word. It is possible that Becket knew he would be physically attacked, and
reckons that in dying for his beliefs he will affirm them.
Four knights from Henry's court force their way into Canterbury Cathedral. "Where," cried Reginald
Fitzurse in the dusk of the dimly-lighted Minster, "where is the traitor, Thomas Becket?" Becket turns
resolutely toward him. "Here am I, no traitor, but a priest of God," he answers, and descends from the
choir, and stands with his back gainst a pillar and fronts his foes. "You are our prisoner!" the knights
shout, but Becket shakes them off. As he does, they strike with their swords, and scatter his brains on
the stones.
Freedom of religion has come to mean freedom from religion freedom from the church. For many
people, it is just as important that a church be free, and not controlled by a state. This is the principle
for which Thomas Becket died.

12th Century escape route to freedom


Unlike the continent, where a man is either a serf or free, in Britain some serfs are tied to the land, and
subject to a lord; others are free, paying rent only; still others are half free, and pay rent or owe a
particular service. On the Great Wheel of Fortune that Brits see as a metaphor for life, a freeman who
could not pay his rent or taxes might sink to the status of a serf, while a serf could rise and become free.
According to old custom, a serf who escapes from his lord and manages to live in a charter borough for
a year and a day without being caught becomes a free man. Charter boroughs like London encourage
craftsmen by hiding and protecting them. When the serf wins his freedom, his wife becomes a free
woman, too.
The freeman has certain duties: He will pay taxes to his borough, take his turn standing armed watch at
night, and join in defending his city from attack.

1190s Surprising churchman supports steps toward self-rule; Londoners lead


As Richard the Lionheart returned from the Holy Land, he was captured by a hostile European prince
and held for ransom. His justiciar, Hubert Walter, the Archbishop of Canterbury, grants charters of
rights to a number of towns in exchange for help with Richards ransom.

Already London citizens are:


Organising into parishes to make decisions about their PARISH neighborhoods.
Organising parishes into WARDS, and sending representatives from their parishes to make decisions
for the larger ward neighbourhood.
Organising their wards into Londons greater COUNCIL, and sending a representative from each ward
(an alderman -no woman) to make decisions about the whole city such as defending it from attack
and trying criminals.
Despite often brutal opposition from their kings, Brits are moving toward self-representation and selfrule.

24 WHAT TO SAY IF DRAGGED INTO COURT


(David Robinson posted in Practical Lawful Dissent.)
How I may conduct a (NOT) court hearing....
Once you are in lawful rebellion what should you do if you are taken by force to a Private corporate
enterprise (any court in the land other than directed by a grand jury of the people. See Michael of
Benrnicia Post on the group wall for more on grand Juries)?
So...you are taken into the doc with two private security guards at either
side, they have removed the handcuffs and you are standing. The magistrates (corporate directors,
presumed trustees) or Judge (Director acting ultra vires _ above his jurisdiction and in a quisling
capacity - aiding and abetting treason, as are all the magistrates) ask you if you are so and so........now I
can only state what I would say or similar, you may decide on a different approach?
I would say rather loudly OBJECTION! (object at every point). You have no authority to demand
anything from me whatsoever sir!.... I am here under duress of circumstances whilst in lawful rebellion
standing under constitutional law and the invocation of article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, and I do not
consent to this unlawful service, nor can I do so under the rule of law. To proceed
against me would be to attempt to coerce me into committing a serious criminal offence under common
law, I have lawful excuse to deny such a service. You are acting ultra vires and in a quisling capacity
and I demand that any hearing is to be held according to due process of law, under the protections of
the common laws of this land and in a properly convened court de jure and in open forum, so that
'justice may be seen to be done'.
You will likely be shouted down but stick with it and state it regardless.
You are a sovereign being, a living man or woman not a legal fiction. In law (under the common law)
there is god, and then you, and then the judge, show no fear and stand in your power. To oppose the
constitutional law is an act of high treason; they don't like it up em!
You would likely be threatened with contempt, or some claim of psychiatric disorder at that point....no
matter what they threaten you with object using the same retort as above and more.....
I would then respond to any further harassment asking if he/they are going to deny you due process of
law and commit high treason today. Further stating that the crown has NO jurisdiction since Article 61
of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked on the 23rd March 2001 and, since she has breached the coronation
oath and deposed herself of the title of constitutional monarch. Again demanding that they cease and
desist with this unlawful charade, claiming kidnap and to be released immediately.
I would likely turn to a peace constable at some point and ask if he/she is standing under their oath of
office today? Pressing him/her for a
reply....further pressure maybe used by informing him/her that he/she has a duty to observe the
common law, and to act without fear nor favour under it.... that the hearing is a travesty of injustice and
criminal as it is not a court of law but merely a private corporate entity acting without consent or lawful
contract nor jurisdiction, and operating under treasonous legislation.
Also stating that as I had taken an oath of allegiance to the common law tenet of article 61, via the
barons petition to the office of sovereign, and invocation of said article, also reciting the reference to
the readily available evidence for this which is - The daily Telegraph report 'Lords petition queen on
Europe' reported on the 24th March 2001. Also the letters between Sir Robin Janvrin (alleged monarchs
private secretary) and the committee of the barons All can be viewed online.
I would then inform him/her that the judge or magistrate is acting ultra vires and compounding treason
under the constitution laws of the land and, that he/she has a duty of care to investigate the claims or be
guilty of the same.
Take down his number and ask his or her name.....also ask the name of any judge or Magistrate and ask
them to spell it. Be authoritive in asking.

I realize I am ignoring the fact that the bench would be attempting to silence you or intimidate you, but
these are the things I would state at whatever juncture they could be said at, and not necessarily in this
order. It would be a battle to do this so don't be under any illusions, but quite a lot of fun to do too
:0)....but only if taken I was there against my will...otherwise I would be there of course.
You can also threaten them back if you like? stating, that they are committing a serious tort against
you and that you may use Article 52 of Magna Carta 1215 to demand the barons committee convene to
seek remedy, or by a Grand jury of the people for justice to be done, and that I will bring claim against
them for the torts, along with a claim of high treason at common law. reminding them that Tony Blair
did not repeal the death penalty for high treason in 1998, as he had already committed three counts of
treason and therefore had no lawful authority, and that it is an act of treason at common law to attempt
to repeal that Act.
I would not plead nor give any name or sit or stand when told. I may be inclined to put some of these
points as questions i.e. Do you have jurisdiction under the law whist the invocation of article 61 is in
effect, or whilst the breach of the coronation Oath is not remedied? Questions don't create controversy
but who cares about controversy its not a court anyway so I would be as controversial as I could be!
I am more inclined personally to tell them rather then ask them but I have got a lot of facts already
stated within my many Notices and affidavits to call on for my defence.... I would not be afraid to state
that I was entirely
Contemptuous of the court as it is NOT a court of law. And that they have no authority to make any
demands whatsoever which is evidential in fact.
Demanding remedy is kind of double think because they nor the board room of Tesco's can provide it,
the two are not that dissimilar.
I would not use any of the legal acts and statutes against them that just gives them credibility by doing
so... 'Double think', but demand due process of law to be observed, justice cannot be denied or delayed
under common law.
'Lawful excuse' is recognised even in their deceptive courts.... it is a common law tool as is 'duress of
circumstances'. The fact that we are policed by consent admitted recently by the criminal home
secretary cannot be denied truthfully. Always restate that you do not consent to the hearing and that no
lawful contract is in existence and, even if it were then it would be unlawful for you to consent to it in
such treasonable times, and that it is the lawful duty of all sovereign people to reject such criminality
under the law and on ethical or moral grounds.
If you are planning to do some serious distressing of the regime, it maybe a good idea to get a
psychiatric evaluation documented prepared, stating that you are in good condition mentally; they do
try to get people who can run this way sectioned if they can.....
I'm sure I will have missed some things in this post and others will probably have a different approach
than I would use. I trust this is still worth knowing though.
I swear to the best of my first hand knowledge that all the above is the lawful truth as to my
understanding. I would, and have sworn so on penalty of perjury in affidavits and notices to most if not
all the above facts.
The result would either be that I was released without any demands or I would be incarcerated by
those willfully committing extremely serious offences. If I were unsupported at the hearing with no
public gallery I may play things a little more tactfully but other than that, with witnesses to the event I
would give them hell.
Peace.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

Links to this book


Word format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/1561647267442824/LAWFUL%20REBELLION%20GUID
E%20V6.0.doc
Text format;
https://www.facebook.com/download/593959377406866/Lawful%20rebellion%20guide%20v6.0.t
xt
Blog post (Always the latest version);
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-guide.html
Printable shield designs here:
http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-printables.html