This is the second time we have successfully rebutted fines from HMRC.
Thank you to Sandi Wicks for having the courage and trust in the movement to achieve this remedy.
This
time the response included a promise to repay fines that had already
been paid under duress (not that she stated that she was under duress
when paying, but as she is in lawful rebellion it goes without saying).
Sandi
had received another demand from HMRC to pay fines for not submitting
an income tax form on time, she had already paid an earlier demand when
she was threatened with enforcement against her if she did not pay. She
is a home owner and has some assets so naturally she was concerned about
the threats, she like others assumed that those that had already had
success against the regime by using article 61 (in various other
matters) were those who have very little to lose, and that, although
that is true, this is why they gave up on those successful pioneers.
With the greatest of respect to Sandi (and others that have made such an
assumption) I trust now that this success is proof enough that this is
not the case.
Sandi is part of the lawful rebellion group in
Glastonbury. After she witnessed the earlier success against HMRC
pioneered by another group member Edward Alder (deadly Eddily) she
decided to pluck up the courage to have a go. She always knew that she
could simply pay up under duress of circumstances if things got too
heavy, this is a safety net that is completely lawful to do if you are
in lawful rebellion. By doing so you are not admitting liability and
will have obtained evidence of theft. This evidence can and will be used
against those agents of the corrupt regime once the rebellion has been
ultimately successful, and it will be.
I offered to handle the
process for her as she is a very busy lady, I also had the intent to use
the previous success Eddy had as a precedent within the process, but it
didn't even get that far. Sandi agreed to provide me with power of
attorney over the matter, here is the contract that we agreed....
Sandra Wicks.
xxxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx ,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6
I
Sandra Wicks do hereby authorize David Paul Robinson to act with power
of attorney on my behalf, with regard to any enforcement agency
attempting to remove goods or monies with regard to council tax or any
other mater involving the law. Unless or until I have withdrawn my
authority in writing.
Sandra Wicks.
Signed:
Dated:
David Robinson.
C/o The King Arthur,
31-33 Benedict Street,
Glastonbury,
Somerset.
BA6 9NB.
I,
David Robinson of sound mind and good intent, do solemnly swear to act
in accordance with the rule of law at all times, with power of attorney
in any affairs with regard to the law and, for no personal financial
gain whatsoever for Sandra Wicks.Whilst upholding the laws of the land
without deviation.
Signed:
Dated:
Witnessed by:
1.
2.
3.
The demand that she received to begin this process is as follows:
(THIS WILL BE UPDATED AT A FUTURE TIME AS I AM NOT IN POSSESSION OF IT AT THE MOMENT).
She rebutted the demand by using the Notice of Conditional Acceptance (as we do).
To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).
HMRC
DMB 380
BX5 5AB
From: Sandra Wicks
xxxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx ,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6
Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx
Date Notice served: 24th October 2015
Sent by recorded post.
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.
Dear Mrs C Graham,
I am writing to you after I received a demand for a payment of £1,200.00 for 'Overdue Tax, Tax Return & Penalties' dated 8
th October 2015.
Please
be aware that this is a Notice, a lawful instrument that requires your
urgent attention. This 'Notice of Conditional Acceptance' may be used as
evidence in my defence.
Whereas I, Sandra Wicks, stand entirely
under the tenets of constitutional law in lawful rebellion as to my duty
under the law and, that it is to my understanding entirely unlawful to
pay any monies to HMRC at this time and since the 23
rd March
2001 and, that I have withdrawn ANY/ALL presumed allegiance to the
office of Sovereign (including HMRC) due to my individual duties under
the law (see exhibit 'D', Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the
Barons), those duties being stated within Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215
(see exhibit 'C', Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 text), invoked by
royal command according to the correct protocols of constitutional law
on the 23
rdday of March 2001 (See exhibit 'B', Letters
between the barons' committee and the office of sovereign), therefore
the law forbids me to comply with your demands for monies.
Whereas
it cannot be denied that the invocation of this most important
constitutional tenet did occur on the aforesaid date and, that it stands
as the CURRENT LAW of the realm, please provide me evidence in
substance to counter this claim within 7 (Seven) days from your receipt
of this 'Notice of Conditional Acceptance' and I shall comply with your
demand for payment. I do not wish to break the law Mrs Graham, if I am
coerced/forced under threat into breaking the law by you, then you shall
be solely liable for the consequences.
Maxim in law:“Any act done by me against my will is not my act”.
The Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 on the 24
th
March 2001. An article by Caroline Davis (see exhibit 'A') which can
also be viewed online under the title 'Peers petition Queen on Europe'.
Magna
Carta Society wrote: The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in
writing as recently as last September (2009) that Magna Carta, sealed by
King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw
said as much on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into
force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “ Magna Carta is as binding upon
the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”
Therefore
I, Sandi Wicks does conditionally accept that HMRC has the lawful
authority to make demands on me for tax or fines, on proof that Article
61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today and, that the
ratification of the treaty of Nice has been revoked and, that the crown
does indeed, according to British Constitution law, have the
legal/lawful authority to make and enforce such demands.
Whilst
the law provides me with 'lawful excuse' to distress the crown and its
institutions at this time, it is to my understanding that I CANNOT BY
LAW consent to the fine demanded by you as an officer for HMRC. British
constitutional law forbids me to aid and abet the crown until Article 61
has been revoked by the barons' committee. It also forbids me to aid
and abet any other man or woman who is not also standing in open
rebellion in compliance with the law under Article 61 of Magna Carta
1215. I must also compel you Mrs C Graham to abide by the constitutional
law yourself, and to stand with us in lawful rebellion as the law
demands.
Failure to respond to this 'Notice of conditional
acceptance' within the time frame allotted, or without providing
evidence in substance that clearly defines that article 61 is no longer
in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including
third party interlopers) that HMRC has NO lawful claim against I, Sandi
Wicks and, that any further attempt to extract monies or goods over this
matter would be harassment which may invoke a counter claim for damages
against HMRC and you personally Mrs C Graham.
Any reply must be
made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. We are
ALL responsible and culpable for our own actions or omissions under
British Constitutional law. Please check the facts for yourself before
replying. Ignorance is no defence in law.
Sincerely, without
any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or
to appear vexatious and, with all my inalienable Constitutional rights
reserved.
Signed: Sandi Wicks.
Witnessed by:
Signature. Printed name:
1.–---------------------------
-------------- - –-----------------------------
------
2.----------------------------
--------------- - –-----------------------------
-------
3.----------------------------
-------------- - –-----------------------------
-------
Enclosed evidence.
Exhibit 'A' (Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of MC 1215 on the 24
th March 2001).
Exhibit 'B' (communications between the Committee of the Baron and Sir Robin Janvrin, Queens private secretary)
Exhibit 'C' (Article 61 of MC 1215 text)
Exhibit 'D' (Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons).
EXHIBIT 'A'.
Peers Petition Queen on Europe. Daily Telegraph.
By Caroline Davies
12:00 AM GMT 24 Mar 2001
FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.
The
Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of
Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient
Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter's
Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum
parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and
freedoms of the British people had to be defended.
The
clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on
King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum
of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to
take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the
start of the Glorious Revolution.
The four peers, who were all
thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum
by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, with the
petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another
60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the
public.
They say that several articles in the Treaty of
Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British
liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's
provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may
rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions
until they have redress.
EXHIBIT 'B'.
The petition of the barons and letters from both parties in full.
The Petition.
A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61of Magna Carta 1215
February 2001. To Defend British Rights and Freedoms.
Ma’am, as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:
1.the
loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient
rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a member of
the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973;
2.the
terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause
significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the
rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to
the European Union:
a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your Government;
b )to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;
c)
which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice,
abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury,
and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers
of enforcement;
d) to create a military force which will place
British service personnel under the command of the European Union
without reference to British interests, and contrary to:
i) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,
ii) the Queen’s Commission, and
iii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;
e)which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in British interests;
3.the
creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights,
which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights”at will;
4.the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to
a)
suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and
detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath
Act,1688;
b )subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;
5.Your
Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by
Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in 1707;
WHEREFORE
it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal
Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty
of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given
clear and specific approval to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms
and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the
Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation
to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953.
We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.
(signed)
Notes:
The
House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last
September that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to
this day. Home Secretary Jack Straws aid as much on 1 October 2000, when
the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says:
“Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was
sealed at Runnymede.”
The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:
Article24
–transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into
treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member
states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting.
Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.
Article
191 –assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing
political parties at European level [ie: in the EU]” and withdraw or
prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to
forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free
speech and free political association. It also introduces two
particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation
and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Articles 29 and31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).
Article
67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV.
These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK
(article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and
prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the
deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of
Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280,
which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the
very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British
euro-realists.
Article 17 –establishes a common foreign
and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of
Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: “The entire chain of
command must remain under the political control and strategic direction
of the EU. NATO will be kept informed.” Her Majesty The Queen is
Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of
Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its
loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel
in Chief to Her Majesty.
The oss of the UK veto applies to
39 new areas of EU “competence”, including indirect taxation, the
environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and
regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other
areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.
Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.
Article
52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will,
effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the
state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [ie:
those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is
not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta 1215, the Declaration
of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.
Clause 61 of
Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert
Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite
William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James
II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the
confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great
Seal into the Thames and flee the country.
The ruling in
Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “ Prerogative is created for
the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.”
(The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to
ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)
In
1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia
Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince
of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of
France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a
Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen
feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus,
parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the
nation and the security of the realm.
Addressing both
Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both
houses to mark the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her
Majesty said that it was “still part of statute law…on which the whole
foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.” The
Declaration of Rights spelt out the details: “…the said Lords…and
Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit
and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and
liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be
in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be
firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers
whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to
the same, in all time to come.”
Both Magna Carta and the
Declaration of Rights are contracts between the sovereign and the
people. Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both
proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by
right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.
List Of Signatories Peers signing the petition:
Lord
Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard
(asLord 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 titleis Scottish and
pre-dates the Union of 1707.
Letter To The Queens Private Secretary
Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
23 March 2001
You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.
The
Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It
directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of
loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered
merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the
Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations
yet unborn.
We find ourselves living in exceptional
times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her
Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause61 of
Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.
As
you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression
before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without
delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone,directly or indirectly,
whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or
diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and
null.
We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the
Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because
there is clear evidence (which we shall address in a moment)that it is
in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It
conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and,
above all, with Her Majesty's Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office
of Her Majesty's ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this
day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.
Ultimately,our
supreme protection is Her Majesty's obligations under the Coronation
Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the
United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and
according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve
all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of
them.
From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable
that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a
secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.
Recent
statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm
that they would not advise any measure which might tend to breach the
Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty's promise to her loyal subjects.
Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely, it is their
duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot
lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power without
swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents
precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign
secretary using the Royal Prerogative.
Blackstones
Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The
splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the
benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking,
as ancient as the law itself. De prerogativa regis is merely declaratory
of the common law…
The duties arising from the relation of
sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security
and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the
sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same
criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return,
the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives
are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty
is under, and not above, the laws.
For such words to have
meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary
demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of
allegiance. Indeed,faced in due course with a Bill seek in gratification
of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to
dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an
election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with
seeking
elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under
a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil
the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the
people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the
constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be
curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their
sovereign to be diminished.
Of course, for the many
thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option
exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all
usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly
extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince,
person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at any time after the last
day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of
power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege
within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly
abolished out of this realm, forever.
So it is clear that
no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people –
may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We
are all tenants of it, and trustees.We inherited these rights, and we
have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future
generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish. Which is why
oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power,
and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a
moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a
contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation,
a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it
is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the
commonwealth and all dominions.
The Coronation Oath is the
peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its
limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not
to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that
allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the
checks and balances of our constitution.Without these oaths, and their
lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by
tyranny.
We return now to our reasons for stating that the
Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several
such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks
to restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty's subject.
The
EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing
political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or
prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to
forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech
and free political association. It also introduces two particularly
abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of
state sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Our political
freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in
any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm
as Fid. Def. and Lib.Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom
of the People.
It has been suggested to us that a
referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question
of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A
referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement
of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.
We
come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint
as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that
know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such
officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite? These
procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of
Rights:
1.That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes
or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of
Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)
2.That
the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes
by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is
illegall.
4.That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by
pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or
in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This
is further protection of our common law rights.)
In the
event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we
respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine
the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary
advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill
of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others– have formed a
Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to
monitor the present situation as it develops..until redress has been
obtained. We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient
subjects.
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,
move-over, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better
allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we
have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them
in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the
underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty
barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all
their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace
and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present
Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of
our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall
have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security,
and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and
twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we
are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition
to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not
have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of
the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty
days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our
justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid
shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and
those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the
whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by
seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can,
until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our
own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress
has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And
let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the
said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid
matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power;
and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear,
and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the
land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to
the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall
by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if
any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from
the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent
the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five
barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to
their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others.
Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these
twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and
disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are
unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those
present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established,
exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said
twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is
aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we
shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any
part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished;
and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and
we shall never use it personally or by another."
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
----------------------------
She
received no reply from Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of
revenue and customs for HMRC). Instead they chose to attempt to
scare her into submission by using another agent (M. Mansha). Here was
his reply:
HM Revenue
& Customs.
Debt Management Enforcement & Insolvency Service.
Centenary Way
1 St Blaise Way
Bradford
West Yorkshire
BD1 4XX
Date 6 November 2015
Our Ref XXXXX XXXXXXXXX
Dear Mrs Wicks
I
have attached a statement of liability which shows your outstanding
balance on our records. Please note the amount is still remains
outstanding are if you wish to dispute this you will need to contact the
self assessment helpline. [Edit; They don't even use
agents that are competent with English grammar]
SA Helpline 0300 200 3310 (help to complete tax return).
Your liability to tax is not dependant on HM Revenue & Customs meeting the conditions you seek to impose.
The
amounts outstanding are due under legislation and your liability for
these amounts is not dependant upon HM Revenue & Customs providing
answers to the irrelevant questions you have posed.
I recommend
that you arrange to pay your outstanding liability immediately. Failure
to do so may result in HM Revenue & Customs taking enforcement
action against you. Such as the use of a debt collection agency, removal
and sales of your assets. County Court proceedings or bankruptcy
proceedings.
I have nothing further to add to this and I consider
the matter to be closed. Any further correspondence from you on this
topic will not be responded to.
Yours sincerely
(signature)
M. Mansha
(attached document);
HM Revenue & Customs.
STATEMENT OF LIABILITIES date 6 November 2015
MRS S V WICKS
Reference xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
Period ended Description
unpaid amount.
05-04-2013 Interest on Late Filing Penalty 4.43
05-04-2013 Interest on Daily Penalty
26.55
05-04-2013 Interest on 6 month Late Filing Penalty 8.85
05-04-2013 Interest on 12 month Late Filing Penalty 4.16
05-04-2013 SA Daily Penalty
Tax
900.00
Interest To 06-11-2015
3.47
05-04-2014 SA 6 month Late Filing Penalty
Tax 300.00
Total unpaid amount
£ 1247.46
Interest accruing per day, until payment £ 0.09
Well......that told her!! she'd better just pay up then right?
We then served the second Notice on Mrs Graham. We also drafted a special Notice for M Mansha...
To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).
HMRC
DMB 380
BX5 5AB
From;
Sandra Wicks.
xxxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx ,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6
Date Notice served: 11/11/2015
NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
Dear Mrs C Graham
I, Sandra wicks do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This is a lawful notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says. I do
not stand under the Law Society’s ‘legalese’ and there are no hidden meanings or
interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein. If you fail to comply with
this Notice then you will be deemed to be in absolute agreement with the points raised. Do
not ignore it.
A reply to this notice is REQUIRED and is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full
name and on his or her full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Your response is required
within TEN (10) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice; failure to comply will represent
your tacit acquiescence with the FACTS of this Notice or that you are unable to provide lawful proof-
of-claim.
You are hereby put on Notice of my standing and the lawful facts. Do not ignore this Notice unless
you agree to acquiesce to the facts, thereby agreeing in full with the lawful points that I made in the
previous Notice served on you dated: 24-10-2015 and delivered by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery on
29-10-2015.
If
you fail to respond in ‘substance’ or within the reasonable time limit
afforded to you herein, and rebut the points raised within previous
Notice(s) served, it shall be taken to mean by all parties that all
points and concerns raised herein/therein are true and indisputable
lawful fact and, that you agree to them entirely and without exception.
It will also be taken to mean that any further action taken against
myself as a living
or legal fiction would be deemed by all interested parties to be unlawful harassment or coercion to commit crimes
under
common law. I, Sandra Wicks over the age of twenty one years,competent
to witness and with first hand knowledge do say the following, that:
STATEMENT
OF FACTS: I have asked you previously to provide the evidence to
confirm or deny whether Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is still in
effect at this time. I am concerned that by complying to the demands of
HMRC that I shall be in breach of the laws of this land since said
Article came into effect. I do not wish to break the law, so please
advise me with the truth in law so that I may do the correct thing
according to law
Being the second Notice to be served, I use this Notice as a reminder of the first, preceding Notice
served and the fact that it was either ignored or not answered according to the points raised within it
–
in SUBSTANCE. Allowing for a reasonable time limit for you to respond
to this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ I provide a further
TEN (10) days from your receipt of this document by recorded mail for
you to reply in substance. I hereby offer you this further opportunity
to rebut or confirm my
understanding of the common law as referred to in my previous Notice(s) for you to remain in honour
and, thus by doing so, enabling an opportunity to remedy this matter amicably or to provide
clarification of the lawful facts as to my standing under Article 61.
I hereby attest and affirm that all of the above is the truth and is my lawful understanding.
Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury
and, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with my natural, indefeasible and unalienable
rights reserved and all benefits waived.
Sworn and subscribed on the date of:
..............................
..................
Printed:
..............................
..............................
.
Signed:
..............................
..............................
.
Witnessed by (autograph):
1:_________________________ 2:_________________________ 3: _________________________
Print Name:
Name: _____________________ Name:______________________ Name:______________________
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
---------------
And the Notice to Stop for M. Mansha;
To: M Mansha (Doing business as A Debt Enforcement Agent for HM Revenue &Customs).
Debt Management Enforcement & Insolvency Service.
Centenary Way,
1 St Blaise Way,
Bradford,
West Yorkshire.
BD1 4XX
From: Sandra Wicks
xxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6
Your reference xxxx xxxxxxxx
Sent by recorded post.
Date: 16/11/2015
NOTICE TO STOP.
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent.
Dear M Mansha,
Whereas
I Sandra Wicks stand fully under British Constitutional law in defence
of the Sovereignty of our nation at this time, which is to my
understanding the lawful truth and duty of ALL British and Commonwealth
subjects to do, and evidently so since Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215
came into effect on the 23
rd March 2001 (see exhibits A &
B) and, that I have complied with the law with 'lawful excuse' with
regard to this matter (see exhibit C), that being in a peaceful and
honourable manner, by putting you M Mansha on notice of the evidential
facts in an attempt to remedy this matter lawfully, and to inform you of
your own duty under British Constitutional law.
By pledging
an Oath of allegiance to one of the Committee of the barons whom invoked
said article, it makes it my sworn duty to distress the present regime
and this I do by 'Royal Command'. To my understanding it is entirely
unlawful to aid and abet the crown or ANY of its agents at this time. I
therefore demand that you do due diligence on this matter and STOP any
further proceedings against me unless and until it has been evidenced
that my understanding of the law is incorrect.
I Sandra Wicks
has 'lawful excuse' to “distress and distrain” the present regime until
present constitutional wrongs have been remedied. Proceeding against me
may make you personally liable for any torts or criminal acts committed
against me, which may result in a counter claim for extortion and
demanding monies with menaces if you do not immediately stop further
enforcement actions against me, whilst ignoring the evidence herein
provided.
Whereas you state within the letter I received from
you dated 6 November 2015 “ Your liability to tax is not dependant on
HM Revenue & Customs meeting the conditions you seek to impose”. Let
me remind you that it is THE LAW that imposes these conditions on us
ALL. You are personally responsible for your acts and omissions under
the law just like everybody else!
You further wrote “ The
amounts outstanding are due under legislation and your liability for
these amounts is not dependent upon HM Revenue & Customs providing
answers to the irrelevant questions you have posed”. Sir, the question
that I pose is entirely relevant to the fact that it is UNLAWFUL to aid
and abet TREASON AT COMMON LAW and thus to adhere to the demands of HM
Revenue & Customs at this time. Ignore the evidence presented at
your own Peril. Your statements are evidently seditious.
To
conclude your letter you wrote that “ I have nothing further to add to
this and I consider the matter to be closed. Any further correspondence
from you on this topic will not be responded to”. If you fail to respond
to the RELEVANT points of constitutional law herein, then by your
acquiescence it shall be deemed to mean, by all interested parties
involved in this matter, that you agree wholeheartedly with the facts I
have stated and evidence that I have included. And that any further
actions taken against me shall be considered harassment and criminal
acts.
Any reply MUST be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.
Without
any admission of liability whatsoever and, with all my inalienable
common law rights reserved. With prejudice and written under duress and
protest. On my full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.
Maxim: “Actusme invito factus, non est meus actus.“ – An act done by me against my will, is not my act.
Sandra Wicks.
Signed.
Witness 1.
Witness 2.
Witness 3.
Evidence included:
Exhibit A (Daily Telegraph report on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215).
Exhibit B (Letters between the committee of the barons and Sir Robin Janvrin)
Exhibit C (Article 61 text).
EXHIBIT A.
Peers Petition Queen on Europe. Daily Telegraph.
By Caroline Davies
12:00AMGMT 24 Mar 2001
FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.
The
Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of
Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient
Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter's
Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum
parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and
freedoms of the British people had to be defended.
The
clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on
King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum
of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to
take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the
start of the Glorious Revolution.
The four peers, who were all
thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum
by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, with the
petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another
60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the
public.
They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice
agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British
liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's
provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may
rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions
until they have redress.
EXHIBIT B.
The petition of the barons and letters from both parties in full.
The Petition.
A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61of Magna Carta 1215
February 2001. To Defend British Rights and Freedoms.
Ma’am, as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:
1.
the loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient
rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a member of
the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973;
2.
the terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause
significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the
rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to
the European Union:
a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your Government;
b) to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;
c)
which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice,
abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury,
and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers
of enforcement;
d) to create a military force which will place
British service personnel under the command of the European Union
without reference to British interests, and contrary to:
i) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,
ii) the Queen’s Commission, and
iii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;
e) which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in British interests;
3.the
creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights,
which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights” at will;
4.the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to
a)
suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and
detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath Act,
1688;
b) subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;
5.Your
Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by
Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in 1707;
WHEREFORE
it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal
Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty
of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given
clear and specific approval to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms
and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the
Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation
to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953.
We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.
(signed)
Notes:
The
House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last
September that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to
this day. Home Secretary Jack Straws aid as much on 1 October 2000, when
the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says:
“Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was
sealed at Runnymede.”
The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:
Article
24 –transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter
into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all
member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority
Voting.
Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.
Article
191 –assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing
political parties at European level [ie: in the EU]” and withdraw or
prevent the funding of political parties which do not“ contribute to
forming a European awareness.”This is a clear restriction of free speech
and free political association. It also introduces two particularly
abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of
sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Articles 29 and 31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).
Article
67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV.
These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK
(article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and
prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the
deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of
Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280,
which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the
very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British
euro-realists.
Article 17 –establishes a common foreign
and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of
Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: “The entire chain of
command must remain under the political control and strategic direction
of the EU. NATO will be kept informed.” Her Majesty The Queen is
Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of
Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its
loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel
in Chief to Her Majesty.
The loss of the UK veto applies
to 39 new areas of EU “competence”, including indirect taxation, the
environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and
regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other
areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.
Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.
Article
52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will,
effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the
state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [ie:
those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is
not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration
of Rights, 1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.
Clause 61 of
Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert
Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite
William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James
II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the
confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great
Seal into the Thames and flee the country.
The ruling in
Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “ Prerogative is created for
the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.”
(The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to
ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)
In
1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia
Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince
of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of
France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a
Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen
feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus,
parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the
nation and the security of the realm.
Addressing both
Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both
houses to mark the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her
Majesty said that it was “still part of statute law…on which the whole
foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.”
The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:
“…the
said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should
continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the
…laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future
might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all
officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their
successors according to the same, in all time to come.”
Both
Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between the
sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they cannot
be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms
which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of
permanence.
List Of Signatories Peers signing the petition:
Lord
Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as
Lord Oriel) Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition
at Buckingham Palace.
The petition was also signed by:
Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich,Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney,
Earl
Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl
Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of
Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon,Earl
of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis
of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The
Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and
pre-dates the Union of 1707.
Letter To The Queens Private Secretary
Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
23 March 2001
You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.
The
Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It
directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of
loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered
merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the
Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations
yet unborn.
We find ourselves living in exceptional
times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her
Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause 61 of
Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.
As
you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression
before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without
delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly,
whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or
diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and
null.
We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the
Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because
there is clear evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is
in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It
conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and,
above all, with Her Majesty's Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office
of Her Majesty's ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this
day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.
Ultimately,
our supreme protection is Her Majesty's obligations under the
Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples
of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on
and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to
preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to
any of them.
From the spiritual point of view, it is
unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her
duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed
contract.
Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous
prime minister, confirm that they would not advise any measure which
might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty's
promise to her loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her
ministers. Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the
Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they
gain or remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet
the Treaty of Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now
been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.
Blackstones
Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The
splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the
benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking,
as ancient as the law itself .De prerogativa regis is merely declaratory
of the common law…
The duties arising from the relation of
sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security
and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the
sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same
criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return,
the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives
are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty
is under, and not above, the laws.
For such words to have
meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary
demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of
allegiance. Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seek in
gratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for
Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and
fight an election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced
with seeking
elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty
under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would
distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow
the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished
the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms
to be curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their
sovereign to be diminished.
Of course, for the many
thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option
exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all
usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly
extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince,
person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at any time after the last
day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of
power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege
within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly
abolished out of this realm, forever.
So it is clear that
no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people –
may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We
are all tenants of it, and trustees. We inherited these rights, and we
have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future
generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish.
Which
is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on
parliament’s power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The
Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn
obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common
law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear
allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the
nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.
The Coronation
Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by
its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign,
not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that
allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the
checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their
lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by
tyranny.
We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty
of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such
clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to
restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty's subject.
The
EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing
political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or
prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to
forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech
and free political association. It also introduces two particularly
abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of
state sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Our political
freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in
any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm
as Fid. Def. and Lib.Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom
of the People.
It has been suggested to us that a
referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question
of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A
referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement
of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.
We come back
to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as
justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know
the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such
officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?
These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 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,
move-over, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better
allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we
have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them
in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the
underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty
barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all
their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace
and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present
Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of
our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall
have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security,
and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and
twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we
are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition
to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not
have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of
the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty
days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our
justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid
shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and
those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the
whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by
seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can,
until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our
own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress
has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And
let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the
said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid
matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power;
and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear,
and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the
land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to
the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall
by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if
any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from
the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent
the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five
barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to
their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others.
Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these
twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and
disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are
unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those
present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established,
exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said
twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is
aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we
shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any
part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished;
and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and
we shall never use it personally or by another."
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
--
We
received no further communication from either agent and, after the time
frame for a reply had elapsed we served the final Notice of default on
Mrs Graham;
To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).
HMRC
DMB 380
BX5 5AB
From: Sandra Wicks
xxxxxx xxxxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxxx,
Glastonbury.
Somerset.
BA6
Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx
Date Notice served: 30
th Nov 2015
Sent by recorded post.
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.
Dear Mrs C Graham,
You
have failed to respond to the two (2) previous Notices that I served on
you, which is now taken to mean that you and all interested parties
agree entirely with the points of law that I previously stated and, that
HMRC has no claim against I, Sandra Wicks since you have provided your
tacit consent to said Notices.
I provide you with a further
seven (7) days from receiving this 'Notice of Default' to respond to the
Notice of Conditional acceptance in substance and in full.
You
are in dishonour at this time as you have a duty to respond to the very
serious constitutional points that I refer to within said Notices. Any
further action taken by HMRC against I, Sandra Wicks, whilst my lawful
points remain un-rebutted without substance, shall be agreed to be
harassment by all interested parties and a counter claim may ensue
against you personally Mrs C Graham. Any reply must be made on your full
commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.
Sincerely,
without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to
deceive or to be vexatious and, with all my inalienable Constitutional
rights reserved. On my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.
Signed: Sandra Wicks.
Witnessed by:
Signature. Printed name:
1.–---------------------------
-------------- - –-----------------------------
------
2.----------------------------
--------------- - –-----------------------------
-------
3.----------------------------
-------------- - –-----------------------------
-------
We later received two conflicting correspondences from HMRC. The first dated the 17th December 2015;
HM Revenue
& Customs.
Debt Management
C Graham
Northgate House
Agard street
Derby
DE1 1RU
Date 17 December 2015
Our Ref XXXXX XXXXXXXXX
NI Number xxxxxxxxx
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2015 regarding your outstanding Self Assessment debt £1252.65
I
have checked your self assessment record and we have not received your
2012/2013 and 2013/2014 income tax returns. Therefore because we have
not received them you have occurred penalties.
Your 2014/2015
Self Assessment Tax Return and payment are due by the 31 January 2016.
To avoid penalties occurring please ensure HMRC receive them on time.
If you have stopped being Self Employed could you please tell us the date you ceased?
If
you have any problems with filing on line your outstanding Self
assessment Tax Returns please telephone the Online Service helpline on
0300 200 3600 and for any other Self Assessment problems contact our
Self Assessment Helpline on 0300 200 3310.
GO PAPERLESS
If you
are Self Employed with no other source of income, no employees and are
not registered for VAT you can choose to receive messages through your
on line account. To do this, go to
www.online,
gov.uk/login
and login to your account then select the option to go paperless. If
you do not have an online account for Self Assessment already, go to
www. blablabla...to set one up.
Please remember that the deadline
for your 2015 Self Assessment Tax Return online is 31 January 2016, If
you haven't yet registered for online filing, please allow at least
seven working days to complete the registration process.
Yours sincerely
(unsigned).
------------------------------
------------------------------
-----------------------------
The second letter was dated 22 December is as follows;
HM Revenue
& Customs.
HM Revenue and Customs PAYE & Self Assessment Complaints
BX9 1AS
Tel 03000 581483
Mrs Sandra Wicks
xxxxx xxxxxx
xx xxxx xxxxx
Glastonbury
BA6 XXX
22 December 2015
Complaints id; xxxxxx
NI Number; xxxxxxxxxxxx
Thank you for your letter of 16 November.
I
am sorry for any concern we have caused but, frankly, I do not believe
that the powers you seek to invoke override the specific statute under
which we have sought the penalties we raised. Even so, on the basis that
your circumstances have not changed since you submitted your last tax
return, for 2011/2012, I will cancel the penalties and repay the funds
you recently used to settle some of them.
If you feel I have not
dealt with your complaint fully or correctly, you may ask for a further
review by a different complaint handler by writing to;
HM Revenue & Customs.
PAYE & Self Assessment Complaints
BA6 1AS
Please
make both your letter and envelope 'For the attention of the
Operational manager (Customer Complaints) PAYE & SA - Complaint
further review'. If you require more information about making a
complaint, you will find it on our website at;
www....blablablab
If
you do not have access to the internet but would like a copy of our
factsheet, please contact me on the number shown at the top of this
letter.
Your sincerely
(signature)
Steve Jones
Complaints Officer.
------------------------------
------------------------------
----------------------
So there you have it. An admission that they were wrong to fine her but no admission to the evidenced facts provided.
As
Sandi rightly states "how do they know my circumstances haven't
changed?" She hasn't dealt with them for a number of years except to pay
up under duress and protest.
They may wriggle and squirm around
the truth but the result is clear. They will not admit that they are
compounding treason obviously, but they are unwilling to commit high
treason to attempt to enforce their thefts upon us either. They don't
really care about money its all fictional anyway, they wish to maintain
the illusion as a control mechanism for fear and servility, yet it is
they that are in fear of us NOT the other way around.
I hope this
latest victory will inspire YOU to act according to our constitutional
law and to rebel in a peaceful but powerful manner. Sandi is now NOt
supporting paedophilia, terrorism, war crimes etc etc etc... she may not
still be happy with the world but at least she is no longer assisting
in her own demise and that of her loved ones. Well done Sandi!!!
:0)
