The British Constitution

Related image

The THEFT BY DECEPTION of THE GREAT BRITISH CONSTITUTION
By EE Spenser, BA(Hons)

The British Constitution:

Let us get one thing crystal clear from the start. Great Britain has Constitutional Law which is very much intact and valid, regardless of what misinformation or disinformation you may have been given. It is sometimes falsely asserted that we do not have a written Constitution. Our Constitution is not written in a single article like the US version, it is spread over several documents.

The Constitutional Laws of our country are the most important and powerful laws that we have. These laws protect our liberty, rights to self-governance, limit the powers of the Government and the judiciary, maintain the imperative right of Britons to a trial by our peers, a right to redress, and our right to enforce these laws. However, we can only use these laws and protect them if we know of them and insist upon their use. Unfortunately, as you are about to read, a very long-term and elaborate plot exists which is deceiving the majority of their rights in an attempt to subvert the British Constitution.

In a nutshell, our Constitution was designed to protect our human rights. It was the first Human Rights law, although much more powerful than an ‘Act’ of parliament because it’s an immutable law which was designed by the people and cannot be lawfully taken away from the people without completely transparent, lawful and democratic consent, or defeat by open war.

Our Constitution is, in fact, the grandfather of the constitutions of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. It is the ultimate law of the land, designed to keep the executive and governing bodies in check. The law has been created by the people over many 1generations and includes various treaties, Bills, Declarations and sworn Oaths. We the people agreed with the law in its proper state which is why we are only policed by consent, or supposed to be.

Our parliament and the Queen are subordinate to the Constitution, and the Monarch is lawfully bound by the Coronation Oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the people. Failure of the Monarch to protect the Constitution is an act of Treason against the people. Any attempt made by a minister of parliament to deceive the Monarch regarding the process of assent of legislation is a crime of sedition or potentially treason. Treason is the most serious breach of law on this land.

The Constitutional Law cannot be changed by parliament; it can only be changed via a constitutional convention of the people. The Invocation of our Constitutional Law’s Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215.

On 23rd March 2001, a fundamental aspect of our Constitutional law was triggered, yet the majority of the British people do not know about it, even today fifteen years later. This was invoked in response to very serious corruption at the highest levels of authority in this country, a group of highly honourable peers from the House of Lords were forced to use our most fundamental rights granted under the 1215 Magna Carta to urge the Queen to redress several infringements of our Constitutional Law by members of parliament.

Their petition, presented under the security clause of our great Constitution, Article 61 Magna Carta, urged the Queen to withhold Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty which unlawfully gave imperative rights of self-governance away to foreign powers. The petition was sanctioned by Leolin Price Q.C. and had the backing of 65 peers from the House of Lords, led by Lord Ashbourne. When interviewed, Lord Ashbourne said: “These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed.

Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.” The core of the Petition was as follows:

“Wherefore it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty… …to withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval;… …to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953…. We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.”

The Queen had 40 days to respond. Her secretary responded on the 39th day, acknowledging the validity of this law, but failed to deal with the issue according to her constitutional and contractual duty as per her Coronation Oath. Her representative claimed that she was bound to follow the instructions of Her ministers and had no veto, which is in contravention of her duty to protect Constitutional law.

Article 61 is therefore now invoked and shall remain so until a remedy has been approved by the Barons Committee. This is very real and of 3fundamental importance to our British sovereignty. (Please find supporting information in the appendix) Article 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had lost the confidence of the people, leading to his abdication and fleeing the country.

The Magna Carta is a treaty, not an Act of Parliament. Like all treaties, it cannot be repealed. As a contract or covenant between sovereign and subjects, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach, it still stands. It is a mutual, binding agreement of indefinite duration. Any breach merely has the effect of giving the offended party rights of redress. The Queen referred to the Magna Carta as a peace treaty in a speech in New Zealand in 1997.

So, the Magna Carta is an affirmation of common law based on principles of natural justice. These principles – and the document itself – predate Parliament. Common law is the will and custom of the people. Statute law is the will of parliament. Statute can and does give expression to common law, but that common law cannot be disregarded by parliament, nor can it be repealed. It can only be extended – “improved” is the word used, but it is open to misuse. No Briton, including members of the police and armed forces, is above the law. We are all subjects of the crown first. Parliament is made by the law, and is not above it.

Parliament is answerable to the people, is elected by the people to protect their interests for a maximum of five years, after which time power is returned to the people who may grant it to another parliament for a further five years – and so on ad 4 infinitum. (Thus is the sovereignty of the people established over parliament.)

Those who state that the UK Parliament is supreme, and that the Monarch is merely a ‘figurehead’, have been fooled. Queen Elizabeth II is, by Constitutional Law, supreme to Parliament as the ‘elected’ sovereign representative of the People. That is, the Common Law of Kingship as given by Sir John Fortescue Chief Justice in 1420 in his book “On the Laws and Governance of England”, as well as the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and by Parliamentary vote on the 8th March 1784, when a vote was taken on where ultimate Sovereignty lay, either with the Lawfully anointed King George III or with the House of Commons as the elected House. The King won the vote and, by Parliamentary vote, absolute supremacy lies with Queen Elizabeth II as our lawfully anointed Queen.

It is sometimes mistakenly believed that most of the Magna Carta has been repealed. These claims are only relevant to the less significant Statute version. In 1297 the Model Parliament added the Magna Carta in statute law. Much of this statute has indeed since been repealed. Yet while Parliament can repeal or amend any Acts of Parliament (Statutes), it was not a party to the original Common Law contract of the 1215 Magna Carta and cannot amend or repeal it lawfully, and thus its original provisions remain very much intact today.

All of our Constitutional Law is still very much as valid and powerful today as the day that the ink was wet. Attempts are made at times, by either the misinformed or those with vested interests, to discredit old Constitutional Law as relics of law, however, the increasing age of a Common Law does not make it any less valid. As an obvious example is the offence of murder will not be found in the form of a Statute or Act of Parliament, it is a Common Law offence and it, like our Constitutional Law, grows no less valid with the progress of time.

Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls from 1962-1982 described the 1215 Magna Carta as “The greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing recently that the Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: The Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.” As law abiding members of this country, we have a lawful responsibility and duty to stand under the conditions set out in Constitutional Law as defined by the Magna Carta and other documents. When the security clause, Article 61, has been invoked, as it is today, the good people of this land must unite and peacefully seek a remedy to the breach.

Britain is governed by Parliament which consists of the House of Commons which create Statutes and Acts, the House of Lords which scrutinise these, and the Monarch who gives the Royal Assent or approval if the legislation is in the best interests of the people. Halsbury’s Laws of England at Vol.44 clearly describes Magna Carta 1215 as a “constitutional statute”. It is important to bear in mind that the legal term “statute” has two meanings. The original, which pre-dates the first Parliament in 1297, is “A re-statement of the law by the Sovereign as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative”. Acts of Parliament are also described as statutes. They can be repealed by the institution which made them by the Common Law rule that no Parliament may bind its successor.

On the subject of Magna Carta 1215 Winston Churchill also writes, “The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, SWOLLEN WITH ITS OWN AUTHORITY, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success.” – Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples (1956)

Remember, the Magna Carta 1215 is a lawfully binding agreement between the monarchy and the people which pre-dates the establishment of the Houses of Commons and Lords, and therefore parliament has no authority to abrogate or repeal it. The Bill of Rights binds successive parliaments, whether they like it or not. Often one argument proffered is that no legislation can bind successive parliaments, this is a true common law regulation of parliament, however, this does not apply to Constitutional Law. The Magna Carta 1215 or the Bill of Rights are binding in perpetuity, or at least until an open and transparent convention of the people decides otherwise, or Britain is defeated in open warfare and taken over.

In a 1988 speech, the Queen stated, “The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of Parliamentary democracy rests.” The Glorious Revolution of 1689 would not have occurred if not for the
lawful validity of Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta. The petition to the Queen would not and could not have been lodged, it would not have been backed by 65 peers, and it certainly could not have been sanctioned by Leolin Price Q.C. Additionally, the Queen would not have
replied to an unlawful claim of rights.

The terms of Article 61 will remain in force until a Constitutional Convention under the Barons Committee decides otherwise. 8As proof of the invocation of Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 with prima facie evidence, here is photographic evidence from an original UK publication, from page 16 of the 24 March 2001 Telegraph, along with a certificate of authenticity.

Why don’t you know about this?

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

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

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

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

Specialists at Cardiff University surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their “facts”, they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn’t be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these “facts” had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the articles.

The implication of these two findings is alarming. Where once journalists were active detectives and gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by agencies to serve some political or commercial interest. Propaganda is not a new thing. Shortly after World War I, the word propaganda started to take on negative connotations.

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

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

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

Apart from our media not serving our best interests, here is another reason why you might not know this vital information. As part of my research, I uncovered many sources of accidental misinformation but also disinformation. For example, “Constitutional History of the United Kingdom” by Ann Lyon, described the 1215 Magna Carta as purely symbolic, stating that it had been annulled very shortly after it was written, which is provably false.

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

The Real History of the British Constitution Constitutional Common Law was first codified by Alfred the Great (reigned 871-899), the Saxon King of Wessex who laid the foundations of what would become the Kingdom of England. In doing so, he compiled the laws and customs of the nation into the “Liber Judicialis”, based upon the Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

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

Its fundamental aim was and remains to provide lasting protection to the people against a repeat of such tyranny. The security clause was first used prior to the 1688 Glorious Revolution. This involved the overthrow of King James II of England (James VII of Scotland and James 13II of Ireland) by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange). The Magna Carta affirmed the right of the people to such things as trial by jury, protection from excessive fines, protection from unlawful governance and the right to lawfully rebel against an unconstitutional government.

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” – Magna Carta Our inalienable rights and liberties are clearly stated in these written contracts. It is also true that many of our unwritten rights are equally valid. One obvious example is the right to free speech, for which, unlike the U.S. Constitution, there is no written provision within the British Constitution. We should currently be living in a constitutionally limited Monarchy with a democratic process of re-election of Parliament.

The British Constitution is spread over the following very important and powerful documents (The below comments in inset italics show how various Governments attempted to repeal these laws and give examples of their violation. Details provided by Albert Burgess, Constitutional Researcher)
886 Alfred the Great – The Dome – Alfred took all the best laws from all the kingdoms under his rule and brought them together and recorded them in the ‘Dome’.
1411 Henry I – Charter of Liberties – Henry believed he ruled by divine right which was promoted by the Catholic Church. He was forced by the Barons to issue this Charter which was a restatement of Alfred’s laws.
1215 King John – Magna Carta – As detailed above
1216 Henry III – Henry de Bracton of the King’s Bench made several rulings which prevented the Sovereign from acting unjustly. One of his rulings was that, ‘he is beneath the law for it is by the law that he becomes King’ Another was, ‘In England we have the rule of law; unjust laws are not laws.’
1351 Edward III – The Statute of Treason, Provisors and Praemunire – In 1366 the Pope demanded the back payment of his 1000 marks per year. Edward asked the Bishops then the Lords and then the Commons what he should do? They unanimously told the Pope he would not be getting the money. Under English Law the sovereign only holds England in trust for their successors. Edward was also King of France and as such could have no say in how England was governed.
Clement Atlee repealed the Statute of Provisors with the 1948 Criminal Law Revision Act thus paving the way for membership of the EEC and allowing disposal of English assets to a foreign power. This was an act of treason. The following were a violation of the above Statute.
In 1910 the House of Lords rejected Asquith’s Finance Bill because it was unfair to the public. Asquith then created the Parliament Act 1911 by threatening the House of Lords with closure. King Edward VII refused Royal Assent because it removed protection from the people. However, Edward died shortly after and the new King George V was ‘informed’ that he could not use the Royal Prerogatives without the backing of a Government Minister.
In 1999 Tony Blair put through the House of Lords Act which was to remove all but 92 hereditary peers. Certain politicians plan to replace the House of Lords with an elected senate. Restricting the hereditary peers from playing their part in government were acts of treason.
1392 Richard II – Statute of Praemunire – This statute prevented foreign laws being imported and the drawing out of English people to face foreign courts.
Harold Wilson repealed this statute in the ‘Criminal Law Act 1967’ allowing the Heath Government to place our courts under the dominion of the EEC. This was an act of treason.
1559 Elizabeth I – Act of Supremacy – This Act contains an oath of which this is part, ‘…no foreign prince, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any power, jurisdiction, superiority, supremacy, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual in this realm’. This Act clearly shows that we are not to tolerate any attempt to allow any kind of foreign interference in our affairs.
Edward Heath committed treason when he set up a conspiracy in violation of this Act, to submit our sovereignty to the EEC. By default, every succeeding Government has also committed treason in continuing with EU membership.
1616 Charles I – Petition of Rights – The King was presented with a Petition of Rights which was a restatement of Alfred’s laws, including our right to criticise government.
1641 The Grand Remonstrance – This was a request by Parliament asking the King to rule by law. Charles refused, was tried for treason and beheaded.
1689 William III – Declaration of Rights – Following the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange was chosen to rule England by the true representatives of the people. He asked the politicians how the English wanted to be governed. This produced the Declaration of Rights.
The Bill of Rights – The new Parliament immediately passed the Declaration of Rights into law called the Bill of Rights. This contained two codicils, the first stating that any amendment after 23 September 1689 was unlawful. The second was that the Bill was for all time as it can be changed only by representatives of the people meeting together again.
The following section of the Bill of Rights is taken from www.statutelaw.gov.uk. It states the following:
And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”

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

The right to bear arms

The right to petition the Sovereign

Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause

The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies
Habeas corpus is not to be denied (innocent until proven guilty, and your right to report unlawful detention to a court)

No person will be compelled to make loans to the King, and there will be no tax without the approval of Parliament

Soldiers and sailors will not be billeted on civilians

Government will not impose martial law during peacetime

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

The Coronation Oath Act 1688 The Coronation Oath is the freely taken and mutual covenant between the Monarch and the People of Britain. During the Coronation ceremony, the People effectively elect the Monarch, and in return, the Monarch swears the Coronation Oath. This oath includes the promise to “cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed”. It is therefore the 18Monarch’s promise to preserve our Law, especially our Constitutional Law.

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

We have a tripartite government in this country. Parliament, the Judiciary and the Monarchy are intended to provide protections and limits on each other. One of those limiting powers is Royal Assent. We are told by Parliament that the last time a bill was rejected by the sovereign was in 1707 when Queen Anne rejected the Scottish Militia Act. This is far from the truth. Queen Victoria refused a bill on homosexuality because it contained references to lesbians on the grounds she did not believe women could engage in such activity. The bill had to be rewritten with all reference to lesbianism removed before it received the Assent.

King Edward VII refused what became the 1911 Parliament Act because it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects.

Since 1960 the Royal Assent has been granted by a committee of 5 Barons appointed by the government of the day to give what has become known as the automatic assent. This is of course unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Royal assent remains there as the exclusive authority of the Monarch, to be used when necessary on behalf of the People.

While Government is tri-partite, we the People must recognise our role 19in demanding our just and humane governance. We must demand that Parliament fulfil its constitutional accountability to us. If we are unhappy with the manner in which we are governed, we have no right to a remedy until we are willing to act in our own defence. We must demand that our government, our politicians, and our monarch fulfil their oaths. If they fail, we must seek redress elsewhere.

The Enemy Within With such powerful constitutional laws protecting our human rights, systems of governance and justice, how have we arrived at our current situation with an unaccountable, deceptive and technically unlawful Government? Without going into too much unnecessary detail, two thousand years ago the Romans came, saw, conquered, helped themselves and then left when finished.

However, when they did leave, they kept and maintained an area of land next to the Thames and founded a trading post and named it Londinium. Through the clever use of walled defences, laws and commerce they became wealthy and formed a formidable establishment within this area. These days Londinium is known as ‘The City of London’ or the ‘Square mile’. Subsequent monarchs have recognised The City of London as an independent area best left to its own business, although they have never trusted it, or its wealth based power. Consequently, the City of London is not subject to British Law; it has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag, its own police force. It remains today a centre of World leading commerce. It is interesting to note that the corporation which owns and runs the City of London is older than the United Kingdom by several hundred years.

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

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

However, as you will read, this Roman Civil Law is running in parallel as part of our society today through statutes of parliament and is now threatening our Constitution by deception. This merchant based law is the law of the money men, it’s based on commerce and contracts,
whereas Constitutional law is based upon morality. There are, fundamentally, two competing systems of man-made law in the world that are in constant ideological conflict against each other.

One is the Common Law and the other is the Civil Law, or more specifically Roman Civil Law, also called Maritime Law. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law – “Lex Mercantoria” – and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. It is Commercial Law, the law of money. The primary and compelling reason for the United States’ Declaration of Independence was to eliminate Maritime Law 21and Maritime jurisdiction from the Domestic Law of the colonies due to its potential for conflict with freedom.

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

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

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

In Britain, we have these two systems of law running simultaneously. Civil law is obviously a requirement in a finance based modern society. Parliamentary Acts and Statutes are needed to introduce and adapt our legal system to modernisation and change. As a simple example, we moved on from horses and carts and therefore need the Road 22Traffic Act to legislate for the use of modern motor propelled vehicles on the road, regulating their safety and liability issues, et cetera.

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

This subversive and seditious legal procedure was recognised as early as 1929 by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England. He realized that the house of commons was using Statutes to install legal instruments of authoritarianism in an attempt to dismantle our Constitution. Lord Hewart wrote a book specifically about this called ‘The New Despotism’, in which he described this “new despotism” as “to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme”. The book created a constitutional and political storm. It was rumoured that Whitehall considered an attempt to boycott it. Lord Hewart said in a speech, “I will be no party to the doctrine, that a Lord Chief Justice, summoned to the House of Lords, as he is, not merely to vote, but also to advise, is condemned to a lifelong and compulsory silence on the affairs of State.”

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly, the 1999 House of Lords Act which removed the hereditary Peers from their rightful place in Parliament is also High Treason. The Peers should have a constitutional right of personal audience with the Sovereign. This is intended to avoid the problem of “evil counsellors” keeping the Sovereign in ignorance of the people’s grievances. If this were maintained, we may not be where we are today. Therefore, it can be seen that according to our Constitutional Law, every Parliament since 1911 has been an unlawful assembly and all laws passed since then are void under English Common Law.

Sovereignty theft by stealth The global financial elite operate very much in the shadows through a network of secretive and so-called ‘think-tanks’ such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, all with one common purpose, global governance by the elite. In the UK, one of the more well-known groups is the Fabian Society.

In 1884 the Fabian Society was formed by a group of elitists, with the purpose of ushering in a one world oligarchic collectivist state through a process known as Gradualism – a policy of gradual reform from within a system rather than sudden change or violent revolution. This  would become the basis for what is today called Fabian Socialism. The word Fabian derives from the Roman general Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemy over an extended period of time. This is similar to the way Fabian Socialism works to implement its agenda of a one world state. It’s no coincidence that the international symbol for Fabianism is the slow-moving turtle, this replaced their older shield which gives their game away displaying a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

That the Fabians consciously sought the company, collaboration and support of the wealthy and powerful is evident from Fabian writings such as Beatrice Webb’s Our Partnership, which abound in references to “catching millionaires,” “wire-pulling,” “moving all the forces we have control over,” while at the same time taking care to “appear disinterested” and claiming to be “humble folk whom nobody suspects of power” (Webb, 1948). In fact, the Webbs were in regular touch with the likes of (*) Arthur Balfour and Richard Haldane (a member of the Fabian Society) who served as contacts between the Fabians and the powerful and wealthy.

(*) The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. It read:

His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917. We are all aware that the Ashkenazi Jews in the USA and UK funded Hitler – and knowingly killed millions of their own kind to establish a homeland in Palestine. You need to read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to fully appreciate the horrors of Zionism. 

As their social circle expanded, the Webbs’ frequent dinners, informal meetings, and “little parties” enabled them to mingle with leading members of the ruling elite like Lord Rosebery, Julius Wernher (of the gold and diamond mining company Wernher, Beit & Co.) and Lord Rothschild, and talk them into backing their subversive projects. It is essential to understand, however, that this was far from being a one-way affair. The leading elements of liberal capitalism – the big businessmen, industrialists and bankers – who had amassed great wealth in the wake of the industrial revolution, were no selfless philanthropists. They aimed to strengthen their own position of power and influence by two means: by monopolising finance, economy and politics; and by controlling the growing urban working class.

The Fabian Society has easily traceable links with the international banking families. It also appears to be very opposed to the British monarchy and wishes to see it removed. Which gain is in violation of Constitutional Law. A republican state, if desired, should be the open democratic choice of the people in accordance with Law.

Former British Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are linked with the Fabians, and it’s probably no coincident that Margaret Thatcher, responsible for some of the greatest politically motivated national asset stripping of the last century, when asked at a speaking commitment in 2002 what she regarded as her greatest career achievement, replied “Tony Blair and New Labour”! The window carries the logo: “Remould it [the World] nearer to the heart’s desire,” the last line from a quatrain by the medieval Iranian poet Omar Khayyam which reads:

“Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry
scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits, and then
remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!”

In the UK, Common Purpose is an example of an organisation involved in these operations. Disguised as a charity organisation, it is designed to be the Trojan Horse in British Society with the primary objective of getting the first Common Purpose ‘future leaders’ into place, from where they could open many doors to many more of their own. But alongside infiltration by the political charity Common Purpose comes the wider socio-political agenda of common purpose; an agenda which is being promoted by a host of different organisations and initiatives.

These include Diversity Courses, Community Empowerment, Leadership, Visioning, Community Activism, Social Entrepreneurs and Disrupters – in fact there is now a vast web of these ‘vehicles’ which are primarily working to promote the change agenda to destabilise our
historic organised society.

Throughout Britain Common Purpose already has over 20,000 leaders and 80,000 trainees culled from influential sections of society such as the NHS, the BBC, the police, the legal profession, many of Britain’s 7000 quangos, local councils the Civil Service, government ministries and Parliament.

Many of the people caught up in the recent sex scandals in Rotherham, whether members of the Council, Social Services or Local Police, have been reported to be either graduates of Common Purpose or involved in some way with this sinister political cult. The vast majority of the individuals involved with Common Purpose will have been duped and are unlikely to be fully aware of the organisation’s real role in the despotic global agenda.

This Fabian style of subversive and secret theft of sovereignty was recognised many years ago in the America administration by Kennedy. In the following world-famous speech, which probably got him shot (in conjunction with his attempts to free the States from the bankers’ grips by shutting down the Federal Reserve), he said: “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater threat to our security.

If you are awaiting a finding of ‘clear and present danger,’ then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumour is printed, no secret is revealed.”

JFK, April 27, 1961. Former Congresswoman, and US Presidential candidate, Dr.Cynthia McKinney has been outspoken in her experiences of shadow elements and deeply underhanded practices within the US Government for many years. She whistle-blew on the secret pledge. During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were pressured to sign pledges of support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to Israel. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate’s campaign, and the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), and the controlled media crush them and they lose office. According to McKinney, the pledge also included a vow to support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel! It doesn’t take a genius to work out which of the elite financial families is most linked with the ‘Greater Israel Project’.

For a greater analysis of Fabianism, see Cassivellaunus’s “The Fabian Society: the masters of subversion unmasked”.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, History, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.