Magna Carta 1215 & the invocation of Article 61 on 23rd March 2001 following correct protocols:

ImageImageImageImage
Petition to the Crown by barons & response
The Crown replied to the barons on the 39th day of their 40 granted under A61. In their reply,they made no refutation of the validity of Magna Carta nor the invocation of the security clause: tacit agreement
FOI:
whatdotheyknow.com/request/articl… ImageImageImageImage
If it could have been safely ignored then it would have been. It was replied to on the 39th day of the 40 days permitted by common law for a reply to be received, an inadequate response was provided. There was no mention of it being repealed or that clause 61 was not in effect. ImageImageImageImage
ImageImageImageImage
Image
"...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…"

-Excerpt from Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215
We all have lawful excuse and a duty under the common laws and customs of this land to "distress and distrain" the crown and its institutions until redress of the barons petition has been had. The claim is unassailable and indisputable without committing at least sedition,
and sedition still carries the death penalty under the 1571 Treason Act which is still current constitutional law. This stuff has teeth. They will hide the facts from you, by any means necessary to protect themselves & usher in their unlawful treasonous agendas.
The real history of our British Constitution: ImageImageImageImage
ImageImage
🧵 Roman Civil Law is running in parallel as part of our society today through statutes of parliament & is now threatening our Constitution by deception. This merchant based law is the law of the money men, it’s based on commerce and contracts,
whereas Constitutional law is based
upon morality.

There are, fundamentally, two competing systems of man-made law in the world that are in constant ideological conflict against each other. One is the Common Law (which we are under) and the other is the Civil Law, or more specifically Roman Civil Law,
also called Maritime Law. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law - "Lex Mercantoria" - and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. It is Commercial Law, the law of money. The primary and compelling reason for the United States’ Declaration of
Independence was to eliminate Maritime Law
and Maritime jurisdiction from the Domestic Law of the colonies due to its potential for conflict with freedom.

Briefly, and stated in general terms, the basic concepts of these two systems are diametrically opposed. In the Civil
Law the source of all law is the personal ruler, he is sovereign. In the Common Law, the source of all law is the people, and they as a whole are sovereign. Oligarchical rule versus Republican rule, respectively.
The Roman civil law is recognised as lending itself towards
an oligarchic state, whereas the Republican enhancing Saxon Common Law promotes moral self-determination of the People by the People under a constitution created by the People.
During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Roman Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms through trading
and money. The Common Law, with its basic moral principles being the instrument through which men of equal genius but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and
preserved liberty and free institutions. The Constitution of Britain
embodies the loftiest concepts yet framed of this exalted concept, however, that system is in the advanced stages of being secretly and systematically removed from under our noses.
In Britain, we have these two systems of law running simultaneously. Civil law is obviously a
requirement in a finance based modern society. Parliamentary Acts and Statutes are needed to introduce and adapt our legal system to modernization and change. As a simple example,
we moved on from horses and carts and therefore need the Road
Traffic Act to legislate for the use
of modern motor propelled vehicles on the road, regulating their safety and liability issues, et cetera. However, with careful legal and historical analysis it can be observed that there has been a very slow introduction of a great number of various Statutes and Acts that have
been used to overlay Common Laws. This overlaying of civil legislation is not changing Constitutional Law, which remains immutable, but it is having the deliberate effect of bureaucratically burying it in false obscelescence. This tactic is being used to subtly steer the
direction of our future governance towards
the dominance of power being with the state rather than the people, as per our Constitutional Law.
This subversive and seditious legal procedure was recognised as early as 1929 by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England. He realised that the house of commons was using Statutes to install legal instruments of authoritarianism in an attempt to dismantle our
Constitution. Lord Hewart wrote a book specifically about this called ‘The New Despotism’, in which he described this "new despotism"

as "to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render
the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme".
The book created a constitutional and political storm. It was rumoured that Whitehall considered an attempt to boycott it. Lord Hewart said in a speech, "I will be no party to the doctrine, that a Lord Chief Justice, summoned to the House of Lords, as he is, not merely to vote,
but also to advise, is condemned to a lifelong and compulsory silence on the affairs of State."

The unconstitutional loss of a significant amount of national legislative control to the EU only served to speed up this process by giving the appearance of improved rights on the
surface, while underneath aiming to strip away our most precious constitutional rights without us noticing, which, even though it is happening in our faces, to many it is invisible. Sure, the EU appears to offer attractive benefits to many, including improved worker’s rights
et cetera, but these are sugar- coated cyanide pills designed to lure us into big- government, keeping us tip-toeing like fools towards an increasingly Orwellian state. There should be no reasonable and democratic rights or policies that we cannot self-serve with our own
Government if it's working as it was constitutionally intended.
@threadreaderapp unroll please.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lepa Dinis 𓂀 (彫 霊 波) #KBF

Lepa Dinis 𓂀 (彫 霊 波) #KBF Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LepaDinis

23 May
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.
Read 56 tweets
22 May
🧵 1/4
Sick to death of hearing people pushing ignorance about our constitutional laws.
We are under common law upheld by our constitutional laws of the land.
We do not have just one document (Like the USA which was derived from clause 12 of Magna Carta 1215) it is spread over a
2/4
series of documents/treaties derived from Magna Carta 1215.
The Constitution of the United Kingdom, which is, in fact, the grandfather of the constitutions of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India 1 2 is the ultimate law of the land designed to keep
3/4
the executive and governing bodies in check. Created over a period of over 1100 years, the United Kingdom Constitution includes various treaties, settlements, legal precedents, declarations, sworn oaths and customs.
-Magna Carta 1215 (The ONLY codified & sealed by King
Read 8 tweets
15 Mar
“In many cases,the common law will controul Acts of Parliament,& sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void:for when an Act of Parliament is against common right& reason,or repugnant,the common law will controul it,& adjudge such Act to be void.”

Ruling of Dr Bonham’s Case(1610)
...and in City of London v Wood (1701)
Lord Chief Justice Holt ruled that
“What my Lord Coke says in Dr. Bonham’s case... is far from any extravagancy, for it is a very reasonable and true saying, That if an Act of Parliament should ordain that the same person should be party
"...and judge, or what is the same thing, judge in his own cause, it would
be a void Act of Parliament.”
Nor can parliament complete the passage of a bill without the royal assent. The monarch, on the other hand, who is the embodiment and recognition of the country's national
Read 5 tweets
15 Mar
Tanzania. 🇹🇿
Tanzania’s president John Magufuli - who is a chemist himself, soon as he found out the fraud of PCR stopped the charade immediately. ImageImage
ImageImage
Evidence of the fraud ushering in this coup:
ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/co…
Read 7 tweets
26 Oct 20
Committing High Treason at Common Law, is the most serious crime that can be committed in society.
The death penalty still exists in Britain for High Treason.
Image
Image
Read 17 tweets
19 Aug 20
42 peer-reviewed studies that show masks are neither safe nor effective (it’s about subjugation and control not health – except for destroying it)
1 T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7.
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
2 J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal protective and environmental measures. Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May.
wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26…
Read 42 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(