Thread by @LepaDinis

It was 333 yrs ago this yr(1688)that parliament treasonously changed the coronation oath first written by Henry 1st simple Oath to the ppl(1100)
Frm:
“Swear an Oath unto God to uphold the laws & customs of the ppl”
To:
“Swear an Oath unto God to uphold the“Statutes in parliament”

It was a breach of the separation of powers, & the Crowns entrusted sovereign duties under said Oath. Therefore the Coronation Oath could not have been lawfully established as an Act of parliament.

Whereas ‘no parliament can bind its successors’
This was straight up TREASON.

Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 invocation following constitutional protocols on 23rd of March 2001 (interestingly the very same date they treasonously & unconstitutionally house arrested our nation) which dissolved govt & deposed the queen FOR treason.

They’re ALL playing their roles via fraud & treasonously, illegitimately - they were sacked.

Hence the reason for their seemingly lawlessness deceiving the masses they have ANY validity to their ‘whims’
Stop aid & abetting these criminals.
Enough is enough.

“One Clause that people always forget is Clause 61, and it's from this that we take the very vivid principle that nobody is above the law.”

-Rt. Hon. Lord Judge.

FOI:
Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 lawfully invoked.

When the masses realise what this actually means, it’s game over for these criminals & we the people reinstate the rule of law- our court de Jure.

whatdotheyknow.com/request/articl…

Any country that has used ANY part of Magna Carta in its constitution are also protected by its security clause for the ppl from the tyrant of the day once lawfully invoked-which means all unlawful statutes/acts/regs are null & Void-making it the ONLY law in affect..

& yes - including the US Constitution,which derived from clause 12 predominantly from MC. Jefferson & co made a Masonic Constitution, but they did not wipe out the existing British Constitution on which the colonies had lived for 200 years. This is the basis of your law & customs

bl.uk/collection-ite…

Don’t let these criminals deceive you, the only way the countries around the world that have used ANY part of MC in their constitutions are no longer in its protection - is via a constitutional convention of the ppl- NO govt or state involvement.

🧵 🪡

The Coronation Oath was first written down by Henry I in 1100 AD. The Coronation Oath can only be sworn to be upheld by a King or Queen of the Christian Anglican or protestant faith;

Anglicanism:- ‘a Western Christian tradition which has developed from the practices,

liturgy, and identity of the Church of England following the English Reformation;’

Protestant:-’ a member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation, including

the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches ‘.

In 1685 “King” James “II”, whom himself was a Catholic and subservient unto Rome (Pope Innocent XI), could not lawfully take the Oath but he was clearly able to do so and evidently did! Hence the first time the Coronation

Oath had been covertly usurped.

Therefore under that falsely sworn Oath unto God and to the people of the realm James II never truly was the King. The plot thickens after he fled to France only three years later, to make way for the ‘invited’ Dutch couple prince William and

princess Mary of Orange in 1688 when the Coronation Oath “Act” was introduced by the usurping forces....the so called ‘Glorious Revolution’ was only “Glorious” for treasonably dark forces behind the scenes. The Crown of England was fully usurped in 1688 and has been held by

covert means ever since.

A sworn Oath or treaty made by the King/Queen to the people unto God is binding to all future heirs and successor’s in perpetuity, unless or until the people decide otherwise.

The true Coronation Oath has simply been reasserted ever since before

Henry 1st Reign in 1100 - 1135 and up until 1688. Henry 1st’s simple Oath to the people merely reasserted the laws of the Protestant church again (10 commandments), which he swore to uphold and did so after his predecessors had ruled by the ‘Divine Right of kings’ (unjustly).

The Coronation Oath in 1688 became an Act of parliament for the first time in its history, and was thus repealable by parliament, and, whereas ‘no parliament can bind its successors’ it could not be safely held in perpetuity by parliament. It remains on the Statute books

stll to this day by deception and by treasonous means.

For the sworn Oath of a King unto God and to the people’s laws and customs, to be ‘loosely’ held in trust by parliament was a breach of the separation of powers, and the Crowns entrusted sovereign duties under said Oath.

Therefore the Coronation Oath could not have been lawfully established as an Act of parliament.

It is contradictory to the fact that the reaffirmations of the Coronation Oath stated by monarchs for centuries, whom had always sworn unto God to uphold the laws and customs of

the people, were then changed in 1688 to swear an Oath unto God to uphold the “Statutes in parliament”. This is why the deceptive notion that parliamentary Sovereignty exists today.

The natural laws or principles of the Bible are what the Common law constitution (Magna Carta

1215 and the Coronation Oath) was modelled upon. King Charles II, whom became King in 1661 was the last true Constitutional monarch in England, however that’s not to say he wasn’t complicit in committing unconstitutional actions or omissions, we have had a history full of

treacherous monarchs, everyone of them since 1685 have evidently fallen under the same category.

So, Rome had done it again! The fear based and strict rule of Catholicism was back at the head of the Christian church. The good book of the decent and just common law principles

(Bible - 10 commandments), has since become under the threat of Catholicism yet again seeking to instil its control based book of fear and laws, which has become an extremely common theme all throughout our ancient history.

King Henry VIII, whom had forcibly removed

the Catholics from the English Church and sacked their Abbeys and monasteries, had also introduced the Chritain Anglican faith after he became king between 1509, until his death in 1547 when Edward VII claimed the throne until his death in 1553.

Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed

Queen by her father-in-law the Duke of Northumberland. After nine days, (Bloody) Mary arrived in London, Lady Jane Grey was arrested and Mary was crowned “Queen” at the head of the English church.

“Queen of England” from 1553 until 1558. She was the eldest daughter of

Henry VIII by Catherine of Aragón. When Edward VI died, Mary secured the crown without difficulty in spite of the conspiracy to substitute Lady Jane Grey. In 1554 Mary married Philip II of Spain, and as a devout Roman Catholic obtained the restoration of papal supremacy

and sanctioned the persecution of Protestants.

In 1208 Pope Innocent III laid a general interdict on England and Wales. Since Popes under Rome have been ongoing since 33 AD, the same fight which goes right back through ancient times is still being fought today.

From 1208 and the intrusion of the general interdict on England and Wales, then later followed by the Treaty of Verona in 1213, whereby King John attempted (yet again) to bring England under Papist rule, although he was curtailed by the barons in 1215 whom by threat of force,

demanded that he seal the Great Charter of 1215 or lose the throne. He was a traitor and a tyrant, and of course under duress he sealed the Charter, his choice was to lose the crown or the 'divine right of kings' to terrorize the people without retribution.

King John attempted unsuccessfully yet again, to allow Pope Innocent III to annul Magna Carta in 1216. Whereas he was brought under the Rule of law of Magna Carta by the feudal barons (his peers), whom refused to allow such treachery and would not allow payment of tributes to

the Pope, nor did they allow the Popes choice of Archbishop of Canterbury to head the English Church.

King Alfred the Great back in 871 until his death in 899, became the King of Wessex following the death of his brother Aethelred. Alfred also sent Pope John VIII packing

after he wrote to King Alfred warning him of the consequences of impunging on the authority of the ‘see of Canterbury’. King Alfred did not Kow-tow to Pope John III’s rule, he would not accept the Pope’s appointment as King of Wessex, he refused to pay tribute and stated that

the throne of England was only subject to the peoples election of the King, and not that of Rome.

So the history of the Papacy’s attempts to usurp the English throne and religion has been a very long one indeed. Since 1685 and to the present day the (un)holy Roman Empire has

succeeded to deceive the people of England, and again today the deception continues whilst the people are misdirected by Brexit, and the despotic Roman rules of the European Union are close to completing their ancient quest to destroy the English Church and the Constitutional

law devised from it.

The English ancient monarchy is set to be destroyed by deception and High Treason. Elizabeth “II” having been born into the plot, and possibly mind controlled or forced by fear to comply with what parliament instructs her to say and do, may well be under

duress or be up to her neck in it, it is not possible to tell at this time. Under Common law we have to presume innocence until proven guilty, therefore we have to assume that she opposes the Treason being committed today.

If you have read this expose to the end then thank you,

Please attempt to show others what is actually occurring, so that we may save our Sovereignty and God given rights under our common law trial by jury Constitution, but whilst we still can.

-David Robinson (RIP)

@threadreaderapp unroll

The Magna Carta 1215 is effectively a peace treaty and it cannot be repealed or amended by parliamentary members, only by a constitutional convention of the people of the Commonwealth, and that has not been done. The Government at the time In 1297, committed high treason by

creating a duplicate statute version of the MC1215, and subsequent governments have been deceiving people into believing they have been removing articles from it ever since, when it was actually the statute version they were repealing/amending.

The constitutional document MC1215 is still as relevant today as it was on the 15 June 1215, when it was sealed by King John.

Parliament was not even created until in its very basic form as the 'Kings Court' in 1236, therefore Magna Carta was/is not subject to parliament, it can only be updated and or bettered by the people themselves within a constitutional convention of the people.

All current mainstream "courts" are unauthorised and cannot therefore be "courts of law". They are all using treasonous Admiralty rules, and rubber stamped by parliament EU Directives, whilst denying Constitution law within their practices. Today they are all run for profit

Corporate businesses deceiving unaware people, and enforcing their rules on the aware who foolishly enter into their criminal domain (except under duress perhaps in order to distress the criminals, and to deny them any jurisdiction in a defensive posture).

“Acts derogatory to the power of subsequent parliaments bind not.”

- Blackstone and Halsbury

It may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols, 1576, stated "Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice".)

The limitations of royal prerogative are clear. The Lord High Chancellor Command Paper 3301, 1967, Legal and constitutional implications of UK membership of the European Community:
"No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that

interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the king ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the king. If any

prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."

The Cambridge Law Journal, 1955, referring to (now Professor Sir, QC) William Wade’s The Basis of Legal Sovereignty, said that:
“sovereign legislation depends for its authority on (what Salmond calls) an ‘ultimate legal principle’, ie: a political fact for which no purely

legal explanation can be given. If no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey (the UK) parliament, similarly no statute can alter or abolish that rule. It is above and beyond the reach of statute…because it is itself the source of the authority of statute.”

In other words, the relationship between parliament, sovereign legislation and the courts of law in the United Kingdom is unalterable.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Hansard, 15 Feb 1972. Pg. 270.
"Our sovereignty cannot be bartered away by the Solicitor General, or even by the Prime Minister, because it is not theirs to give. I speak not only of the sovereignty of this house,

but also of the higher sovereignty of the British people".

@threadreaderapp unroll please.