President of Alberta Society of laboratory Pyscians
The complaint is malfeasance in public office, a number of Police constables, chief constable, inspector, Gold, Silver, Bronze command and the Police and Crime commissioner. Denied my right to petition and pray and fulfill my lawful duty as a subject of the realm of England, an Englishman, and a Journalist that has taken a solemn oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. . Officers refused to allow reporting and confiscated the Bill of Rights 1689 (as a banner, stating current law of England) and The Coronation Oath Act 1688 (current law and oath taken by Her Majesty the Queen in 1952, the Oath is binding until Her Majesties passing). Officers clearly stated on record “I don’t care about the law and Bill of Rights” they continued with an unlawful order from a police constable with a police internal rank of Inspector. That inspector refused to talk to me and ignored me. His constables ignored my advise that what he was doing was illegal and so was there following of illegal orders. The police constables were advised that using commitments against me is unlawful and so is prosecution. They continued to follow unlawful orders. They were shown the law and authorities relied on. One police constable stated he had asked me to move on and would arrest me if i did not, he then pushed me . They continued to use commitments against the people and myself which is illegal. It clearly states that it is illegal in the Bill of Rights 1689 (Current English Constitutional Law). This is the basis of the complaint of “malfeasance in public office” a common law offence.
police shoulder numbers
4665 – Took the Coronation Oath Banner.
6069 – Took The Bill of Rights Banner,
5262 – Stated he didn’t care about the law, lied and pushed me.
No regulations or laws of a UK Parliament or other jurisdiction can repeal or nullify my Constitutional Rights or Laws without expressly repealing them in such laws and regulations. The reality is my rights are unalienable by reference to the words of the Bill of Rights 1689. forever x3 and all time to come x 1. These phases are acknowledged by both the English High Court and the Scottish High Court. The Magna Carta was in perpetuity. Her Majesty the Queen on July 20th declared the Bill of Rights the foundation of our legal system (hansard) and Betty Boothroyd the speaker of the House of Commons advised the courts in July 21st 1993 that the Bill of Rights was in full force “There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.” This also includes police constables!!!!
Open your Businesses.
Liverpool 14 11 2020 Fight for your Rights as our ancestors did or lose them.
Print out the above link. Download and email to 10 people and ask them to email to 10 people.
It is more important now, than ever before, to stand up!
By John Hurst. The Magna Carta Society.
1. Understanding (“Interpreting”) common law statutes such as Magna Carta and Acts of Parliament is governed by certain common law rules and the Interpretation Act 1978. So is understanding the decisions (“Judgements”) made by the Courts.
2. Knowing something of these rules will go a long way towards knowing what “Lawful Rebellion” is and how it was invoked in 2001 by the Magna Carta Society.
3. This extract from one of the leading authors on interpretation explain how statutes should be interpreted, not on their own, but a part of the whole body of the law:
“Implied ancillary rules
‘ I end this opening chapter by pointing out that elements in the legal thrust of an enactment may be left unexpressed by the drafter. Often, they are to be treated as imported because of a general presumption based on the nature of legislation. This is that, unless the contrary intention appears, an enactment by implication imports any principle or rule of law (whether statutory or non-statutory) which prevails in the territory to which the enactment extends and is relevant to its operation in that territory. This may be referred to as an ‘implied ancillary rule’.
An Act of Parliament is not a statement in a vacuum. Parliament intends its Act to be read and applied within the context of the existing, corpus juris, or body of law…”.
Page 99. F.A.R. Bennion. Understanding Common Law Legislation. Oxford University Press 2009.
4. Here are parts of the Interpretation Act 1978 on these topics:
S.3 Judicial notice.
Every Act is a public Act to be judicially noticed as such, unless the contrary is expressly provided by the Act…”.
“ s.12 Continuity of powers and duties.
(1) Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty it is implied, unless the contrary intention appears, that the power may be exercised, or the duty is to be performed, from time to time as occasion requires.
(2) Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty on the holder of an office as such, it is implied, unless the contrary intention appears, that the power may be exercised, or the duty is to be performed, by the holder for the time being of the office…”.
5. Here is an important caveat on s.3 to this Act which illustrates to point that the whole Act must be read in order to properly understand it, it only applies to all Acts passed after 1850 and 1889….
SCHEDULE 2 Application of Act to Existing Enactments
6. This extract explains from Bennion covers the authority of the Courts to determine what the law is in any given Judgement:
“ It is the function of the court alone authoritatively to declare the legal meaning of an enactment. If anyone else, such as its drafter or the politician promoting it, purports to lay down what the legal meaning is the court may react adversely, regarding this as an encroachment on its constitutional sphere. Lord Wilberforce stated the classic position:
‘Legislation in England is passed by Parliament, and put in the form of written words. This legislation is given legal effect on subjects by virtue of judicial decision, and it is the function of the courts to say what the application of words to particular cases or particular individuals is to be. This power, which has been devolved on the judges from the earliest times, is an essential part of the constitutional process by which subjects are brought under the rule of law—as distinct from the rule of the king or the rule of Parliament; and it would be a degradation of that process if the courts were to be merely a reflecting mirror of what some other interpretation agency might say . . .”.
Page 80. Bennion 2009.
7. As to how a properly directed Court makes its decision, having heard evidence from the parties in sworn statements or affidavits, we need to know what the rules of “Ratio decidendi”, “Obiter” and “Stare decisis” are:
“ Ratio decidendi
Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning “the reason” or “the rationale for the decision”. The ratio decidendi is “the point in a case that determines the judgement” or “the principle that the case establishes”.
In other words, ratio decidendi is a legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgment on which the outcome of the case depends.
It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis…”.
8. Having got the interpretation right, what can we say about the authority of Magna Carta today? Unusually for the BBC, they got it about right in this Horrible History sketch:
9. Regarding Article 61 of Magna Carta, treaties have Articles, it contains two seperate Ratio decidendi.
10. The first is the subjects remedy by petitioning the House of Lords to form a Barons Committee to pass Judgement on the Sovereign.
11. The second is contained in the last sentence which confirms that “The King can do no wrong” and if he does the Courts will take no notice of it because the wrong deed is void in law. This is the basis of what is today known as “Judicial Review”
12. This presentation covers the activation of a Barons Committee in 2001:
Note that the obligations that all loyal subjects have are defined in the Article. It is a rule of interpretation known as Expressio unius est exclusio alterius that a given defninition excludes all others:
13. Here is what Aricle 61 of Magna Carta states at Article 61:
“ Those five–and–twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole land, 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;……
14. The Constitutionalists, of whom I am a member confine our resitance to what is specfied in the Article.
15. The “Freemen on the Land” interpret Article 61 to in addition allow a general rejecion of the authority of all Acts of Parliament.
16. I invite any proponent of the Freeman Community to put their case.
John Hurst. The Magna Carta Society.
Presentation on the English rights removed unlawfully by the British UK Marxists.
Daddy Dragon interviews John Hurst.
Links to the script of this programme, which includes the references that are quoted will be posted below.
Introduction. Today we have John Hurst, a retired police constable of the Old School. By that I mean that when he joined in 1978, constables were taught the law of The Constitution and Sir Robert Peel’s “Principles of policing” which were based on the common law.
- What is “Lawful Rebellion”?
“Lawful rebellion” is the way that our ancestors discovered to protect themselves from Kings who broke their Coronation Oaths to rule according to the law of the land and became oppressive.
- What do you mean by “Discovered”?
Answer: By trial and error. The sort of King who was most likely to break his Oath is what we now call a “Psychopath”. King John is the best example.
- What sort of things did King John do?
Answer: He suspended the laws in his favour, particularly the reasonable limits on taxation. He slept with his Barons wives and held their sons hostage. In the end the Kingdom rose against him. It was commonly accepted that whoever won a battle against the King should get the job because God was on his side.
- Why was an Oath so important.
Answer. The taking of Oaths had a religious significance. It was widely believed that “Oath Breaking” was a “Mortal Sin” which meant a certain confinement in Hell after death.
- What did you mean by Oaths being used as “Protection”?
Answer: One of the characteristics of a psychopath is that they are entirely focussed on themselves and feel no shame in lying. That means that they cannot keep an Oath.
- What is the remedy if a King breaks his Oath?
Answer: The remedy is called “Diffidatio”, the withdrawal of allegiance followed by trial by battle. This passage from Blackstone’s “Great Charter” covers it:
“This conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government. And therefore, as the English laws still remained in force, he must necessarily take the crown subject to those laws, and with all it’s inherent properties; the first and principal of which was it’s descendibility. Here then we must drop our race of Saxon kings, at least for a while, and derive our descents from William the conqueror as from a new stock, who acquired by right of war (such as it is, yet still the dernier resort of kings) a strong and undisputed title to the inheritable crown of England…”.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Third : Of the King and His Title P 193.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England explains “Trial by Battle”:
John Hurst, [28.09.20 18:55]
“THIS conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government. And therefore, as the English laws still remained in force, he must necessarily take the crown subject to those laws, and with all it’s inherent properties; the first and principal of which was it’s descendibility. Here then we must drop our race of Saxon kings, at least for a while, and derive our descents from William the conqueror as from a new stock, who acquired by right of war (such as it is, yet still the dernier resort of kings) a strong and undisputed title to the inheritable crown of England…”.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Third : Of the King and His Title P 193.
- So is Magna Carta based on these legal principles, diffidatio and trial by battle?
Answer: Yes it is. Magna Carta, the Great Charter of 1215, was and exercise by The People of these rights. They were also used in 1688 and 2001.
- Tell me about events in 1688.
The best way to explain is to read the entry on the “Bill of Rights 1688 in the government web site “legislation.gov.uk”. If you read the whole thing it explains the events of “The glorious Revolution.
Also, the BBC programme by Lucy Worsley called “Histories Greatest Fibs Part 2” explains events from a historians, not a lawyers, point of view. It is available on Youtube so no license is needed to view it.
- In the 2017 “Brexit” Judgement the UK Supreme Court upheld the Authority of the Bill of Rights in these words:
“ “ Para. 44. In the early 17th century Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74, Sir Edward Coke CJ said that “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”. Although this statement may have been controversial at the time, it had become firmly established by the end of that century. In England and Wales, the Bill of Rights 1688 confirmed that “the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall” and that “the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall”…”.
So “Lawful rebellion” was activated in 2001?
Answer: It was, the diffidatio part until the present, by a group called The Magna Carta Society of which I was a founder member and legal researcher.
The best way to learn the legal and historical arguments that were used is to read the originals on the Magna Carta Society Blog:
- Does this mean The Queen has committed treason?
Answer: No, but her Ministers (Evil counsellors) have. In any case, she is not English by the common law rule that nationality is determined by grandparents. She is a Prussian.
- What does being in “Lawful Rebellion require the loyal subject to do?”
Answer: To do what Article 61 requires, to support the Barons Committee and to “Amerce” The Queen. That means to withhold the revenues of The Crown (taxes) and to seize Crown buildings and land.
- Are there any limits on the actions the subjects may take in “Lawful Rebellion”?
Answer: Article 61 specifically mentions not harming The King and his immediate family. Otherwise, it is legally logical to conclude that force may be used against those who resist what Article 61 allows.
This is based on the traditional definition of “The Queens Peace” which is defined as “The good order that ought to prevail in society. Infractions of the law by a King or his officials must be caught by that.
- Some say that the activation of Article 61 means that all Acts of Parliament are somehow void and do not apply any more. What do you think?
Answer: I say that only what is specified in Article 61 is the common law. I do not agree that compliance with an Act of Parliament is voluntary for individuals.
Conclusion. See you next week. If anyone has questions please send them to my Web site and we will do our best to answer them.
The Pen is mightier than the sword. Your MP has a fiduciary duty under common law. Your MP must carry out their duties according to Common Law. There must be no Conflict of Interest, No profit, a Duty of Confidentiality and there are remedies for breach of fiduciary duty!
Please write to your MP and ask these questions! Record and Keep their response for a potential English Constitutional legal challenge. It is IMPORTANT. I would suggest sending recorded delivery and keep the posting receipt proof of service. This is important for the legal challenge.
Find your MP here: https://members.parliament.uk/constituencies/
Letter to Every MP
[MP Address] [Your Address and name]
Dear Mr (Your MP).
I require you to answer these questions within 14 days of receipt:
1. Are you aware of European Defence Union ?
2. Are you supporting HM Government unifying British Military and UK Defence industry into EDU ?
3. if not what are you doing to stop this ?
4. if you support this policy regardless of Brexit / leaving the EU, are you going to make an open statement in support?
For those that want more information on fiduciary duty please read.
Robert Wood Johnson
United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s
U.S Embassy London
33 Nine Elms Lane
London, SW11 7US
Dear United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s,
United States Ambassador Trustee Kennedy Memorial Trust,
The Unalienable Rights Commission, USA.
I am officially signing this petition from American Soil at Englefield Green, Runnymede, Surrey, England. This Land was given to the American Federal Government by Her Majesty The Queen and The British Government on 4th July 1964 (enacted 31st July 1964)
The U.S. Ambassador to the UK said on 22 November 2013 at Runnymede.
Mr Barzun, who also laid a wreath, said: “It’s a very powerful and important day that we are here.”
“This place that we’re gathered, this incredible memorial behind you and also the acre of land that you are standing on, was given by the British people to America so I’m talking to you on American soil.”
As this is American soil, I am protected by the Jurisdiction of American Constitution, which derives from the English Common Law Constitution. Therefore others and I have the right to peacefully assemble in protest at America’s inaction to defend our Unalienable Rights by way of declaration. Our Bill of Rights 1688 and Declaration of Rights 1688 and the Convention that created them.
My Country and my rights are not recognised or defended in the U.K parliament. The Act(s) of Union 1706/1707 have been nullified by bad faith by the British Parliament allowing The Scottish Parliament to be returned and reinstated in 1999. Strictly forbidden under these acts. Further to this unconstitutional laws in breach of the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Constitution of England have been enacted that deem the U.K Parliament an oppressive regime. The Military Covenant has been breached and ignored whereby veterans are committing suicide at an alarming rate, through lack of care.
I ask that the United States of America declare under the Proclamation on Captive Nations 17th July 2020, that England is a Captive Nation, with the English Common Law Constitution, including our Unalienable rights being ignored by the British Parliament, British Police and British Judges in English Courts. That my rights have been ignored violated and nullified unlawfully by the British. The English and the English Nation demand a referendum (English Nation Only) to leave the British Union without bias and interference of the Fake News Media.
Microsoft Word – Kennedy Memorial Peaceful Protest.docx
- Removal of all Industries that allow for self defence of a Nation (Ship Building, Steel, Power, Coal Industry, Airplane Manufacturing, Helicopter)
- Persecution of Veterans by the British, Prosecutions, removal of health facilities, breach of military covenant
- Religion (Christian Preachers detained and arrested for reciting the Gospel)
- Speech (arrests and detained for reciting Churchill’s Speeches)
- Peaceful assembly (Harassed for showing patriotism, English)
- Bear arms (The English have the right, the Government Policy is to deny it)
- Petition the government for a redress of grievances (arrests for petitions and prosecutions)
- Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (no crimes committed or suspicion of)
- Due process of law (denied to the English via Judicial Review)
- Trial by jury (Jury Trials restricted)
- Habeas Corpus removed via European Arrest Warrant
- Right to Silence (removed)
- Convictions and fines without Jury Convictions
The English Democrat Party to The English Constitutional Party
Name change proposal
“The English Constitutional Party”
The English have a Common Law Constitution and Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights and had a Convention that created these. The English Constitution protects the unalienable rights of the subjects of the Realm of England. The British do not have a Constitution and have sort to dismantle by way of removing our Constitution from the Education system including the Law Bar Exams. The British sort to impose a European Union Constitution on the English, unlawfully. The enemy – The British – hate any reference to our Bill of Rights and or Constitution. They fear the Constitution as Chinese Communist Party fears the peoples freedom. The British are globalists. In my view, England and the English are Constitutionalists.
The name “democrats” has negative influence and negative connotations. Our Constitution and the Rule of Law (constitutional law) is above politics (unless you’re British). Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Democracy sits below, not above the Constitution.
“The English National Party”
This name sounds too much like National Socialists (Nazi). We do not support Socialists or communism (both big government). The name The English National Party is in my view and the view of many members is more of an issue “brand wise” than that of The English Constitutional Party. The latter having many positive connotations including support from our American Allies including The Proclamation of Captive Nations July 17th 2020. If you want England to be free, we need the support of the most pwerful nation on earth, that we the English, Englandnised. Whilst the British seek to Europeanise England. Positive Non Interventionism is the way forward, by way of the English Constitution.
Please send the above request to the National Council of the English Democrats and if refused by the NC ask for it to be a proposal made by members to members at Conference.