Thread by @LepaDinis

🧵
The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 was given royal assent by Charles II which was a breech of his coronation oath his coronation oath was defend the laws and customs of the people he also committed treason against the sovereignty of the people by doing that however it already was

usurped by the ‘Juries Act’ and previous govt intervention with the juries 1285

Admiral law is fraudulently applied to us via our birth certificate/surname (strawman/legal fiction). It is essentially contract law (uniform commercial code) which should only apply financially

to business corporations contracting with each other.
When a child is born, signing the birth certificate declares them lost at sea and their assets are held in their Cestui Que Vie trust fund, by the state, until they return to collect them (which of course they don't because

they have no awareness of this).
The state cannot contract with flesh and blood men and women living on land so they actually contract with our trust via the paper copy of ourselves they created. They assign the lowest military title (miss/master/Mr/Mrs) and put our surname in

all capitals like a corporation name in order to contract financially with us.
This is how they made breaches in acts and statutes punishable financially. They are able to contract with our trust because we have no awareness of what they are doing. Instead of using the English

language they use legalese which sounds the same but actually relates to the commercial sector when you look up the meanings. Of course we agree with what they are saying because we don't realise they are using this corrupted language.
They do indeed trade our birth certificate

bond on the stock market as we (our trusts) will generate huge amounts of profit over our lifetimes as the state continually extorts money from us in the form of interest, taxes and fines.
So not only do they keep the money and gold assigned to us at birth they also use it to

generate massive profits for themselves whilst keeping us impoverished.

All the courts are run by corporations as businesses these days...acting against the person or legal fiction created fraudulently by the 1666 Cest Que Vie Act, and by coercion of the parents). Under a common

law jurisdiction we are sovereign men and women by the fact that it is impossible for governments to create legislation without it being adjudged by the people with trial by jury nullification. Therefore all Statutes (government created whims) are by the consent of the people

good law.
A common law court must have 12 peers (anyone of sound mind) asked to do jury service, just common people with honest intent really.....the jurors are the judges within a common law court, they state what evidence is admissible and whether the law complies with the

peoples' common laws and customs of the land. If not then they are struck from the statute books. The jurors must all agree on the evidence to find a man or woman guilty of criminal intent..there must be ‘Mens rea’ (criminal intent) for there to be a crime in the first place.....

there can be no hung jury, either all 12 agree on a verdict of guilty or they must acquit. Yes under that system at times the guilty may go free but, no innocent man or woman can be imprisoned or deprived of their property.

Remember,
When you take the oath under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 you also break the bonds of your Birth Cert as under A61 ALL unlawful statute/Acts/Regs are null & Void & A61 is the ONLY law in effect.

THEY are outlawry (Outside of the Law)

https://twitter.com/LepaDinis/status/1410146641726869505?s=20

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 Queen's 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 (Who've ALL been dissolved/sacked since the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta & playing their roles via fraud due to our ignorance of the facts)

You don’t vote people into POWER.

You vote people into SERVICE.

Honourable people that abide by their oaths of office.

They are all taking the oath to uphold and protect our inalienable rights.

This word ‘POWER’ is concept control - illusion.

https://twitter.com/TJ0055/status/1415310388636360709?s=20

Links of the reports of the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta on 23rd March 2001:

leave-the-eu.com/2001/03/24/pee…

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/13…

leave-the-eu.com/2001/03/24/pee…

whatdotheyknow.com/request/articl…

Historical account record that King John had "mediators" and negotiations ensued to create Magna Carta 1215 peace treaty between monarch and the people.

CALL TO ACTION:
There is Remedy with A61 to end treason from all fronts. People have to realize that null and void are acts statutes and legislation since A61 became law. We are in Pre Redress mode please
Share that the government has been at war against we the people and we

are to unite under Constitution Law and put and end to their treason and tyranny and share far and wide to all your contacts and freedom groups too. See Jacquie Phoenix posts on Pre Redress and what to do. Link post imp message for redress facebook.com/groups/7543384…

WHY BREXIT IS A TRAP.

By DAVID ROBINSON·
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2019·

Maxim used by the traitors “Let those that will be deceived be deceived”

BREXIT IS A TRAP!

Article 46A of the Treaty of Lisbon, which the traitor Gordon Brown signed in 2008 - “The Union shall have legal

personality” is evidence of high treason being signed and sealed by imposters within Westminster throughout several decades. “Legal Personality” means to be capable of having legal rights and duties within a certain legal system. But for something to be “legal” in England and

the Commonwealth it MUST first be lawful (according to constitutional law, common laws and customs of this our land). Our (il)legal system today denies the constitution any adherence, it is thus in point of fact totally illegal.

Civil obedience today is suicide tomorrow.

Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organisation to be able to sign

international treaties in its own name. Therefore 'legal personality' brought the European Union into changing from an alleged trade agreement to its intended state as a new supranational union, which is a type of multinational political union where negotiated power is delegated

to an authority by governments of member states. Which is High Treason for England to be apart of.
That being the case in fact, England became a vassal state of the EU. Being a vassal most commonly implies providing military assistance to the dominant state when requested to do

so; it sometimes implies paying tribute, but a state which does so is better described as a tributary state. PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) is placing our armed forces under the command of the EU military. This is High Treason as a country without its own independent

military cannot be a Sovereign Nation.

Article F3 of the Maastricht treaty;

“The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.” So what polices are they referring to?

On 20th Feb 2008 a caucus meeting was held

at the German Parliament in Munich to discuss the Lisbon Treaty. At this meeting a previously unmentioned paragraph was bought to light by Professor Schachtschneider, Humanities Faculty - University of Nuremberg. Professor Schachtschneider, explained that the undisclosed

paragraph means on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the DEATH PENALTY will be reintroduced to Europe. The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR. (When are we not at war and who will define riot and upheaval?).

Professor Schachtschneider made the point that this clause is particularly outrageous as it had been cleverly hidden in a footnote of a footnote, and would not have been detected by anyone other than an exceptional expert.

A quote from Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Executive

Intelligence Review, 7 April 2008. Professor Schachtschneider pointed out that it [the European Union reform treaty, a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty] also reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which I think is very important, in light of the fact that, especially Italy was trying

to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations.

And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty is a covert scam to destroy the Nation States, we have accepted also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no

death penalty, and then it also has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible. Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote.

The "footnote" in

question, directly quoted, is as follows:

The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52 (3) of the Charter. Therefore,

the "negative" definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter: (a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more

than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." (b) Article 2 of

Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:

"A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

By voting for Brexit those who voted unwittingly granted the Lisbon treaty authority by granting Article 50 authority in order to leave the EU. To grant authority to a foreign entity overriding English and Commonwealth law (especially after Magna Carta article 61's invocation

in 2001) is treason at common law.

The evidenced facts prove that we were never in the EU lawfully. Edward Heath and his co-conspirators deceived the people by lying to them stating that “there would be no essential loss of Sovereignty”. The evidence of his treachery and

others was hidden away under National Security legislation for 30 years. The file now widely available to view is named FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) 30/1048, which was gleaned from the National Archives within the Public Records Office and produced in PDF form as

evidence since 2002.

Whilst most people are being misdirected with BREXIT our so called “representatives”, and those pulling their strings, are now placing us under the alleged authority of the United Nations. This has been done by two methods. The Charter of the Commonwealth

being one such agreement which provides the UN with a ‘partnership’ over the Commonwealth.

The second Treasonous act is the signing the UN’s Global Immigration Compact Treaty which further surrenders the Sovereignty of the people of this Nation and the Commonwealth thereof

under the UN’s control. Australia refused to sign.

England first signed up to the UN’s Charters in 1948 under a treasonous regime therefore the Treaty is null and void by law. I hope the people wake up before the dream state that they are experiencing turns into the nightmare

of their own creation.

- David Robinson.
nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS…

'Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft' Translated into English as 'European Economic Community'
written in 1942 which was the Nazi backup plan incase they didn’t win the war militarily,

The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

bilderberg.org/EWG.pdf

*Notice they quote 'Bill of Rights'

The '1559 Act of Supremacy' was not repealed by constitutionally established authority, therefore it should be used instead of the Bill of Rights which is said to have reaffirmed it. Within its wording it states;-

https://twitter.com/LepaDinis/status/1413799406013399042?s=20

"that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, 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, spiritual or..

ecclesiastical, within this realm, or within any
other your majesty's dominions or countries that now be, or hereafter shall be,"

"...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…
"And let anyone in the land who wishes take an

"..oath for the execution of all the aforesaid matters,
& with them to distress us as much as he can, & we publicly & freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it & we will never prohibit anyone from taking it.."

-Excerpts from Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215

Once notified of your lawful standing if the police/courts act against you they will knowingly be committing high treason. They are on notice from the point that your first notice arrives with them.
You withdraw your allegiance from the crown and place it back with the

constitution.
Once under oath we are duty bound not to comply with the monarch & Gov’t. We must "distress and distrain" them in anyway we see fit so long as we do not harm their person. That is the premise of a61.
When a61 is invoked it is like calling a state of emergency.

The country and its people are under threat as they have been betrayed by the monarch. In times gone by the barons ought to have lead us in a peaceful lawful rebellion against the monarch/government until they righted their wrong doings.

Of course no one knows what to do when A.61 comes into effect because the teachings were deliberately removed from the schooling system.
Harold Wilson removed the teaching of the Constitution from the British education curriculum, in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, Britain’s

universities DO NOT teach treason laws, the greatest crime against a nation; hence today, we find our nation& our freedom in the most critical situation.

(Same Harold Wilson text in pic, treasonous criminals always unlawfully protect themselves due to our ignorance of the facts)

& the Constitutional Protocols have not been adhered to. Article 61 is technically the constitutional 'reset button' to hold all the aid and abetters to account, and ultimately reinstate the rule of law, court de jure etc.

https://twitter.com/LepaDinis/status/1396830428473008132?s=20

“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.

Full Conversation with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Lord Igor Judge discussing the significance of Magna Carta through the centuries:

Speaker Biography: John G. Roberts Jr. is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Speaker Biography: The Hon. Lord Igor Judge is the former lord chief justice of England and Wales.

🧵 🪡
The 2nd Referendum Conspiracy:

A longer read, but proves the people are above MP's and therefore Sovereign:

John Bercow, speaker for the House of Commons, is calling upon the pro EU politicians to be "creative" and has stated, "the only possible Brexit was one backed by

MP's". He claims Prime Minister Johnson must obey MP's rather than the public, and Boris can not cite a "noble cause" to honour the 2016 referendum *(a Seditious comment to make).

He says Boris must obey the law, statute law he means, and Boris could not rob a bank and give to

a good cause. Actually if a bank was the enemy of the realm, Boris could raid it and remain within the law. Likewise if MP's were the enemy of the realm, Boris and the rest of the country can tell them to get stuffed and some more. But the question is, can Boris disregard

Statute and obey the will of the public instead, as it was expressed in the 2016 referendum?

* Boris Johnson like ALL MP's have a LAWFUL DUTY (especially whilst Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta is in effect like today) to comply with the will of the people as a PUBLIC SERVANT.

By law he MUST 'represent the people above the Crown or parliament....and yes, he can raid the banks if he is under an Oath of Allegiance and has transferred allegiance to the constitution via the barons committee from the Crown...he (as we all do) have lawful excuse to distress

the regime by Royal Proclamation, but specifically institutions that are governed by the usurped Crown....that isn't to say Banks couldn't be targeted as they are all up to their necks in the High Treason also. And Brexit is also Treason since it is entirely unconstitutional to

grant Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty with the authority for us to leave the EU, especially whilst the FCO 30/1048 evidence file proves that it was High Treason by the Heath Administration to sign us up to the EEC in the first place....Brexit is misdirection and a trap.

Since the House of Commons, which today wants to block Brexit and subject the public to foreign powers, is composed of circa 650 people, and the public are composed of millions of people, the public have a large superiority. But can a few hundred people as MP's speak in stead of

and above millions of people? * (Only by Treasonable means).

This is illogical, but it also matters what they are saying, if they are saying don’t drive at 30mph or above in built up area, the millions have no need to object, but if they are saying, we are going to destroy your

country, destroy your democracy, destroy your laws, destroy your parliament and subject you to foreign rule, the millions have good reason to not only object, * but to definitely * pull rank. And “destroy” is not too strong a word, the purpose of the European Union is to subject

and destroy the individual countries of Europe.

No one has really expressed the fundamental and original foundations of UK society, MP's keep ranting and raving about their power, but are their powers really all in their head. The reality is that the House of Commons did not

once exist, fundamentally we live in a Kingdom, and the public at large have appointed an agent to protect them and the Kingdom. This agent is not the House of Commons, but the King or Queen, the country was originally called Angle-Cynn land (Angle people's land), the person the

people chose to protect the land was called the “Cynn-ing“, this meant agent of the people, and evolved into the name "King". The "Kingdom" or "realm" is the country, the territorial area entrusted to the King, and the state is called the "Crown" *(Not to be confused with the

Crown Corporation) with those who work in the state being termed "Crown servants".

Before a man could become the agent of the nation, or "King", he had to agree to enforce the laws and customs of the people, these then became the "Kings laws" and the "Royal Majesty". Violating

the laws was then called "disturbing the kings peace", and the public were under the "Kings protection". Suspected criminals had to “plead” (answer) before the “Kings justices“, *(the people - Jurors) and had to “make fine to the King”. Because the King could not rule alone and

was bound to have advice from assistants, he summoned advisors, and this was the "Kings parliament" *(the “Kings parliament” began in 1236, it was the beginning of parliament, but not the courts of Justice created by Alfred the Great in the 9th Century). All the while, the King

was still the agent of the people, thereby parliament was no more than the assistants to the agent of the people.

The superior power in parliament, was the King and still is the King/Queen, who is employed by the national community, the "principal", for a specific purpose.

The superior power in the land must therefore be the agreement between the King and the national community, and not representatives in parliament who are merely assistants to the peoples agent, the people, the "principal" *(people), appoint the King, the politicians, serve the

King, according to the original agreement between the King and the national community, whose agent the King is.

"An agent is a person who is authorised to carry out an act for and on behalf of another...The primary duty of the agent is to act in good faith towards his principle,

and to devote to the interests of his principal *( the people) such care and attention as a man of ordinary prudence bestows on his own affairs....... When an agent is appointed for a specific purpose..... he is not required to carry out any duty which is outside the scope of

the purpose for which he has been appointed as agent...... in any case in which he has claimed to act as agent without authority..... a claim will then lie.....for "breach of warranty of authority"..... "Restraint clauses", as they are called...... do no more than give the

principal fair protection".

“In May 1213 John resolved to make his peace with Rome….. The King received absolution, on his own initiative, agreeing to hold England and Ireland as Papal fiefs on a yearly tribute of 1000 marks” *(which was in breach of his Coronation Oath first

written down by Henry I).

As we all know our once agent, King John, breached the warranty of his authority, when he placed the kingdom in the hands of foreign powers. If his assistants had advised him to do this, a parliament for example, he still would have breached the

warranty of his authority. The king is the "principal", or "prince" within the state, but he is still the employee and agent of the national community. The Magna Carta was drawn up to put in writing a constitution, so that future agents of the people, with their assistants, would

know the limits of their agency. In this document was also inserted a Restraining Clause, to give the public fair protection against breach of warranty of authority *(Clause 61).

This retraining clause is applicable against the King, the Crown and the Kings assistants, who are

all either directly or indirectly agents of the national community, and so are subject to conditions of conduct. The conditions are, that they only have authority from the public to, by the public's laws and customs, watch out for the safety, freedom and prosperity of the

national community in their home land with the "defence of the realm" from foreign interference, being a major condition upon the King and his assistants, as agents of the national community.

European cooperation is not the objection of most Brexit supporters. But its one thing

cooperating, and quite another plotting to destroy our country. It really has not sunk into the heads of most citizens, that when they are being encouraged to “remain” in the EU, they are being asked to agree with the destruction of their own country. The destroying of over a

thousand years of heritage, the destroying of a home land, and in its place they are being asked to enter into a form of serfdom, ruled not *(governed) by their consent, but by a crypto despotism.

A King has the duty to protect the public from foreign powers, he can make

treaties and negotiate with them, but not to any extent which violates his agency with the national community, it is specifically prohibited for him to allow any foreign authorities to interfere in the life of the national community *(Act of Supremacy 1559 – un-repealed by

constitutional authority). While the UK general public may have representation in parliament in principle, it has been perverted in practice, however the EU is not a representative democracy at all, no country will ever again be free to choose its own life. If you were to

describe the EU parliament it would fit the following description of the now perverted UK parliament.

“Members of Parliament are subject to a discipline which transforms them into voting machines operated by their party managers……issues have been decided in advance in the

inner party conclaves, speeches in parliament are no longer intended to sway the judgement of members, but are aimed at the elector outside parliament, with the object of impressing him and confirming his faith in the party. They are, in short, part of the barrage of propaganda

directed at the electorate”.

In short the public are being informed that the UK parliament is bull shit, however the EU parliament has been modelled on bull shit. The EU parliament is not the debating element of the peoples of Europe, you are not represented in a democracy, you

have been hoodwinked into a quasi democracy, which in reality is a potential despotism. Dictionary of Politics, by David Robertson spells it out well enough for the simpleton, “The European Communities are governed by a complicated interaction of several institutions……

Ultimate power and decision making rests with the Council of Ministers….. The European Commission is the civil service…..and nearest thing it has to a unified government.....

The European Parliament is in theory the legislative body of the community….. In practice it is

powerless, having no general right to veto the laws drawn up by the Commission…. its reputation as a mere “talking shop” renders it largely invisible”.

You are being told here that the EU is modelled on a despotism, European Unionists have gone about shouting “freedom and

democracy”, but you have been had for an idiot by political fascists. What’s the point of being represented in a parliament which is a sham? that goes for the UK and the EU!

As of now you are compelled to plead before EU justices and you are compelled to make fine to the EU, by

the deception and criminality of the political class, who also have made you pay the EU in taxes, robbing you of your hard earned money. This has happened contrary to the agreement the national community had with the Throne & its parliament.

A King had certain “prerogatives”,

to make treaty and assent bills of parliament, but as an agent of the national community his powers were limited to “de bene esse”, the common good of the nation. King James. I, said he had a “lex loquens”, a law of necessity, to disregard his parliament if he thought the common

good was being disregarded by them. This is probably true, but he sparked a row between him and parliament, from when the House of Commons has come to dominate the state.

Despite this, the fact remains that the state, including the House of Commons are merely still agents of

the national community and are still bound by an agency, which prohibits foreign interference. But the modern political party has become more and more despotic and disregarding of the public as the ultimate and final power in the country. The public for them, are now there to be

duped and fooled, while the party carries out its own political agenda, much of which is not known to the public who have elected *(treasonous) fraudsters dangerous to the national community.

In the UK we need to examine who is the higher power between parliament & the public.

In 1603 King James became King of England and was in conflict with his House of Commons, the one valid point he did make was that, “this House doth not so represent the whole commons of the realm as the shadow doth the body, but only representatively”. So he had the public down

as the superior power.

In the early 18th century Chief Justice Mathew Hale wrote, “the Kings great courts of Common Law may prohibit and control Acts of Parliament”, so he had the public down as the superior power.

The Common Law is the practice of the jury, the jury is trial

by country, so the people are ultimately above the House of Commons. In 1858 the House of Lords stated, “it has never been the course of this House to resist a continued and deliberately formed public opinion…..I never understood, nor could such a principle be acted upon, that

we were to make a firm, determined and persevering stand against the opinion of the people”. So the House of Lords had the public down as the superior power.

“The King by his sovereignty, is not enabled to destroy his people, but to protect and defend them, and the High Court of

Parliament….ought to be subservient to that power and authority which the law hath placed in His Majesty to that purpose”.

This was a declaration of the Lords and Commons in 1642, so they had the fundamental constitution down as the superior power, the fundamental

constitution declares that the national community shall be protected and defended from foreign powers. By 1643 the House of Commons was declaring they had, “lawfully taken up arms…..for the necessary defence of themselves and the parliament from violence and destruction and of

this Kingdom from foreign invasion”, so the House of Commons were enforcing the fundamental constitution by armed force.

In 1649 the Rump parliament declared, “ultimate power resides in the people” and that, “the people are, under God, the original of all just power”, so it is

clear that the House of Commons has ruled *(in constitutionally correct times) that the public are the original and fundamental power rather, than them.

In 1654 Oliver Cromwell said, “In every government there must be some what fundamental, some what like a Magna Charta…..Of

what assurance is a law to prevent so great an evil, if it lie in the same legislature to un-law it again”.

So Cromwell was putting the law of the land above the statutes of the legislative, the Parliamentarian forces apparently even flew banners with “Magna Charta” on them.

In 1297 King Edward the First and the realm declared “the Great Charter as the Common Law *(the very same year Magna Charta was created in statute form by usurping powers in order to attempt to repeal the original)….kept in every point without breach”. So they were declaring the

Common Law to be sovereign above anyone else. In 1628 the Petition of Right also enforced the principles of the Great Charter.

Before Matthew Hale, Chief Justice Coke had also declared, “the Common Law will control Acts of Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly

void”, so again he placed the public as the superior power.

A Statute of Henry VIII in 1534 declared, “this realm of England is an Empire,” *(without an emperor?) “and so hath been accepted in the world….. governed….to keep the imperial crown of this realm from the annoyance

as well of the 'See of Rome' as from the authority of other foreign potentates”. So he and parliament were informing that their purpose is to keep the public and the throne free of any foreign rule. Some of today’s politicians think they can put the realm under foreign rule,

this not only shows how ignorant they are, but also how dangerous they are.

John Locke would say, “whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary powers, they put themselves into a state of war

with the people, who are there upon absolved from any further obedience”, so he has the public down as the superior power, even defining it an act of war for the legislative to abuse their positions.

Hooker would say, “laws they are not, which public approbation hath not made

so”, so he had the public down as the superior power.

Without doubt it is parliament which is answerable to the nation and not the nation who are answerable to parliament. Common law cannot be disregarded by parliament, but a jury can disregard a Statute.

The constitution

actually belongs to the public, with the Crown and parliament unable to legally abolish or amend it. They can alter “conventions”, but not the basics of the constitution, if they call for a referendum to ask the public to help alter or abolish the fundamental constitution, this

is still just as much a criminal act. Parliament is made by the law and is not above it, the Queen is made by the law and is not above it.

In 1811 the Duke of Norfolk was toasting, “our sovereign the people”, so he had the public as the superior power. Constitutional writer

A.V Dicey would say, “law should on the whole correspond with public opinion…..no law should be passed or maintained in a given country, eg in England, which is condemned by the public opinion of the English people”, so he has public opinion down as the superior power.

In an older work, De Laudibus Legum Anglia, it states, “A King of England can not at his pleasure make any alteration in the laws of the land……without the consent of the subjects, nor burden them against their wills with strange impositions, so that a people governed by their

own consent and approbation enjoy their properties securely, and without the hazard of being deprived of them by the King or any other”, so this had the public/subjects down as superior.

The House of Commons was developed so as to give public approval to the Crowns measures,

but its constitutional purpose is to express the public's view rather than their own. And in no way do they have any authority to aid and abet foreign powers to rule the country.

The early House of Commons even saw MP's instructing the King that they must go and get the

permission of their constituents before they could vote. Originally they were not representatives, but servants of a county or borough. They merely saved the free men the expense of travelling to London themselves, so they instructed and sent a lackey and paid his expenses.

Today the lackey thinks he or she is a God who can stick the boot in on their constituents, on the Crown and on the Country. They would even rather be the lackey of the European Union, no doubt it makes them feel more powerful.

A later French author Elie Halevy studying the

constitution of England said, “This fiction of a parliament independent of public opinion…..was moreover expressly contradicted by the practice of dissolution…..the electors had the right, indeed the duty, to exercise a constant control not only over the choice, but also over

the votes of their representatives”, so he had the public down as the superior power.

King George. II even having said to William Pitt, “sir you have taught me to look for the sense of my people in other places than the House of Commons”, so he and Pitt knew the public were

superior.

Gladstone went even further in 1879 when in his famous Midlothian campaign, he appealed direct to the public above the majority of the House of Commons, “The upright sense of the nation…..The heart, the root, the beginning and ending of my trust, is in the wise and

generous justice of the nation”.

“I know who the boss is, its called the British people”, David Cameron, Prime Minister.

“MP’s are there to serve the public, they are not there to serve themselves”, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister.

“The people are the masters, we are the

servants of the people. We will never forget it, and if we do, the people will very soon show that what the electorate gives, the electorate can take away”, Tony Blair, Prime Minister.

Again quoting John Locke, “There remains, still in the people the supreme power to remove or

alter the legislative when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them”, so really the public could order the removal from the House of Commons and the House of Lords of all politicians who are antagonistic towards the 2016 referendum result *(however,

the referendum was 'double think' and unlawful due to the fact that Heath Committed High Treason in 1972).

John Pym having said, “the law hath a power to prevent, to restrain, to repair evils, without this all kinds of mischief and distemper will break in upon a state”.

All MP’s who will not accept the 2016 referendum result are causing distemper and resorting to mischief, the law is above them, the nation is above them *(the referendum result although valid up to a point, was made only subject to disinformation and ignorance the Heath's Treason

evidence – FCO 30/1048 file).

Boris Johnson is under no obligation to follow an Act of Parliament which has been created for pernicious reasons, he only needs obey the fundamental constitution *(Magna Carta 1215), even if the Queen gives Royal Assent to a pernicious conspiracy

of politicians in parliament, she is only obliged to obey the Royal Majesty as understood by the constitution. The Royal Majesty is with any person who is defending the nation and throne against foreign powers, or domestic rebels. The pernicious Act of Parliament has been

designed to ultimately prevent the will of the people, and support an attack on the national communities home land.

The preventing of a *(double think) “no deal Brexit” has become the cover for an ulterior motive to have the country and the throne subjected to foreign powers

with the value of their opinion by future generations, stripped from them, with the law of the land over ruled by foreign powers and the Crown becoming a puppet for foreign powers.

Boris Johnson *(is a quisling but technically) can exercise lawful prerogative *(by the

usurpation of the prerogative unless granted to by the Crown), and the defence of the nation is the most high of prerogative, right and duty, even if that prerogative must be used against rebels *(traitors) in parliament, even if that prerogative must be used against the Queen

herself, “rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals”, John Locke.

“Not only a foreign invader, but a domestic rebel puts himself again into a state of nature, to be proceeded against, not as a subject, but as an enemy”, (Hobbes).

A domestic rebel

is a domestic rebel, if he or she sits in parliament, it makes no difference to the law, a country must take on its enemies no matter what, this right comes also under international law *(International law (UN rules) has no authority over our Constitutional law). Boris Johnson

may tell a pernicious parliament with a majority of domestic rebels working for foreign powers, as an enemy against the country, to stick their statute, by the authority of the proper constitution. Lest we forget, an MP is under oath, this puts the greater position in the hands

of Boris Johnson and the loyal community of the country.

The domestic rebels think they can take Boris Johnson to *(an unauthorised, corporate, treasonably established) court and force him to obey them, well he can counter sue these rebels as traitors to the Royal Majesty,

and as disturbers of the peace, for it is they who will not accept and plot to over-turn the will of the people and not he, for it is they who are out to destroy the country and not he *(he is part of the misdirection and plot and does not speak of Treason).

Winston Churchill

bypassed both the cabinet and parliament for the defence of the nation, Lloyd George also bypassed parliament for the defence of the nation, this was their fundamental right and duty, and if domestic rebels think they can use the Queens courts to assist their attack on Queen and

country, how truly mad are they?

And who is the *(fake) judge going to side with, a defender of the nation with his lex prerogativa, or an attacker of the nation, with their Act of Parliament *Corporate employees – AKA Judges side with the Corporate agenda and not the law).

Could Adolf Hitler have taken over the country by Act of Parliament? absolutely not, can the EU take over the country by Act of Parliament? Absolutely not, lets hope reality can sink into the thick heads of some of our *(treacherous MP's who are appointed by usurping dark forces)

before it all ends in disaster and they will have driven the public to drastic measures to correct their wayward activity.

*The people cannot rely on MP's or the police to defend the Realm, we MUST ALL BY LAW defend the Realm by standing under Article 61 of the 1215 Magna

Carta, designed to UNITE the people, and use the 'threat' of force by the sheer weight of the people to destroy this Treasonous plot before the time to do so has passed.

https://twitter.com/LepaDinis/status/1415642787215822852?s=20

Queen (Now deposed since the Invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta following constitutional protocols from 23rd March 2001 & her Govt’s due to TREASON) joins crowds for 800th Magna Carta anniversary in Runnymede

🧵 🪡
1. The English and Commonwealth Constitution (Magna Carta 1215) was created by the historical defiance by the people against tyranny, and for the benefit of all of the people equally. Three times within the Charter it says that it is "For ever". The constitution can ONLY

be changed by improvement; by updating it by the people, within a peoples convention without parliamentary involvement

2. The laws and customs of the people were protected by an elected (by the people) King/Queen, who swore an Oath (Coronation Oath) to govern the people by

their own laws and customs under the Christian principles of law.

3. The Coronation Oath of 1688 destroyed the original Coronation Oath sworn to the people, by introducing the false idea that the monarch must swear to uphold the
"Statutes in Parliament" instead of the Magna

Carta Constitution (the peoples laws), the Crown was overthrown by breach of the original Coronation Oath and the sovereignty of the people along with it.

4. The Bill of Rights which was introduced at the same time as the Coronation Oath, the latter being created in statute form

for the first time in its history (1688), overthrew the sole duty of the Kings' Royal Prerogative or Royal Assent; to grant or deny government created legislation into law. This fact can be clearly seen within the Bill of Rights under the heading "The Subject's Rights";-

"Dispensing Power.

That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall."

5. The '1559 Act of Supremacy' was not repealed by constitutionally established authority, therefore it should be used

instead of the Bill of Rights which is said to have reaffirmed it. Within its wording it states;-

"that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, 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, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, or within any other your majesty's dominions or countries that now be, or hereafter shall be,"

6. That all of the Commonwealth Nations granted

independence from English Constitutional law, whilst being illegally achieved by an already overthrown monarch, & thus without Constitutionally established authority to do so; means that all Constitution's then created by the 'alleged' Independent Nation States are Null & Void.

7. The Coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953 was a staged event, put on for the people to keep the people unaware of the fact that the Crown was in a state of usurpation. The Office of Sovereign has remained vacant without a constitutional monarch since at least 1688.

8. Whilst the English Constitution is being fully observed parliamentary sovereignty is a contradiction in terms. To claim "Parliamentary Sovereignty" over the monarch and the people is tantamount to Treason. His/Her Majesty's Parliament is subject to the constraints of a

constitutional monarch by Oath of Allegiance to the constitutional monarch, not the other way around.

9. Roman Catholicism has attempted to overthrow the principles of Christianity and the laws thereof many times throughout our ancient history. By covert means it has almost

succeeded in its ancient quest by way of creating the European Union Constitution (Lisbon Treaty).

10. BREXIT in itself is a treasonous application of unconstitutional rules committed by the English 'quislings' in parliament. To grant authority to the European Union's Article 50

of the Lisbon Treaty, is to grant authority to the EU's Constitution in order to leave the EU which is Treason.

11. The Evidence file gleaned from the National Archives within the Public Records Office (FCO 30/1048) is proof that Edward Heath and his co-conspirator's knew that

by signing the European Economic Communities Act in 1972 would lead to an essential loss of National Sovereignty. This evidence proves that we were never legally within the EU.... and that ALL EU treaties are thus null and void.

12. Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta was

invoked according to the correct protocols of English and Commonwealth Constitutional law on the 23rd March 2001, which remains in effect to this very day;

The Barons' Committee acted under duress of circumstances by delivering their petition to the (usurped) Queen's private

secretary Sir Robin Janvrin at noon on the 7th February 2001. The Barons failed to seek an audience with the alleged monarch directly, whom has to be presumed to be in a compromised situation if we are to presume innocence before guilt.

13. The 1215 Magna Carta was sealed by

King John under duress because he was a tyrant, and because he was in breach of his Coronation Oath to the people. He was subservient to Rome and a traitor to the country as can be seen within his unsuccessful attempt to have Pope Innocent III annul Magna Carta in 1216. Magna

Carta 1215 was neither surpassed by other attempts to update or change it in 1217, 1225 and in 1297 when parliament attempted (criminally) to enact Magna Carta into statute and then repeal it;

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.

14. Magna Carta 1215 has been endorsed many times throughout history as being "as in effect today

as it was when it was sealed at Runnymede"-(Halesbury's 4th Edition). The usurped monarch, usurped by treasonous means in 1685/88 and deposed by the Barons' Committee in 2001 did not ignore the Barons petition, neither was it said to have been repealed nor not in use today.

The reply that was provided via said private secretary, whom would have committed Treason by providing a false statement reads;-

"“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.”

15. 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).

16. Claiming title to the legal fiction as your own is to aid and abet the fraud and treason committed by Charles I in 1666 when he granted Royal Assent to the Cestui Que Vie Act which was treason against the sovereign people. The legal

fiction is instantly made null and void by transferring presumed allegiance from the Crown to the constitution (Article 61 - the security clause) via the AWOL Barons.

17. Article 61 is in a state of effect by Royal Command of a Constitutional monarch's agreement, created via

the feudal Barons in 1215. This peace Treaty has been customarily inherited by all monarchs throughout our ancient history. There is no fence sitting permitted by law we are either in defence of the realm or we are operating outside of the law (outlawry). The security clause is

designed to unite the people because that is the ONLY way the people will have the force, or the threat of force enough to destroy well entrenched institutionalised corruption (Treason).

18. Treason is THE CORE ISSUE which MUST be addressed by us all en masse for a peaceful

remedy of this takeover of our law, land(s) and right to self governance, and the protections in which our own laws evidently provide,us, in order to defeat this New World Order plan now being blatantly revealed. Whilst the Judicial process is able to remain protected by itself,

whilst considering that they are corporate bodies not courts of law, there is nowhere to receive justice or to have the well evidenced allegations of High Treason heard.

19. The police are EVIDENTLY and WILFULLY protecting traitors and imposters within parliament (as proven not

least by the efforts of the Practical Lawful Dissent Movement by recording on video West Midlands Police receiving Treason evidence on 28th November 2017. Whom then went on to ignore it and us).

The Police are now the corporate run 'gatekeepers' for the New World Order agenda,

which has a corporate front. The police are the only blockage which I personally have in order to have the treason evidence heard, which is an unsubstantiated claim because nobody can get the matter into a recognised court of law of course, the evidence which is in my and others

possession must be heard by a constitutionally established Jury of my/our peers. The Police took an Oath to act "faithfully according to law". Law means the peoples common law Constitution not treasonable directives etc.

EVERYBODY SHOULD BE OUTRAGED BY THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WILL NOT ADHERE TO THE TRUTH.

20. No matter what our individual perceptions of the Crown and the English church may be, we all have the DUTY BY OUR OWN LAW to protect and preserve, for ourselves and for future generations,

the rights and customs of the people.

By using the Constitution without deviation en masse, and with a peaceful strategy, we will bring back the constitution into our society by asserting our collective will against the ignorance of the police, because to even deny the

constitution's existence publicly is Sedition, and to not act upon the Treason evidence supplied is High Treason at Common Law.

We all have the lawful duty to police the police, its high time people decided whether they want to live or die under tyranny, or defend their

sovereignty and our laws which protect it and us whilst we still can.

Truth is Sovereign in Law.

@threadreaderapp Unroll please.

🧵 🪡
Historically, Common Law alone did not provide full protection against tyrannical injustices. King John, who reigned from 1199-1216, was famous as one of the evilest monarchs in Britain’s history, leading to the baronial revolt towards the end of his reign and the

subsequent formation of a more powerful and far-reaching level of lawful protection for the people. A new peace treaty was written and sealed at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. Its full name was the Magna Carta Libertatum

(Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), now commonly called the Magna Carta.
Its fundamental aim was and remains to provide lasting protection to the people against a repeat of such tyranny. The security clause was

first used prior to the 1688 Glorious

Revolution. This involved the overthrow of King James II of England (James VII of Scotland and James
II of Ireland) by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange). The Magna Carta affirmed the right of the people

to such things as trial by jury, protection from excessive fines, protection from unlawful governance and the right to lawfully rebel against an unconstitutional government.

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or

exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no
one deny or delay right or justice.” – Magna Carta

Six British Monarchs have been deposed in one form or another, having been

deselected for their failure to maintain the rights and liberties of the People. They were Ethelred, Richard II, Henry VI, Charles I (executed), James II and Edward VIII.

this Roman Civil Law is running in parallel as part of our society today through statutes of parliament

and 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.
Let's not forget about the last time Article 61 was invoked also known as the

Glorious Revolution. There was already new Monarch's ready to take the job, that was William of Orange and Mary, 1688. Rather than following Constitutional Protocol they requested new documents prior to coronation. That means that the 1688/9 Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath

Act are Treasonous Documents as there was NO Monarch to grant Royal Assent to the Documents, thus the people didn't have full disclosure. Acts and Statutes cannot be passed with a vacant throne.]

[Elizabeth “Windsor” (Mountbatten) evidently inherited a previously usurped Office

of Sovereign (throne), which had been usurped by treasonable means since at least 1685 and was later deposed under duress by Constitutional law in 2001 (invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215) after a quorum of 25 barons petitioned the usurped Crown

over the Treasonous Treaty of Nice, signed by Blair on the 26th January 2001.

https://twitter.com/LepaDinis/status/1397777595584897029?s=20

On 23rd March 2001, a fundamental aspect of our Constitutional law was triggered, yet the majority of the British people do not know about it, even today 20 years later. This was invoked in response to very serious corruption at the highest levels of authority in this country, a

group of highly honourable peers from the House of Lords were forced to use our most fundamental rights granted under the 1215 Magna Carta to urge the Queen to redress several infringements of our Constitutional Law by members of parliament. Their petition, presented under the

security clause of our great Constitution, Article 61 Magna Carta, urged the Queen to withhold Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty which unlawfully gave imperative rights of self-governance
away to foreign powers
The petition was sanctioned by Leolin Price Q.C. and had the backing

of 65 peers from the House of Lords, led by Lord Ashbourne.
When interviewed, Lord Ashbourne said:
"These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed. Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order."

https://twitter.com/LepaDinis/status/1413799389949202432?s=20