A fascinating three episode series of podcasts on the subject of the Constitution, presented by the staff at UK Column News.
Featuring the part Common Law has played in the ‘legal’ system in England and Wales (Scotland have their own legal system).
Not as boring as you might think, after all, many of us switch off when heavy legal stuff about a constitution is mentioned! However, this three part series is a ‘must listen to’ and informative glimpse into our legal system, how it has been manipulated or ignored, but more importantly, how it can be used to our advantage.. If you want an insight into how we may use the ‘Law’ to combat the dictatorial tyranny that we have had launched on us, in a breathtakingly short time – since the Coronavirus ‘Scaredemic’ was released on us – then please listen carefully. It’s evident that the ‘scaredemic’ is just a tool to relieve us of our basic rights and freedoms.
Episode 1
How does government work? Who tells government where to stop?
By popular request, and to meet the need of the times, Alex Thomson is joined by Mike Robinson and David Scott to brief dissidents on the Constitution. The podcast will be of interest to overseas listeners too but primarily explores the English and Scots Constitutions, the common law, and the British constitutional legacy.
This is not a series of history lectures. After a few initial episodes on key concepts (constitution, common law, rights, democracy, the rule of law, the nation state), we aim to go through the last thousand years of constitutional development with an eye for what has been hidden (how we have been governed in the past), then to explore how the state fits together (how we are governed now), and finally what plans there are for our future.
Episode 2
Why does English have the Norman French word “legal” as well as the Anglo-Saxon word “lawful”? Is the law the Crown’s or ours? Is “jury nullification” the most hazardous phrase to utter near a courthouse?
Alex Thomson discusses with David Scott and Mike Robinson how the stirring phrase “the common law” has been understood down the ages, and whether the legal and political fraternity is right to hold as an article of faith that common law is the most inferior of the sources of law. Where does society’s conscience come into it? Are the Continental philosophers right to accuse English and Scots law of being unknowable because we have no single text that calls the Crown into being or criminalises theft or murder?
Join us to find out why state bodies like to masquerade as The People when prosecuting; why juries are being curtailed and abolished step by step; whether it is true that a freeman can individually say he does not consent to statutes; and what it was that got former Supreme Court Justice Lord Jonathan Sumption so riled this week that he said “I reject that claim” in a lecture to Cambridge Law Faculty.
Episode 3
How come we have such different visceral reactions to the assertions “I am entitled to a house” and “I am immune in my house”,
Even though both entitlements and immunities are kinds of rights? Is it really a step forward that the UN has enumerated “rights” in an International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and an International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? What are the practical effects of Locke’s and Rousseau’s thought-exercise propounding that man is a blank slate? Were our rights won for us by being asserted by our forefathers against government, or are they graciously granted by government and then curtailed and withheld again by that same government with a supposedly heavy heart?
How is it that the first time the phrase “human rights” was weaponised as a slogan was by sexual proclivity activists in the Weimar Republic organising as the “Human Rights League”, a century and a half after the coining of the term by philosophers? Why can an Englishman eject an intruder from his home but a Continental must wait for the police to turn up and do it for him? Is it sheer coincidence that Article 29 of Magna Carta 1215 seems to have been subverted by the same-numbered article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the so-called Global Magna Carta? Are rights truly about “fairness” or “equity” — or is that actually a swizz?
Join us to hear why David Scott argues that the twentieth-century rights discourse has made us “part-time slaves”; how “You can’t interfere with me” has degenerated into “The government must interfere with you because of my rights”; whether we even have a right to bodily integrity any more; how statutes as apparently innocuous as the Local Government Act 1888 hive off rights from us to government; what it means when Continental judges “set aside” their national laws and constitution because of a treaty ratified by their government; and what the lawyerly trick of conflating rights with powers involves. There is no better time to be discussing these questions than in 2020.
For an example of the thinking that we politely disagree with, this recent podcast on human rights may also be of interest to our listeners as they consider our current episode: it goes into detail on the mediaeval Christian background of “natural rights” but sadly skips over immunity from theft and harm, in its haste to assert equal entitlement to positive goods — thereby tragically forming the very pretext for such theft and harm by modern governments.
Episode 4
Self-government or the consent of the governed?
One or other of these assumptions about democracy must be a sham if the other is valid. Either we are ruling ourselves, or someone else is ruling us, and one or other of these has to be the preferable model.
Democracy has been elevated to the status of an object of worship in recent decades, particularly in the English-speaking countries and in the discourse of the European Union, but it is accused by some dissidents of being a god that failed. Why is it that Homo democraticus tolerates no end of blatant corruption and has no qualms about the tyranny of the 51% over the 49%, as long as he is allowed to “have his say” in tokenistic votes choosing between increasingly pre-cooked outcomes? Is an “undemocratic upper chamber” (the accusation slung at the House of Lords in recent decades) an outrage or an intentional safeguard? How does the degenerate standard of British rhetoric in the “democratic” 2020s, and the political tolerance of dissent, compare with that of forty years ago?
Last episode, we considered several aspects of — and accurate names for — the distinction between immutable personal rights (immunities) and redefinable civil or civic rights (entitlements), and concluded that there was great tyrannical power in the deliberate obfuscation of these two fundamentally different categories. We now proceed further into the mirk and engage with the thinkers who have dared to question the axiomatic goal of democracy, considering seminal works by Hoppe, Hayek, Mises et al., Ferrara, Legutko, Barnett and Orbán. Just as Episode 1, on constitutional design, inevitably “did God”, so this episode will surprise some by necessarily dwelling on economics and on the capture of thought-leadership channels, the media and academia, by a swelling government. After all, it is in those circumstances that dissidence becomes necessary.
Listeners who are keeping up with our book discussions might already wish to obtain a copy of Ben Greene’s pamphlet The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament and an incisive review of its issues on the UK Column website by “A Musing Michael”; these sources will be the focus of Episode 5, Democracy — A “British Value”? (N.B.: due to the amount of material to discuss on democracy, we are again splitting the theme into two episodes, so the introductory section of this series will now be seven episodes long).
SUBSCRIBE for FREE to receive notifications of new posts in your e-mail inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.
.png)
An interesting discussion.
The British Constitution is not written down in one document, the following is how to claim your British Constitutional Rights at law.
I have established my rights, as a man of the people, under contract.
This capacity, as a man of the people, has been recognised by the Judiciary and is the only capacity that enables the terms and conditions embodied in the Oaths of Office to be observed.
By taking the Oath of Office, it is in the nature of a general offer of contract, the Oaths of Office are taken to God and the people. For the formation of a contract certain conditions must exist. One of which must be an offer and acceptance.
Prime Oath of Office, to Govern.
The Coronation Oath of Office was taken by Elizabeth Windsor, acting in the capacity as QUEEN ELIZABETH the SECOND. This title was the entitlement of the dead kings first child. Although assuming the title QUEEN ELIZABETH the SECOND no power to “govern” was devolved at that time.
That can only come at the coronation event.
By accepting the Oath of Office, offered to the people assembled in Westminster Abbey on the coronation day, the contract is established, between QE ll and the people assembled there that day. The protections that can be claimed are to be governed “according to our laws and customs” and the “Scriptures” contained in the bible.
This is how we pass our consent to be Governed.
Second Oath of Office, Judicial.
To occupy the Office of Judge the Judicial Oath must be taken.
To have the power to adjudicate cases brought before Her Majesties Courts and Tribunal Service the protections embodied in this Judicial Oath of Office for the people must be observed.
The Oath is taken to God and the people. The Oath taker agrees to protect the people without “fear, favour affection or ill will”. To claim these protections an acceptance has got to be made to the Oath taker, usually in the Room referred to as a courtroom.
By claiming as a man of the people and accepting the Oaths of Office of QE ll and the Oath of Office of the Judge, both sets of protections are then available.
This is the British Constitution.
We exchange our consent to be governed for the protections in the Coronation Oath. We allow or consent for a Judge to be an adjudicator in exchange for the protections in the Judicial Oath.
As a man of the people you are entitled to accept the Oaths to enable the protections to be claimed via the Judge. In fact, the Oaths are in the nature of Trust Oaths and you claim as beneficiary to these Trust Oaths at law.
Magna Carta 1215 is also a trust law document and can be considered as the foundational law which draws its authority from trust law.
An excellent comment Laurence. I am not an expert nor prophesy to be, in the legal field, I’m a retired electronics engineer by profession. All I can do is learn and absorb from others on this constitutional subject.
The original “Dissident’s Guide To The Constitution” podcasts were compiled by Mike Robinson (UK Column News), David Scott (Northern Exposure) and Alex Thomson, (Eastern Approaches) Alex currently works out of the Netherlands. Episode 4 should be available soon.
It might be good for you to make contact with them, or invite them here to discuss these matters further. Search for UK Column News. Or just click on the graphic at the top of the right hand column of our home page.
Welcome to BGB by the way.
I have studied many and various sources of information that has enabled me to arrive at my conclusions.
Starting in 1997 with the Financial System I moved to study the law in 2010 after a judge refused a perfectly good defence to an action brought against my company by a bank.
That is what prompted me to start my quest to establish how and why we can no longer expect to be treated as we would want to be treated, within the legal framework.
The whole system of “courts” within the United Kingdom is not what the vast majority of people think of as courts. Most are unable to follow the legislation and Rules of Court, to say nothing about that oft quoted expression the “Rule of Law”.
This is no accident and the complexity is not modified by Judges decisions and reasons given for their judgements. A legal team would seem to be the best way forward for anyone contemplating defending or bringing an action before Her Majesties Courts and Tribunal Service.
This of course means that you are unable to speak in the courtroom as your legal team are there to speak for you. The claimant team and the defence team all hold BAR cards [British Accredited Registry] to enable them to work in the court and gain an audience with, the adjudicator judge.
The Judge also holds a BAR card and all will be Freemasons. This is all within the legal framework of the Administration of Justice. To say that you will be treated as you would want to be treated is to believe in the tooth fairy.
No one claims your rights for you as you are the only one that can do that in the way that I outlined in my previous post.
The protections within the Oaths of Office are there for a reason. To protect us when we pass our “consent” to be governed. This is under the “law” not the legal framework and to be claimed when needed.
There is a world of difference between legal matters and lawful matters. Legal is for citizens and law is for people.
Citizens are awarded benefits by the State, the UNITED KINGDOM and can be taken away.
However people have unalienable rights granted by God of the King James Bible and cannot be removed without our informed consent.
This is why Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as a Christian Nation, is under God and that is why the Oaths of Office are taken under the higher jurisdiction Gods law and the higher jurisdiction of the people and the peoples law which is natural law.
Both these jurisdictions are superior to the legal framework of the Administration of Justice jurisdiction and is the bedrock of the
British Constitution of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Another extremely interesting and for me personally – quite riveting – comment Laurence, because it echoes exactly what I’ve heard from Michael O’Bernicia, Jesse Perez Casanova, Chris James and of course Karl Lentz.
I’m sure it would be very beneficial for all of us if you made contact with them. Jesse Casanova and Chris James are currently involved in a very interesting project. The sites they have are:
https://www.earthunited.global/
https://www.commonlawcourt.com/
https://www.thebernician.net/
https://awarriorcalls.com/foundational-knowledge/
Thank you for providing information for the uninitiated in this field.
Having now listened to Episode 2, I would make the following comments in respect of the “common law”, and draw upon my courtroom experiences.
To unravel the subject matter is no mean task. The panel are attempting to put into context the passage of 900 years of development of the law. Starting at the beginning, shall we say the Charter of Liberties 1100AD.
The Charter of Liberties was a political device of Henry 1. It was designed to smooth the passage of his claim to the English throne because of the discontent brought about by the way his brother William ll ruled when he was King of England.
Henry was the fourth son of William 1, Duke of Normandy. His brother William ll, King of England was killed in a hunting accident and with brother Robert away on the first Crusade Henry claimed the English throne.
His nickname was Beauclerk because he could write and speak latin and, more importantly, had a knowledge of English law. William 1 was an admirer of the laws of Edward the Confessor and after the abuses of brother William ll, Henry 1 wanted to revert to his fathers law.
The charter granted a number of concessions to the Church and to His Earls and Barons and smoothed the way for his acceptance to the throne. At that time there would have been Roman Church Canon Law and the Feudal land law organised by custom and right.
This land law became known as the law of the land and is featured in The Magna Carta of 1215.
Article (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
There is no mention of the common law in this important document. It is wrong to conflate the so called “common law” with the law of the land. Later writers use the “common law” expression, or the “Common Law” to confuse and to obfuscate the real law, which is natural law-the law of the land, or gods law.
The legal profession have a vested interest in keeping certain aspects of the way in which cases are organised and brought before the courts. They have a secret language called legalese and only they are trained in the use of this language.
We are taught the English language in schools and universities but this language is not the same as legalese. In legalese, certain words and expressions take on new meanings and how words are spelt is crucial to providing pleadings and talking to adjudicators in a way that keeps you insulated from the excesses of the court process.
Take the spelling of the word law. In a legal conversation the word law has two meanings but the word sounds just the same for both meanings. So how do you know which meaning of the word law is being used?
The same can be said for the word Law, when spoken it sounds the same as the word law so what is the difference? You should be able to notice that the two words are spelt differently. One version is spelt with a lower case l, and the other with an upper case L.
The word law refers to the law of the land or real law or natural law or Gods law and is always spelt with a lower case l, as in lawful, law is for people of the land.
The word Law refers to the Common Law or Judge made Law or Administrative Law or any Legal Law and Legal Law is for Citizens of the State. We must digress to Titles.
Government.
Govern means to administer a set of rules over an entity.
Ment means of the mind.
Government is a mental construct. You could not pick up the Government what would you hold onto, the Government is un-real, it is a legal fiction. But the Government governs men and women and they are real not fictitious. So how is this possible?
The Government award you a title of Citizen, which is not real but a legal fiction like the government. Now you are compatible with the Government and can interact and form contracts with the agencies of Government.
You can also now enter the world of commerce because all commerce is Government regulated and by using the Citizen legal fiction you can now enter the world of commerce through your new title of Mr Citizen, Mr John Doe.
Now to revisit Magna Carta 1215.
Articles 56, 57, and 58.
These were included for the benefit of Welshmen in recognition of the part played by King Llewelyn of Wales laying siege to Shrewsbury in aid of the Barons War against King John.
Article 56.
If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.
From article 56 it can be seen that the law of England is quoted and earlier in Article 39 the law of the land is quoted.
The charter was written in Latin and legalis or legal pertains to the law. There was a Welsh law and the Marches law but no “common law”. We will now rattle forward to the modern day.
The Administration of Law. Civil Jurisdiction.
This is an all encompassing term and you would think that this would mean that the Law is being Administered. The Judge is acting as a minister in church and a solicitor will recite a prayer to the minister. All the actors are on stage, all occupying an office. You are there as a ward of the court because you were awarded your status of Citizen by the Government so you can contract with the court. But all this is happening in the fictitious realm between titles and office holders. You are not required to speak nor can you.
None of the oaths of office are for you now because you have changed your capacity from a man of the people to that of the Citizen of the Government. You are now surrounded by members of a Private Club and they know what is unfolding but you do not.
The Judge asks “Is Mr John Doe here and your solicitor answers yes” and your case starts. You are now in a business meeting and waiting to be served up on a platter and pay, its what you are there for. No protections left, no Magna Carta to invoke for a jury of your peers and no one to complain to. If only you had known what really goes on in court.
Another excellent analysis Laurence.
As a legal lay person I’m finding your commentary extremely interesting. Since this ‘pandemic’ hoax has been playing out, the way that Law experts are lining up the ducks to get some justice for the people affected has become of greater interest to those of us who are watching developments.
Before all this kicked off, my knowledge of these things was very skimpy. So if nothing else, this mess has brought the Law into focus for many of us.
Thank you very much.
Hi BG,
I think that the Supreme Court getting involved with Boris proroguing Parliament brought the court system into focus for a wider audience.
What we witnessed on Television was a sugar coated Supreme Court that seemed, via Lady Hale, very amenable and approachable. It was PR spin at its finest. The reality is far removed from that made for TV performance.
When I watched her performing for the cameras I could not help but think of the way in which the internal workings of the Appeal Court are not known to us mere mortals, unless we get lucky and process is revealed. I have found out so much about the way in which the courts process cases, that we lay people do not stand a chance of finding out under normal circumstances.
One example comes to mind. In an Appeal to the Criminal Division of the Appeal Court I tendered documentation that quite clearly laid out the facts that would need to be considered. The file was a few hundred pages long. The Judges on the panel do not read this documentation but are supplied with an Executive Summary prepared by an in house Solicitor.
The defendant in this case was not guilty of the charges brought against him and the file showed that. Because the defendant was not represented by a solicitor he was entitled to receive a copy of the Executive Summary. When I read the summary only one fact of about twenty had been included and was completely biased against the defendant. It was only because the defendant presented himself that we obtained the summary.
This is just typical of the shenanigans that happen in the court system, there are many other examples. If they decide that you will not win then you do not win, its as cold blooded as that. That case is ongoing.
Getting back to the “common law” or “Common Law” the panel at UK Column are finding it very difficult to pin down. I know from my own research how mind bending this can be and I have my own thoughts on the “common law” and also on the “Common Law”. I will listen to episode 3 and write more comments on what their position position is.
I use a priori as a guiding principle for my work and It works for me.
A PRIORI.
A term used In logic to denote an argument founded on analogy, or abstract considerations,…. or one which, positing a general principle or admitted truth as a cause, proceeds to deduce from it, the effects which must necessarily follow.
This is how I deduced the contractual nature of the Oaths of Office and the effects that would flow from the various capacities recorded in the wording. I first used this approach in the County Court in 2010 and gained a result. I have continually refined it ever since.
I have two cases currently in motion, one started in 2010 and the other started in 2013. The system spins things out hoping that you will throw the towel in.
I recently watched a video made by David Icke on the Common Law. He discussed the effects with someone from Scotland, it was and 1 hour and 30 minutes long. The message was jumbled up and quite dangerous to anyone who tries to use the Scottish mans approach. There are well meaning people who try to understand how the courts work, but also there are others with a vested interest in promoting confusion with bad information.
I do not know where these two are coming from but I do know that if anyone tried to use the Scottish mans approach it would not work in the HMCTS. There is good information and bad information and desperate people sometimes will listen to any information.
I absolutely agree with you Laurence. People often get a peep in through a crack in the door and then make assumptions regarding things they don’t actually see clearly through that crack, but they have seen a glimpse and assume they know more than they do.
I have a very good and close friend who is a barrister, and we have long chats when he calls. But sometimes I get the impression that even those involved in the ‘legalities’ of the system’s law structure, actually only get a glimpse of what really goes on below the surface. It’s very much run on the lines of a secret society, like the Masons. Those in the first three degrees haven’t a clue what it’s actually about. It’s compartmentalisation – everything that glistens is not gold. Ignorance is a big barrier, as we see in everyday life and the reactions of the public – simply because they are not educated in the subjects they should know something about. The everyday practicing barrister just goes with the flow, and doesn’t look particularly deeply into the mechanisms (and machinations) that go on in secret, and doesn’t particularly wish to involve his or her self with hem on a personal level. The same can be said of many doctors who go through medical school whose curriculum was dictated to by the Rockefeller Foundation that funds them. The students in turn go out and never look more closely at what they are practicing.
In a recent post about the Cabal, there’s a video called Hidden Agendas at the bottom of the page, presented by Professor Walter J. Veith. It’s extremely revealing, and deals with this problem of ignorance and misleading indoctrinations that the lower levels of these secret societies are blissfully unaware of.
I look forward to your analysis of part 3 of ‘A Dissident’s Guide To The Constitution’. There will be quite a few more, and I’ll include them as they are released.
Hi BG,
Yes I agree with the general thrust of your posting and studying the financial system led me to research the Illuminati in 1997. The banking secrets that I have uncovered are known to only a few. Most Barristers do not know these secrets and I have been able to take advantage of this, much to the disgust of the Judiciary, in cases I am involved with.
I have posted information on various websites over the years and have just just posted on the Off Guardian about the common law. You should be able to have a more informed discussion with your Barrister friend after reading this although I doubt that he will be pleased that you have become so well informed.
The common law.
A law common to all. The common law is quite an elusive concept.
All states, or Estates like the UNITED KINGDOM are a political construct. The Government [govern of the mind] is a legal fiction, it is fictional in nature. You could not pick the Government up, what would you hold onto? Men and women are real, not fictional and cannot interact [form contracts] with a fictional Government.
The Government want to be able to apply the rules of society upon us, these rules are known collectively as Acts and Statutes. The Government award us a legal fiction of our own when we are born, it is called a Title…. Master, Mr, Mrs.
This Title represents an Estate that is set up for us at birth through Trust Law. The Title Estate is a bit like a token on a Monopoly Board, without it you cannot play the game of Monopoly, or in our case the Game of Life called Commerce.
You know when the Government contacts your Estate, you receive a letter addressed to your legal fictional Estate usually by the identifying prefix of Mr. or Mrs. in front of your name. Another way to identify when the Government is trying to contact your Estate is when part or all of your name is written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
This has nothing to do with common law, this is just a way of applying government legislation to your fictional Estate. You think that the letter is addressed to you because a version of your name is on the letter. But the letter is for the Estate not you.
Knowing how the present rules based, social contract works, is the first step to understanding what might replace it. Now you know the basics of what happens in the Estate of the UNITED KINGDOM. [United Kings Dominion]
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the above legal fictional rules based way of administering a country, through the use of fictional estates. It is only our lack of knowledge that prevents us from fully utilizing the advantages that this system has to offer us.
Be careful what you wish for, the common law is not as cut and dried as you might think.
Like the standardised world wide Financial System, administered through the Federal Reserve Banking System, it is and always has been, since 1913, the ownership of these systems that is the problem.
If both systems were operated for the benefit of mankind then both of these Estate based systems of government and finance, administered under trust law would be the best way forward
A further post to my last one on the Naomi Klein thread, OFFG.
Having watched the video, A planned Trespass against the Mind of Man, I can say that much of the information presented is truthful but not presented in a way which would be useful in a courtroom setting. It would be a bit like fitting a jigsaw together with a hammer to make the pieces fit a picture that you want to see as opposed to the real picture on the lid of the box.
Mixed messages are a good way to hide the truth. David Ickes latest offering on the Common Law a case in point.
I have posted the basics to your previous post. The information that I post forms part of a much larger information which shows how the Estates mesh with us as a people and fit together under trust law combining the legal and financial systems of government.
The Common Law is not the common law, there is a difference. The Common Law is Judge made Law under the direction of the BAR [British Accredited Registry] and is an Estate of the Crown City of London Estate, an independent estate of the Estate of the United Kingdom, and basically an onshore/offshore tax island haven and is part of the three City Estates that rule the world.
The Crown City Estates of London, Vatican and Washington.
Hi BG,
I have just uploaded a file for you to read. It deals with aspects of the Estates and Oaths in more detail. It would be a long post on this thread although it does deal with the subject matter of the law.
I have written a few essays in the past and intend to turn them into book form, I have sent you the essay on Capacity. I have been busy with the High Court and Appeal Court representing a builder for the last seven years, so the book has been on the back burner for quite some time.
I hope that you enjoy learning as much as I did.
Laurence
Hi BG,
To my mind the study of the common law should lead to,
an understanding of the peoples rights and freedoms which can be written down in a common law document and relied on, in the peoples dealings with government and the courts.
The panel seem to be straying from establishing what the common law is and are concentrating more on influences that have impacted upon the way in which we the people are governed by the United Kingdom Parliament.
This seems to be the main thrust of the discussion in Episode 3. The panel quote from the actions of government as those actions relate to the provision of Acts determined in and by Parliament to govern.
Episode 4 deals with much the same approach but also introduces a number of authors that write about economics. At one point in Episode 4 a short discussion ensues that talks about the influence of the Jews and Zionism.
If the panel thought that the common law was a nebulous subject to get to grips with, then they will quickly realize that the question of Jewish Internationalism will overwhelm a panel discussion supposedly set up to investigate the common law.
As the panel pointed out there have been many Jewish writers that do not support the idea of Zionism but are swamped by the accumulated Money Power that has bought up the media, governments and the law all around the world.
It would be impossible for any meaningful discussion of the common law to not include the part played by the Freemasons in the influence of government and the courts. Starting with Napoleon and the part played by the illuminati in creating the conditions for war and continuing with Zionist Bolsheviks funding the NAZI war machine and ending with the creation of the estate of Israel and all wars since.
This is off topic and ancillary to the common law and constitution of the country, the British Isles. It only has a bearing in the wider context of the world wide control exercised by the three city estates of London, Vatican and Washington DC. and the glue that holds it all together the Freemasons.
It will be interesting to see how the panel tie the episodes together in their rendition of the common law and constitution.
A comment on the present PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, Chinese Joe Biden.
There is the original, organic, Constitutional document for the Republic which states,
We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The most important point to understand is the use of the word for… as in… for the United States of America. This means that the constitution originates in the People and it is their sovereign gift to the United States of America
Then there is the Act of 1871 which establishes the CORPORATION of the UNITED STATES to govern the District of Columbia. This is the 10 square mile chunk of real estate located in Washington city.
In a similar fashion to the City of London Corporation which is also a chunk of real estate located in Greater London Metropolitan Area, more commonly known as the square mile.
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.
Congress wrote:
“That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the
limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created
into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which
name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes
… and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation.”
Notice the use of the word of…. as in…. of the United States, this means that this part of the act originates in the United States, because it is of and there fore belonging to the United States municipal corporation.
So by changing the words for and of, the implications are quite different.
“By words we govern men” Prime Minster Disraeli, it is only by studying the words can we understand what is the nature of documents.
According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the
official incorporation of the formal municipal government of the District of Columbia as
chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision. Again, the Supreme
Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued.
Since 1801 The District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a “municipal
corporation” with its own government.
This means that Chinese Joe is President of the CORPORATION known as the UNITED STATES and NOT President of the Republic.
What does this mean?
It means that the Military and FEMA are now in charge. President Trump has handed the Authority to Govern over to these entities under the National Emergency and Continuity of Government provisions.
By allowing the inauguration of Biden the trap was sprung, as the act of taking the Presidential Oath of Office means that the terms of the oath can now be enforced.
To protect against enemies both domestic and foreign means what it says and I expect that these terms will come back to haunt Biden and all the other Treasonous people who have broken the terms of their Oaths.
The military knows that the election has been stolen with China and other deep state actors providing the means and funds to carry this out.
What would you do in these circumstances? use the authorities to prove that these things have happened and restore the Republic, which the Oaths of Office requires, or allow the election to stand and China to have POTUS in their back pocket by blackmail.
By carrying out fresh elections controlled by the Military the Republic will be restored and Donald Trump will have eight years to sort the mess out that the World finds itself in.
Maybe the overturning of the swing states may be enough but in any event Biden cannot remain in office as this makes the USA the laughing stock of the World.
The Washington Examiner reports that the Supreme Court will hear cases brought in respect of Election Mail in Ballots in the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia.
The wealth of evidence available to expose the Stolen Election should result in Biden’s Chinese partners being outed and then just what will happen is anyone’s guess.
The cases are due to start on the 19 of February 2021. This should be volcanic.
Wisconsin is another case that is up for consideration at the Supreme Court Conference on the 19 February 2021.
All cases allege unconstitutional interference that affected the result of the 3 November 2020 election.
If the Rule of Law and the Constitution mean anything then perhaps another upset is on the cards which will show the Supreme Court doing its job for a change.
A lot has happened since I last posted.
I went off topic but not off message.
I hope that the explanations in respect of the United States Inc. [Incorporated ] are understood. The Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America is there to be used, when needed, by the people of the Republic. The Constitutional Document is a lawful document, for the people…”We the people….. ” law is for the people.
The Constitution of the Republic seeks to protect the people from Government excess and tyrannical government. These concepts do not sit well with us in Britain, as we are far removed from what the average man would regard as tyrannical government and the Glorious Revolution 1688. The propaganda machine has worked well for many years burying the truth about the British Constitution.
The way in which the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America is written, is the contract with the people, under God, for the administration of the land and specifically the rights that are recorded therein.
All oaths of office are written in a way that is compatible with the Constitutional Document. The Oaths of Office are a part of the Constitution although this is never stated. They can be regarded as Constitutional Oaths. This is all under law and an addition to the Constitution. The oaths determine the way in which the constitution operates.
Our British Constitution does not have a written document but we do have the oaths of office which are written in such a way as to be compatible with the Oath of Office of QEll. The wording is vitally important as this wording embodies the protections that can be called upon in the event of tyrannical government.
The coronation event is the mechanism that is needed to exchange the peoples authority to govern, for the protections in the oaths of office that can be used against the government should the need arise. Do you think that giving away our right to govern ourselves will be done without getting something back to protect us if it all goes tits up.
Authority equals consent. It is our authority to govern which is why we are governed by consent.
PARTS 5, 1 and 2.
Listening to the discussion again it strikes me that the influences on the way in which the UK Government works is the panels overriding concern. It seems to me that they are waiting to find a definition of the common law given by someone of stature within this orbit. I have not found one yet. The discussion cites many useful facts and resources, even mentioning oaths, but not exploring the oaths and give them their proper and true meaning.
With events in the USA turning on a stolen election, what is to be done? Court cases are being filed around the world against the Wu-Flu Hoax in courts run by a private club, and you are not in it. Other cases are being brought to the courts in respect of the stolen election, how will these case be run? under law or under legal rules.
This is the issue. The choice is ours.
Under law you have protections and rights via the oaths of office which are unalienable. Under the legal government you have legal rules, benefits and privileges which can be taken away. Under law you conduct the case according to the universal law, harm no-one. This of course reflects God’s law of love your brother as you love yourself.
Under legal rules you are responsible for your defence and you engage a solicitor. He knows the rules of court and legislation, but if you operate under law none of this will apply.
A further note on the US quagmire. Unusual events are happening around the world. The Suez canal debacle, Biden in the basement, film sets for Biden, children led out of the White House, Flag Officers for America a telling commitment to the Oaths of Office and against the recent unrest, French military warning Macron of a civil war, US- Continuity of Government, US- the PEADS authorities.
Taken together the big picture looks encouraging. The only world statesman, Vladimir Putin, has cracked the whip over Ukraine and wiser heads in the NATO Military Alliance have prevailed. The US Generals and Admirals know the full extent of the Russian arms capabilities and have no wish to engage in a suicide mission. These events, coupled with the Great Awakening, are moving the World to the final showdown between good and evil.
An excellent analysis Laurence!