EU Referendum - THINK Before Your Vote! Common Law Threat!

EU Referendum - THINK Before Your Vote!       Common Law Under Threat!

 A superb video by David Cammegh explaining the risk of what we will lose if we allow the TRAITORS! to sink us further into the slavery of the evil empire of the EU . A globalist corporation designed to make SLAVES off us all . In this video 
David explains what the common law is as Gods law based on the reason of mans common sense, 

And perhaps a massive explanation of why the promotion of atheism along with other destructive ideologies.  A must watch 

 

Adolf Hitler — ‘My spirit will rise from the grave and the world will see i was right.

Adolf Hitler — ‘My spirit will rise from the grave and the world will see i was right.


By Neil  Whitelam
I have wondered this myself, why was all trace of National socialist Germany rubbed off the face of the planet.
Why were all the head guys executed, why were all their country houses, private accomodations levelled to the ground, why was Germany levelled to the ground, Why was WW2 started by Churchill ?, Why to this day is it still politically correct to slag off the Germans, Why has the alleged holocaust become a historical fact even though there is massive amounts of evidence that prove lies have been told. why! why ? there are lots of WHY'S.
One thing is for sure, during the passage of time more and more secret documents are been released or uncovered that paint quite a different picture on the one we have been spoon fed
IF TONY BLAIR could swindle, bamboozle, kid, deceive the majority of the UK to justify Gulf war 2 and A-stan with all the modern media weapons at his disposal HOW EASY WOULD IT HAVE been for Churchill and CO to hoodwink the British population with only state controlled radio, news papers and cinema at his disposal - fuck sake he could have told us the moon was made of cheese and we would have fell for it.
In fact Orson Wells proved the power of radio when he caused US nation wide panic when he broadcast war of the world in 1938 - mmmm one year before the war broke out in 1939, a test run perhaps?
The fact is the world bankers, the global swindlers, worldwide power brokers ,WANT TO STAY IN CONTROL via debt, oppression , suffering and hardship. The last thing they want is for people to work in harmony, world peace, debt less society, prosperity and good health for all AND THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS THE TRUE REASON WHY GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALISM HAS BEEN DEMONISED AND RUBBED OUT.
They dont want this pure natural ideology ever to become popular again, for if it did it would signal the end of their reign of power over this planet. 
 READ ! RESEARCH ! FOR F.CK SAKE DON'T JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

Added note from Horwich Nationalists , Just watch the video below

Speed Camera Loophole Exposed Do Not Sign There Pirate Contracts

Speed Camera Loophole Exposed Do Not Sign There Contracts 

Extract from The Western Mail 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magistrates' courts could grind to a halt if thousands of motorists exploit a legal loophole unwittingly exposed by a Welsh driver. 

 

Magistrates had no choice but to find Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, Flintshire, not guilty of speeding when his case was heard on Thursday.

 

He had omitted to sign the standard form which is sent to the owner of each vehicle caught by a speed camera - and Mold magistrates said they couldn't accept the form as evidence.

 

Police have no power to compel car owners to sign the form and have been expecting someone to spot the loophole.

 

Yesterday the Association of British Drivers, representing about 2,500 motorists, predicted drivers would soon get wind of the court case.

 

"Motorists are always very quick to seek any way to avoid paying for their speeding ticket, particularly when they've been caught by cameras because they resent very much the way the cameras operate," said spokesman Tony Vickers.

 

"The cameras have very much reduced public respect for the police and local authorities.

 

"People are only too glad to find a way to beat the system."

 

He said motorists who receive a speeding ticket after being caught on camera could opt to have their case heard in court, rather than pay the fine without quibble.

 

"If a lot of people take up this option it will have another side-effect, which will be to clog up the magistrates' courts with hundreds or thousands of motorists all trying to avoid paying the fine.

 

"The implications for the legal system are interesting, to say the least."

 

Although the ABD did not condone breaking the highway laws, it said it would place details of the loophole on its own website for other drivers to read.

 

"I'm sure a lot of people will try it on and see whether it gets them anywhere."

 

The prospect of using the loophole could look especially appealing to people who already had endorsements on their licences, said Mr Vickers.

 

"They should bear in mind that if they fail, they will end up paying the full fine rather than the 50% they would pay if they put their hand up."

 

When a police camera takes a photograph of a speeding vehicle, the vehicle's registered owner is sent a form asking who the driver was at the time.

 

It is an offence not to complete the form and name the driver - but the owner does not have to sign it.

 

If the form has not been signed, the courts cannot take any notice of it.

 

Magistrates in Mold were asked to prove a case of speeding against Phillip Dennis, 34, of Gwibnant Farm, Downing Road, Whitford, near Holywell.

 

But clerk Paul Conlon pointed out that the form naming the defendant as the driver was unsigned.

 

The driver had provided the information required of him but there was no requirement under that section of the law for the form to be signed.

 

Magistrates said they were not happy but had to find the defendant not guilty in his absence.

 

Chairman John Beard suggested the police should go back to defendants and ask them to sign the form.

 

But he was advised that as the law now stood the only requirement was to stipulate the name of the driver, and that there was no legal requirement to sign it even if police did go back and request a signature.

 

Nobody was available from North Wales Police to comment yesterday.

 

But one police source said there had been concern that once the loophole was spotted "it could open the flood gates."

 

He said, "The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal against a conviction on this point but no one has yet.

 

"We have basically been keeping our heads down.

 

"Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into something they do not have to do.

 

"The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms back unsigned."

 

RoadPeace, the charity for road-accident victims, said the loophole showed that cameras and computers were no substitute for a police presence on the roads.

 

Chairman Zoë Stow said, "It illustrates that we can't just deal with these things as a bureaucratic issue and send forms through the post.

 

"It's disappointing that the law is poorly drafted and nobody seems to care enough to do it properly."

 

Speed cameras have proliferated in South and North Wales since the Home Office gave police permission to use fines to pay for enforcement, rather than sending the money to the Treasury.

 

Latest figures show that in 2001 the number of speeding tickets issued by South Wales Police was 38% higher than in 2000.

 

North Wales Police registered a 19% increase in 2001, although its Arrive Alive speed-camera campaign wasn't launched until late that year.

 

For More information on how the police are acting unlawfully here  At Lawful Rebellion

HIGH TREASON In BRITAIN

HIGH TREASON

The Complete Text of Capt. K. R. McKilliam, M.A.

The British Nation is bedevilled today by alien organisations that have established themselves within our Christian Nation and aim to take us over, to destroy our Christian culture and force us to follow their preconceived designs. Unfortunately they have infiltrated themselves into our educational and religious systems and have educated many adepts among our people who unknowingly carry out their will. Many of them have been advanced to high places.

“Gentile Home Secretary Roy Jenkins gets his latest set of instructions from Lord Fisher and Maurice Orbach.” Published with this caption in Let My People Go! c. 1976

LAWS AGAINST ESTABLISHING A FOREIGN POWER IN ENGLAND In 1353 Edward III by his statute of Praemunire forbade appeals being made to foreign courts. Richard II who came to the throne in 1377 issued a Statute of Praemunire (16 Richard II II C5) which stated that anyone who procures from Rome or any other place any thing which touches the King, against him or his Crown or realm and all those aiding and abetting them shall be out of the King’s protection. Their goods and land would be forfeited and they would be made to answer to the King and his council and a process of Praemunire Facias made against them. The learned constitutional lawyer, Blackstone, in Book 4, C8, states that Praemunire is “introducing a foreign power into the land and creating an Imperium in Imperio [State within a State] by paying obedience to other processes which constitutionally belong to the King alone.” But although this is a general protection of the King, the constitutional lawyer Littleton states that Praemunire Facias also extends to the King’s loyal subjects and this particular protection is of two sorts, firstly it gives the subject immunity or freedom from action or suite and secondly to protect the safety of the subject and his goods, lands and possessions from violence, unlawful molestation and wrong. This the subject gains by right and by law. Subjects are protected by the King, by the law and by the King’s writ. Praemunire doth fortify Jurisdictionem Jurium Coronae Suae of the Kingly laws of the Crown against foreign jurisdiction and against the usurpers upon them as by divers acts of parliament appears.... A man who by judgement given against him upon writ of Praemunire Facias etc. is out of the King’s protection. For such of these crimes for which any shall have this judgement, to be hanged by the neck until he be dead and shall forfeit all his lands and chattels. HIGH TREASON Treason is the act of betraying; betrayal of a trust undertaken by or reposed in anyone; a breach of faith, treachery. High Treason or Treason Proper is the violation of a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state, levying war on the King’s dominions, adhering to the King’s enemies in his dominions, or aiding them in or out of the realm. In 1795 the offence was extended to include the contemplated use of force to make the King change his counsels. MISPRISION OF TREASON Misprision of Treason is an offence or misdemeanor akin to treason or felony. It is the neglect of duty by a public official who conceals a knowledge of treasonable actions or designs. At an assize it may warrant the same penalty as High Treason. A subject of the Crown is also bound to inform the magistrates if he knows that High Treason is being contemplated. ESTABLISHING AN IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO: THE JEWS The Jews had been in England in Anglo-Saxon times dealing in slaves. Jews however came into England with the Norman Conquest. They made themselves a threat to the people of this country by (1) clipping the gold coinage and turning the clippings into bullion for sale overseas (2) dispossessing good Christian Englishmen of their lands and property by high interest rates in usury (3) by the ritual murder of young Christian boys by crucifixion and drawing off the blood for ritual purposes; particularly Hugh of Lincoln in 1255; a child sacrificed in Nottingham in 1279; and the ritual murder of a boy in Oxford by the Jew Isaac de Pulet in 1290 (Patent Roll. Edward I, mem. 21 21st June, 1290; Public Records Office). On the 18th of July 1290, by a royal decree, King Edward I in his council expelled all Jews forever from England. Writs were sent out to the sheriffs of the English shires informing them that by royal edict all Jews were to leave the English realm before November 1st 1290, anyone who remained were to be executed. The population and parliament reacted with relief and great joy (Calendar of Close Rolls, 18 Edward I, Public Records Office). In his book Edward I (London, 1988) page 343, Michael Prestwick states that at a Parliament summoned to Westminster in that July a subsidy was granted and was collected. This subsidy was a thank offering for the Jews’ expulsion. THE JEWS PRESENT BEGGING LETTERS TO CROMWELL Various Jews made begging petitions to Oliver Cromwell to get him to revoke the Edict of Expulsion; but Cromwell, being only a commoner, could not revoke a royal edict and knew this. In February 1658 Cromwell is said to have made an oral commitment to Antonio Fernandes Cavajal, the leader of the Jews (buried under the name of Abraham in the Jews’ cemetery, London 1659), assuring his protection. This was in defiance of the recommendations of the council that the Jews should only be permitted the standing of ordinary aliens. This is the situation today (lecture by Lucien Wolf to the Jews College Literary Society in 1877). Joan Comay, wife of the Israeli Ambassador to the Court of St. James and to the United Nations wrote in her book Who’s Who in Jewish History After the Period of the Old Testament, published in 1974: Manasseh [ben Israel] returned to Holland in October 1657, deeply distressed at what he considered to be the failure of his mission. Cromwell remained on friendly terms with him and granted him a pension of £100 a year. Although Edward I’s edict of expulsion was not formally revoked as Manasseh had hoped, the resumption of Jewish worship achieved the same practical result. The edict has actually not been revoked to this day. Because of the expulsion of the Jews from Europe, the Jews sent an appeal for advice to the Sanhedrin on the 13th of January 1489. The reply came back from the Prince of the Jews in Constantinople. It advised the Jews of Europe to adopt the tactics of the Trojan Horse: to make their sons Christian priests, lawyers, doctors etc. and to destroy the Christian structure from within. Thus, by 1990, we have had one known Bah-Mitzvahed bishop in the Church of England, Bishop Hugh Montefiore, numerous Jewish Queen’s Counsels in the legal profession and at least seven foreign Jews in the House of Lords. It may be disputed that these old edicts have fallen into disuse and are no longer applicable. At a celebration to commemorate the conquering of England by William Duke of Normandy in 1066 held at Caen, the Mayor of Bordeaux assured all those present that the town of Bordeaux had faithfully paid the levy on wine placed on the town throughout the whole period of 900 years. An attempt had been made to have the levy annulled but this could not be done since the Queen of England is still Duke of Normandy, and Count of Aquitaine. Israel Moses Sieff with his Political and Economic Planning (P.E.P.) tried to get rid of ancient territorial boundaries for the new county councils. Although the new county councils are in operation, all law officers functioning in Lancashire are appointed by the Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster and not by the Lord Chancellor of Parliament. The courts are Duchy courts and all offences are against the Duke’s peace. The County Palatine of the Duchy of Lancaster is outwith the jurisdiction of parliament under the wills of Henry II, Henry III and Henry IV, and certain acts of parliament are inapplicable within the Duchy. A similar position is found in the Principality and County Palatine of Durham. Being prohibited aliens by the Edict of Expulsion Jews have no right to sit in our houses of parliament, nor on our local government councils. They have no right to be in the judiciary nor to hold office in the executive of government nor in the police force. All purported laws and purported acts of parliament in which Jews have taken part in the voting are illegal, unconstitutional: null and void. Contrary to the Statutes of Praemunire traitors we elect to parliament have allowed the Jews to establish an Imperium in Imperio, the ‘Board of Jewish Deputies,’ which have gained to themselves powers to influence the policies of British governments to their own universal advantage. The Daily Telegraph of 19th January 1972 stated: “The Zionist Congress is the head of the world’s political movement.” World’s Works – Inner Mountain Jewish News on 1st March 1976 stated: This world organization has a highly centralized form of government, this consists of an international committee including representatives from all countries that have a local organization. But the real control is vested in what is known as the Inner Actions Council. This is a compact body of only seven men and it is dominated by the Jews of Europe. MUSLIMS ATTEMPT TO SET UP ANOTHER IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO It is the function of the Attorney General to advise governments and government departments (see Whitaker’s Almanac). Succeeding Attorneys General have failed to advise governments of the implications of the contents of Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. This is a dereliction of duty. Another attempt to establish an Imperium in Imperio by aliens, a felony of Praemunire, was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 15th July 1990. It was stated that the Muslim leader Kalim Siddiqui called for a special relationship between Muslims here and the government of Iran. He launched a manifesto to politicize Britain’s Muslim community which aimed to establish an Islamic parliament, to persuade Muslims to discriminate in favour of other Muslims, to place the names of all Muslims in Britain on a computer database and to raise five million pounds to establish a Muslim parliament in Britain. To do this is to commit the felony of Praemunire punishable with death by hanging. The culprits are those subjects of the Crown who have allowed this situation to arise. It is up to the government to give all Muslims their marching orders out of this country or incur the penalties laid down for Praemunire, allowing aliens to establish an Imperium in Imperio. In bringing this matter to the attention of fellow subjects of the Crown I am under the Queen’s protection for as Fitzherbert wrote (Vide 7 Co. 8, 9, Calvin’s Case ANT 130a, Sect 199) “Every loyal subject is in the Queen’s Protection.” THE PURPORTED RACE RELATIONS ACTS The so-called Race Relations Acts are conspiracies to use acts of parliament to enforce the racial integration of subjects of the Crown with Negroes and Asiatics especially brought here for the purpose. They are acts of racial hatred against us by prohibited immigrants. The Race Relations Act of 1965 was introduced to parliament by the Russian Jew Frank Soskice, purported Labour Attorney General. Further Race Relations Acts were devised by the Board of Jewish Deputies. The Jewish Chronicle stated that amendments must be made to the Race Relations Act since the 1965 Race Relations Act was not working the way they wanted it to. The 1976 Race Relations Act was passed in the Commons by default, with only 132 of the 635 members present; 124 Labour and Liberal traitors voted for the bill with eight Tories against. To terrorize the masses it was required to establish a network of so-called human rights agencies, the ‘Race Relations Industry.’ Ivor Benson writes that: the task was to penalize the instinctive responses of the local resident population in the presence of unassimilable neighbours who have been forced upon them... Hereto there are rich pickings for decadent, deracinated elements who help to impose the tyranny, like human dregs who rule the roost and spend millions of the tax-payers’ money in Britain’s innumerable inner-city ghettoes. Nor should we omit to mention the zealous active connivance of politicians and bureaucrats whose greed for personal advancement is rationalized with a spurious humanistic ideology. There are three phases in this Jewish imposition of race mixing: Phase One: Unassimilable population elements are introduced into all-White communities of the West as legitimate immigrants, supposedly because their labour was needed. Phase Two: Public opposition is circumvented by introducing them as refugees. Phase Three: Which came into effect right from the start, is a massive and sustained campaign of mental terrorism aimed at suppressing every form of popular dissent and opposition. The campaign of terrorism has taken two forms, one aimed at the leadership and the other at the masses. Any political leader who dares to give voice to what his own people think and feel is at once made the target by the Jews by an orchestrated campaign of vilification with Jewish-devised swear words “Nazi,” “Fascist,” “racialist,” “racist” while support in money and publicity is diverted to political rivals and opponents. The masses are terrorized by Jewish-led Socialist Workers Party mobs who are quite prepared to use violence when necessary. IMMIGRATION The massive immigration of Islamics and other coloured peoples is illegal and the British people, subjects of the Crown, were never consulted about whether they wanted their country to become a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Mrs Margaret Thatcher deceived the nation in 1979 when she declared that Britain was becoming swamped with immigrants, using the fears of the subjects of the Crown to gain votes and giving the impression that she would stem the flow. Having got her party into government she did nothing about it, only allowed vast numbers more into the country. Multi-racialism and multi-culturalism has been illegally and unconstitutionally imposed on this nation and the Jewish power controlling the government will ensure that the nation will never be consulted. THE PURPORTED PUBLIC ORDER ACT OF 1986 The so-called Public Order Act of 1986 is a conspiracy to use an act of parliament to enable investigators to enter the homes of subjects of the Crown to gain evidence to initiate action in the law courts against those offending against the purported Race Relations Act. This Act was placed before parliament by the purported Conservative Home Secretary, the prohibited Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, Leon Brittanisky, also known as Leon Brittan, assisted by his cousin, another Lithuanian Jew, Malcolm Rivkind, also know as Malcolm Rifkind. This bill was primarily to prevent subjects of the Crown from discussing and revealing the Jewish take-over of our nation. THE PURPORTED NATIONALITY ACT The so-called Nationality Act is a conspiracy to use an act of parliament to take away our rights as subjects of the Crown. This act makes the place of birth rather than the genetic and racial identity of the individual the criteria for nationality. Britons from Australia and Canada visiting the continent from Britain were surprised on their return to be presented with documents to sign marked “Alien” while Pakistanis and other Asians passed through with British passports as British nationals. This Act purports to replace ancestry, that for generations has been the practical definition of the British subject, by the definition of an accidental place of birth. Thus it seeks to encourage the development of a nation of half-breeds and to swamp and destroy the British people and their customs. In The Common Law of England, 198. N2, Sir Edward Coke states: Persons born beyond the seas, if their fathers or paternal grandfathers were natural born subjects, are likewise made so, though with an exception of some unfavourable persons.... Liegeus is ever taken for a natural born subject... Liegeance, a liegando, being the highest and greatest obligation of duty and obedience that can be. Liegance is the true and faithful obedience of a liegman or subject to his liege lord or sovereign. Alliegeance is born of faith: alliegeance is the essential law. Until William Whitelaw’s Nationality Act we have been subjects of the Crown and under the protection of the Crown. This Act purports to deprive us of this and make us merely British citizens. This Act together with the European Communities Act and the Treaty of Rome aims at destroying the British Monarchy as soon as possible. It is High Treason. By signing the United Nations Charter in 1946 and passing an act before parliament so-called British politicians were obliged to carry out the terms of the Charter. This entails the mixing of the races of the world to form a degraded population and the eradication of the British and other White races. These the planners regard, together with Christianity, as the main obstacles to the establishment of a totalitarian one-world government. The United Nations Charter was drafted by Alger Hiss, a convicted communist and Soviet agent together with Andrei Gromyko, a senior Soviet official. Alger Hiss occupied the directional chair at the organizational conference of the United Nations. These people are aiming at genocide of the White race. According to this Nationality Act the Queen is no longer our Queen and we are no longer her subjects. If we are no longer the subjects of the Crown this Act deprives us of the protection of the Crown, for according to the patent rolls of the Statute of Northampton 1328 it is the duty of the Queen to protect her subjects despite parliament; thus we are protected from a possible anti-White anti-British parliament. This Act purports to deprive the Queen of her titles, lands and prerogatives. We no longer go to war for the Crown but for parliament. This is High Treason. A letter from the Home Secretary dated 31st May 1988, which appeared in the Independent newspaper on Monday 17th June 1988, made it plain that Her Majesty the Queen is prepared to place at the disposal of parliament all her remaining prerogatives: the power to make war or peace, to ratify treaties, to grant honours; the list is formidable embracing just about all those powers which remained to the monarch after the glorious revolution of 1688. The signature at the bottom of the letter is that of Douglas Hurd. The person who drew the Home Secretary into weighty correspondence is the cryptic left-winger, Tony Benn. Benn laid before parliament his Crown Prerogatives Bill to deprive the Crown of all the remainder of her prerogatives. THE PURPORTED EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT The European Communities Act of 1972 and the Treaty of Rome aims at destroying the British monarchy as soon as possible. This is High Treason the penalty for which is death by hanging and this is still on the statute books. Likewise any subject of the Crown who knows that High Treason is being carried on and fails to report it is guilty of Misprision of High Treason, the penalty may be death: to deprive the Queen of her Crown or any of her dominions. Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is irreconcilable with the Oath of Allegiance. There is an absolute constitutional case that there is no statute authority for the executive acts that have bound the UK to the EEC, nor for the British Nationality Act. Both are contrary to the interests of the Crown and people. The High Court of Great Britain disallowed an Act which was passed by our House of Commons and House of Lords and received the Royal Assent. This Act was the Shipping Act of 1988. The High Court referred the case to the European Court. This was the first case in the history of parliament that an Act passed by both houses of parliament with the Royal Assent and the regulations under it have been set aside. A British Court has interfered with an act of parliament in the interests of a foreign court. This is High Treason. We can claim that the Queen carry out her coronation oath and protect us from alien and foreign-made laws. We are legally not in the Common Market nor are we constitutionally a multi-racial multi-cultural society. Traitor Edward Heath carried out the plans of international Jewish financiers and multinational companies, the Imperial Institute for International Affairs and the Rothschilds to deceive the Queen in her grants. Many of us have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, her heirs and successors and demand protection from foreign-made laws made by aliens in Europe. The Oath of Allegiance has been taken by members of parliament, Queen’s Councillors, members of the Judiciary, clergy of the Church of England and members of the executive yet many of them are working for our enemies, for a slave-state full of debt which our children will inherit. A charge of perjury of the Oath of Allegiance and High Treason must be laid against all those culprits who have allowed our government to be over-ruled by directives coming from beyond the seas – from foreigners in Brussels and Strasbourg. Any attempt to take Scotland and England into the EEC is High Treason: “Depriving the Queen of her lands and titles.” All purported MEP’s are qualified for hanging. The basic statutes of the United Kingdom are still in force and are in conflict with growing foreign supremacy. The full sovereignty of the United Kingdom is not now in the hands of the Queen; her powers have been handed over by a despicable traitor Edward Heath on the instructions of his Jewish mentors. Edicts and laws can be sent out from Brussels and Strasbourg which are enforced by traitors in the United Kingdom. European Law and Community Law is now destroying the respective laws and customs of the British realm and the very birthright of the British people.

High Treason: Laws Against Establishing a Foreign Power in England is published by the Heretical Press, ISBN 1-901240-15-0, 14pp.

Is The European Migrant Crisis Leading To War? | Paul Joseph Watson and ...

Donald Trump Ted Cruz Goldman Sachs and the Zionist Oligarchs

Read more at David Duke.com

The Holy Bible - Book 21 - Ecclesiastes - KJV Dramatized Audio

Weekly News Wrap-Up 1.29.16 Greg Hunter

The So Called British “Royal Family”: They are ALL Jews!

For the last few years, I have been telling people that the British “Royal Family” are absolutely not as they seem.  I have already put up several articles in this blog that reveals how the “Queen” herself has been involved in both pedophilia rings and in murdering those who she sees as a threat to her reign.   I have said that these people are absolutely not British in any aspect, but are criminals, frauds, and have absolutely no rights to the British throne at all..
Now, I want to reveal through an article from my friend, Whitewraithe, who writes the blog: Pragmatic Witness, the facts that explain that not only are these people criminals, but they are also ALL Jewish!   I have that amazing article, entitled: “Britain’s Jewish Royal Family” right here for everyone to see for themselves, and I do, of course, have some additional thoughts and comments to follow:
Read the Full Article here 

Sad But True, Europe's Zionist Politicians Betrayal of Women

Although I have my Doubts about Pat Condell via his support of Israel, On this point he is correct. I believe the Zionists are creating a situation in which The Christian west and Islam will destroy each other , leaving you know who in charge of a ruined world.

OPERATION PASS IT ON TEN FOLD

Campaign to bring awareness to ONE MILLION British people of the MAGNA CARTA 1215 'Article 61' by the 4th of March 2016. Please share this video with TEN people that you know and ask them to do the same. We need ONE MILLION people to stand under ARTICLE 61 of the MAGNA CARTA by the 4th of March. Thank you for your support.

Alarming The Prophecy of St. Nilus about Our Time

 I recently came across this Prophecy  of the 6th Centuary Monk St Nilus . I found it hair raising in it's detail and accracy. Just Read and make your own mind up. For after all you are your own Judge Jury and Executioner

The Prophecy of St. Nilus about

Our Times
After the year 1900, toward the middle of the 20th century, the people of that time will become unrecognizable. When the time for the Advent of the Antichrist approaches, people's minds will grow cloudy from carnal passions, and dishonor and lawlessness will grow stronger. Then the world will become unrecognizable.

People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of hair. These people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because of the temptations of the Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and elders, love will disappear, and Christian pastors, Bishops and priests will become vain men, completely failing to distinguish the right-hand way from the left.

At that time, the morals and traditions of Christians and of the Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation will reign. Falsehood and greed will attain great proportions, and woe to those who pile up treasures. Lust, adultery, homosexuality, secret deeds and murder will rule in society.

Apostasy

At that future time, due to the power of such great crimes and licentiousness, people will be deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they received in Holy Baptism and equally of remorse.

The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs.

Telephones, airplanes, submarines

He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! - he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.

The coming chastisement

Then the All-good God will see the downfall of the human race and will shorten the days for the sake of those few who are being saved, because the enemy wants to lead even the chosen into temptation, if that is possible... then the sword of chastisement will suddenly appear and kill the Perverter and his servants.

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan - The Genocide Of The People Of Europe

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan - The Genocide Of The People Of Europe

From: cigpapers.wordpress.com



Mass immigration is a phenomenon, the causes of which are still
cleverly concealed by the system, and the multicultural propaganda is
trying to falsely portray it as inevitable. With this article we intend
to prove once and for all, that this is not a spontaneous phenomenon.
What they want to present as an inevitable outcome of modern life, is
actually a plan conceived around a table and prepared for decades, to
completely destroy the face of the continent.Read full article

The regime is getting scared

By 

David Robinson

The regime is getting scared and are upping the anti to keep us all distracted with personal problems, and outside influences to keep us all in fear well fuck that!!
The terrorists are in Westminster, the 'climate change' is engineered by those in Westminster (and

elsewhere).... the paedophile protectors and perverts are in Westminster, the war criminals are in Westminster, the treasonous outlaws are (guess where?) That's right in Westminster so how long are we going to allow them to remain there?
The lawful rebellion movement is upping the anti and growing exponentially. Since we are now having more successes (simply because a few more people are losing their fear and using the process) and setting precedents (which you can use too you know?) the whole regime is cracking at the seems.
So how will they counter the rebels? Good question. They can ONLY commit very serious crimes by doing so, but as they become more fearful for their own necks (literally) they are likely to do something extreme to retain the illusion of control.
We need to act fast so PLEASE PLEASE share the information we espouse, talk to friends, family, neighbours etc. WE ARE THE MEDIA FOLKS and the truth just requires a few more dedicated folk to get it into the mass consciousness of the people.
We have proven the remedy we use works on more than one occasion so there is no excuse to ignore these facts. We all have a duty to "compel" others (that is one of the fundamental things about the security clause - Article 61). The remedy will ONLY work to secure our sovereignty when the masses get involved and we are supposed to compel them to do so. Those not standing under the security clause are outlaws and I don't care who you are that is just the truth and undeniable to any reasonable man/woman.
We are going to defend the rule of law with or without you but, those who oppose the law and argue against it are being recorded and will face the consequences of their actions, just like the men who aided and abetted the Nazi occupation of Holland. When the allies liberated the Dutch the men who aided the Nazi's were rounded up and shot....the women stripped, heads shaved and they were expelled from their homes.
We may not be so barbaric today but there will be dire consequences for those that do not join the rebellion. It is an extremely serious matter that involves the survival of my children and loved ones, that's my personal take on it and I will no longer be helping ANYONE who is not in lawful rebellion first, that goes for friends, family and all associates.
Some may think that I am being extreme and that I will alienate a lot of people well good!!! I do not want to be aligned with cowards and outlaws as they are a threat to the survival of this nation and therefore they are the enemy within. The line has been drawn and time is running out. Get on board the freedom express or pay the price NO STONE SHALL GO UNTURNED once we have secured the rule of law again, and trust me WE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. Peace.

What's Really Going on in Oregon! Taking Back the Narrative ! KrisAnne Hall

 What's Really Going on in Oregon! 

Taking Back the Narrative ! KrisAnne Hall

I like that American woman in the video link, above - brilliant and clear
Please share that video far & wide along with this urgent wake up message which calls for immediate action:-
It's a parody on our situation in uk with the hegemony of banksters and Oligarchy set up by Rothschild, deploying the heavily corrupted Legal Profession, colluding with the privately owned 'Bank of England' ( well there's a lie right there - it's a Rothschild asset of his deluded creation called "UK PLC") & all HM depts esp HMLR to steal property and land from the people - all to bail out their bankrupt parallel economy - which they've used to oppress the People of Britain with for so many years - approx 300 to be precise!
Anything that can be registered must also be able to be de-registered.
So it's time we insisted on taking back our land and property Titles from these untrustworthy stewards whose ulterior motive is solely to execute illegal mergers and acquisitions into the Draconian war-mongering Rothschild dynasty.
It's no exaggeration to say:
The interfering Land Registry have become a huge threat to us all: sanctioning theft by pen & paper, void deeds & false financial instruments which completely disobey the Laws of our Land - for their own greed and privatised profits .
It's all about control being seized by interloper criminals engaging in gross malfeasance in high office - an office taken by stealth and running as a duplicitous set up with practices that are so abhorrent that their senior staff should all be jailed for high treason.
Now, with the wicked Rothschilds trying to "privatise" Land Registry - by fraudulently converting all the thousands of billions of pounds raped from people across the world, into this lucrative asset base of collateral value through properties, these criminal oligarchs intend to trade worthless loot and devalued currency built from fiat money and procured through fraudulent practice of Western banks (now collapsing everywhere we look), for solid value homes from tangible purposeful bricks and mortar - no wonder they want to make this hugely deceitful move!
Their options are running out, as now the global Banking System has become so corrupt that its operating like a behemoth and imploding
WE, THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE Of BRITAIN, MUST STOP THIS INIQUITOUS AND ILL-MOTIVATED TAKEOVER BY THE ROBBER-BARON ROTHSCHILDS, WHO WILL OTHERWISE TURN ENGLAND INTO A LIFELESS TOTALITARIAN STATE.
It is a fact that behind every illegal repossession and illegal foreclosure in England (and ALL foreclosures ARE unlawful as there's no lawful provision for a mortgagor to steal from a mortgagee ), is Rothschild & his agents - operating criminal cartels and asset-Stripping cabals, using increasingly aggressive means to asset strip us as their phoney collapsing, man-made imposed "debt crisis" deepens and worsens, becoming ever more desperate to survive and so continue.
Be warned of what motivates these power-crazed insatiable Rothschilds, whose aptitude for deception surpasses all the biggest crime gangs, internationally.
They have hijacked the Monarchy, as part of a swingeing deceptive deal they did since King George 3rd bankrupted the Bank of England that he'd set up a few decades earlier, and that's why we have a Trojan horse on the throne, as a namesake to all the corrupt HM Departments -
notably, all tarred with the same brush, of hoovering up money, time, energy, assets, happiness & robbing us of family life, health, wealth, happiness, homes, prosperity ...
These deluded and predatory overlords do not belong in our lives - they are parasites and satanists and must be made subject to serve us and to uphold all our unalienable rights afforded to us under our British Constitution and the Magna Carta.
In reality, they are predatory parasites, posing as keepers of a phoney Register, containing some 23.5 million properties with a value exceeding £5 TRILLION pounds , who are conspiring to steal England's biggest asset base- it's land and properties built by us, the good men and women of England. They have NO RIGHT TO OUR LAND OR PROPERTIES. Let's all be perfectly clear about this.
( Written by Elizabeth Watson if One Voice Action Group on 6/1/16)

A French Jewish former Resistance Member speaks truth about Hitler and Nazi Germany - SURPRISING!

A French Jewish former Resistance Member speaks truth about                     Hitler and Nazi Germany - SURPRISING!

A former member of the French resistance member  gives a full and frank interview with Erntz Zundell. The interview will be to those who have fallen for the lies of the Zionists, surprising! In this video you will hear how Hitler was not what you expect! 

Lawful Rebellion A View on it's Future Growth by David Robinson

Lawful Rebellion A View on it's Future Growth

 by David Robinson 

This is my projection at how the rebellion has and will grow further.
It starts with the common people, those with very little to lose, who grow tired of being slaves within a corporate system, that does literally nothing to benefit them, it gives a little in subsidies and takes it all back in taxes and fines, extra expenses as all public services are destroyed.
This stage has been reached by the group doing things correctly here in Glastonbury. In no other place in the country (apart from perhaps some recent actions in the capital) have the people exercised their duty under article 61 correctly. If that reads as big headed its not meant to be, it is just the truth.
Birkenhead for example was a sham. What on earth was Roger Haze even doing entering into their (not) court?.... he did so of his own accord and therefore consented to their service, total double think. And thereafter the process was not continued, why did two of the rebels go to prison? they did not use the law to deny jurisdiction and the chief constable of Mersyside was not pursued by the movement....he committed treason by 'rescuing' the so called judge (who was not a judge but an imposter). It was a nice day out though, we had a good chat with people and the cops were at least taking notice of what we were telling them.
The next stage is for the more affluent people to use the process like Sandi recently did. This has the potential to enthuse those with something to lose to join in the rebellion too.
Lets face it, most of us think we have things to lose but we are all facing the loss of everything anyway, and many lives too, under some bogus virus outbreak or some terrorist (government) attack on the people so that marshal law can be brought in, so that people can be covertly processed, either for the vaccine if you are considered a threat or a microchip if you have proven to be servile. Anyway that scenario is only what could easily occur if we allow things to continue for much longer and we have had enough now!!
Once people are using this remedy up and down the country, and the corporate courts are doing little to no trade because of a mass rejection, and the police are being lobbied day and night until they take notice of the evidential facts and abide by the law also, and the common people are empowered with the spirit of their sovereignty and unity, the system will fall apart and mass arrests will be made. This could literally happen in no time at all tomorrow in fact, if enough of us have the will to make it happen.
Whatever happens the cat is well out of the bag and the rebellion cannot be stopped in its tracks except by some catastrophic effect. My main concern is that we must get these very dangerous imposters away from sharp objects and placed within secure facilities ASAP. These people are capable of doing anything to stop the people rising to their potential,
We need people not to be in fear of the process, though we should all be in fear of the consequences of our collective inaction and apathy. There is no need to fear the truth and we are ONLY dealing with the clearly evidential truth by rebelling at this time. There is every reason to fear this very dangerous occupation and the criminals running our country and rights into the ground.
We MUST act even if only to respect all the people that died protecting the very same things in two contrived world wars. They had to sit in muddy trenches whilst all we have to do put pen and paper together, or go out and seize a public building or something....seizing buildings is fun anyway, and I quite like telling so called judges, bailiffs, cops etc to bugger off politely :0)..... yes if it wasn't so serious it would be fun.
This is the year we make or break the constitution. The Magna Carta has NEVER let the people down since it was created 800 years ago. It would be a travesty for the people to let down Magna Carta and all those who fought for the freedoms we have been denied. Peace.

Lawful Rebelion and a Second Successful process used against the HMRC Taxman

Second Successful process used against HMRC

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)