Exactly THIS.
& I am sick to death of people pushing the official treasonous deception with zero research but with such ignorant confidence, I do not have anymore time to waste on pointless back & forth, I’ve made endless threads which you can read, go away & research yourselves.
Just because you were deceived & with blind faith, bought those lies doesn’t make lies the truth & especially not the criminals that are keeping the evidential facts from you, doesn’t make them any less treasonous
Stop aid & abetting high treason by pushing their bare faced lies.
The evidential facts that I wrote is a culmination of perhaps a century of diligent research in the monumental lies to hide the facts.
Our mentor was The late David Robinson who researched diligently for 25 years, his mentor was the fearless constitutional protector
Elizabeth Beckett -her whole life, her father was a high court judge who researched all this too all his life, David also went in deeper & uncovered much more deception such as BILL of rights/coronation oath act treasonous created in 1688/9, etc (I’ve created threads of all this)
🧵
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
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.
🧵 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
“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