October 25, 2011

Want Your World Rocked?

Then read on.

This is one of the most jawdropping accounts I have read of a court case involving a Freeman and a judge.

The report speaks for itself (quite literally-look for the link to the audio below) but I wanted to point out the most devastating comment from Judge Cadbury. This is what we Freemen have been saying for the last few years.


One of the important bits is when (remember Cadbury has read up on the entire situation, and knows what has happened) he admits “This is probably all due to the crossed-wires that occurred when the Courts started to see Freemen-on-the-Land. And the Courts did not know how to react. And are slowly coming to terms with Freemen”.

If you want to read the original write-up and following comments, please pop over to FMOTL and have a gander.

Strap in-this is an exciting ride:

"Hereford Magistrates Court – 17th October, 2011

This was a continuation of the previous adjournments – with added flavourings.

Guy had lodged two complaints:

1. Against Herefordshire Council for taking him all the way to potential bankruptcy – be charging him on land he did not own – and then withdrawing at the very last minute … but leaving behind a trail of shit comprising Solicitor’s costs to be paid, and the claim by Michael Horne/Tim Robinson. Guy was charging the Council with “irregular distress”

2. Against County Court Judge Nadeem Khan for rubber-stamping everything that led up to the Bankruptcy Petition, even when having been told that the charge was a fraudulent demand.

As usual, the Court tried to dump a curved ball at the outset. British Gas suddenly appeared on the scene, talking about an unpaid Electricity Bill for Bodenham Manor.

The problem with this Electricity Bill was that is was based on Business Rates, on the assumption that business was still being conducted at Bodenham Manor.

Unfortunately (for British Gas) no ‘business’ has been carried on at Bodenham since 2005. Consequently only a Domestic Rate Tariff is applicable on those apartments that remain inhabited.

When appraised of this … prior to the actual Court Hearing … British Gas withdrew their application, and realised that they actually owed Guy THOUSANDS … because (until recently) he’s been paying Business Rate Tariffs (since 2005).

So, after that matter had been cleared up (and the British Gas Representative went on his way – tail between legs) we actually got called into the Court.

It was a new Judge. One we had not seen before (Judge Cadbury).

We recorded the whole thing on a Dictaphone. At the moment this is only available in full – as a WAV File – 

via http://www.fmotl.com/Hearing17OCT2011HerefordMagistratesCourt.wav

I intend – as soon as possible - to shorten it to the salient points, and to explain what happened.

As a foretaste we can state that:

1. Judge Cadbury had spent the previous weekend reading everything (he actually says so), and was pretty conversant with the whole situation. For this reason he was able to cut the Hereford Council’s Barrister to shreds at various times (much to our delight, of course!). (There is a delicious moment where she waffles & drones on … for what seems like ages … and Judge Cadbury says “Yes … but in the end, he [Guy] was right, and you were wrong … is that not so?”. She is unable to disagree).

2. There are a number of ‘tasty bits’, which cause one’s mouth to water. Not least of which when Cadbury – having heard the quotation from Halsbury’s Laws of England … to the effect that his Court – and all the others are entirely UNLAWFUL … when he says “Is that in Halbury’s?”. Guy says “Yes”, and Cadbury responds “I can see that throwing up a few problems!”. (Surely the masterful understatement of the century?).

3. One of the important bits is when (remember Cadbury has read up on the entire situation, and knows what has happened) he admits “This is probably all due to the crossed-wires that occurred when the Courts started to see Freemen-on-the-Land. And the Courts did not know how to react. And are slowly coming to terms with Freemen”. (That’s paraphrasing, not a direct quote … but that’s more-or-less what he said).

4. Another tasty bit is when he tells Guy that he is going to refuse Guy’s application to have Nadeem Khan summonsed. It has been explained to Cadbury that, if he refuses to ‘do his duty’, then he [Cadbury] leaves himself open to prosecution. He says “I may go to prison for this, but I’m going to have to refuse this application … at this time. However, I do understand that – at a different time – you [Guy] may very well be right. I feel you should appeal my decision, because it would make quite a good Test Case”. (Once again, paraphrasing, listen to it yourself … at the end).
Breathtaking stuff. And there were other bits, which I’ll remember when I analyse the recording properly. (It’s very long … nearly 2 hours, including the 20-minute ‘retirement’ in between).

The matters dealt with were (in order):

A. The so-called ‘motoring offence’. Result: Adjournment due to the fact that the Witness Statement starts: “On the 11th January, 2012 …”. There is a delicious moment when Cadbury reads this out, and says “Oh … that’s a good start!”. The Police Constable who wrote that statement will now have to appear in person. Guy is looking forward – with considerable glee – to this. (We were told, by the Inspector, that this Constable’s hair started falling out when Guy sent him a bill for £1,000 for the original arrest!)

B. The failed Bankruptcy Petition .vs. Guy’s application for Irregular Distress. Guy says that – since the Council withdrew at the last moment, Guy is prepared to withdraw his petition. Result: All costs ‘mirrored’ … so no-one pays anyone anything (But Note: GUY HAS A LIEN ON THE BARRISTER!). There is quite a delicious moment when the Barrister has waffled on about her costs, and how Guy wasn’t ‘distressed’ because they didn’t send Bailiffs … just went straight for bankruptcy (in her little world that, presumably, doesn’t count as distressful) and Cadbury turns to Guy and says “Well, Guy, you must have had costs, as well, surely …”

C. The Old Railway Sidings (the bit Guy still owns): Result: The Council told to re-value & re-bill. The Barrister’s costs were dismissed.

D. Bodenham Manor Restaurant … which hasn’t been a restaurant for years, and for which the Council are claiming Business Rates. Result: Subject to Appeal on actual Rateable Value (domestic … affectively just floor space).

E. Judge Cadbury was given chapter & verse on why this Court – and ALL Administrative Courts – carry no authority/force of Law. He didn’t really argue, except to say that he considered his Oath of Office entitled him to BOTH Common Law & Statute jurisdiction (BUT HE ADMITTED HE MIGHT BE WRONG!). Interestingly, Cadbury did ‘twig’ that – having declared the Court invalid, Guy then attempted to utilise it. Cadbury said “It seems you are happy to consider this Court lawful, when it suits you”. This was, of course, very astute, and very true. Guy’s response was equally valid, astute, and true: “You, yourselves, utilise this Court when it suits you, and then dip straight into Common Law when it suits you – by threatening Contempt of Court – which is a Common Law misdemeanour. So I’m only doing what you do!”. Judge Cadbury had no answer to that, and seemed content to carry on with the situation being described thereafter as ‘hybrid’.
During this hearing, Cadbury called Guy “Guy” … never once calling him “Mr. Taylor” (this Judge had obviously been prepped by Roger Harris, the Clerk of the Court!).

During the Hearing, Guy swigged from a bottle of Coca-Cola, and no-one said a word.

During the Hearing, the Barrister continually tried to bring up/mention the “Common Law Liens” … hoping (one presumes) to get a reaction from the Judge. (Guy has one against her, personally). Not once did the Judge react in the matter of the Liens. He treated it totally matter-of-fact. Presumably she was trying to prod Judge Cadbury to say that Guy’s Lien against her carries no force in Law (she obviously doesn’t know). To her obvious disappointment, he didn’t say a word."

Freemen (and ultimately, everyone else) owe a huge debt of thanks to Guy, and to Veronica: Chapman. These brave souls are pioneers and as we all know, pioneering is not the safest occupation. We lose more than we win, but once Judge Cadbury starts to promulgate his findings in this case, the judiciary in the UK will be rudely awoken, possibly for the first time ever.

This is an earth-shattering advancement for Freemen. My mission, if I am lucky enough to end up in a court, is to do for Lawful Rebellion what Guy did for Freemen.

Please let me know your thoughts.



Oldrightie said...

Herefordshire, the most corrupt council in the land and the greatest County on Earth despite that.

Sue said...

Ooooo. I got all excited then when I saw your headline in my blogroll :) naughty me!

Sue said...

If only all Judges took their positions so seriously, we might see some justice once in a while.

I've actually just bought the book "Freedom is more than just a seven letter word" from Amazon.

I'd love to really study the subject but sometimes it's so hard going.

I will persevere.

Anonymous said...

"During the Hearing, Guy swigged from a bottle of Coca-Cola"

Coca-cola is the devils spawn.

Captain Ranty said...


They at least have one honest judge.

They should breed him. Justice may one day return....


Captain Ranty said...


It was a tad dramatic. Sorry.

I read V's book chapter by chapter (as she was writing it) so I found it very easy to read.

If you want to, you can also buy a shorter book called "So, they say you've broken the law..." by the lioness. It has everything you need to challenge anything they hurl your way. It's a great read.


Captain Ranty said...



I've been drinking it since I was knee-high to a wossname.

Never done me no harm.

I read that line and wondered at its significance: is Coca Cola a big no-no in court?

If it is I'll take some when/if I ever choose to appear.


Anonymous said...

Captain, I really feel that things are starting to move at a faster pace.

People are waking up.


Anonymous said...

what is the exact citation from Halsbury's for "Guy ends up quoting Halsbury's Laws of England ("Administrative Law is nothing more than an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for Administrative Courts in the country, and no Act could be passed to legitimise them") which results in a:"

Enquiring minds need to know (and I didn't/couldn't catch it on the recording)

Captain Ranty said...


I agree absolutely!


Captain Ranty said...


Enquiring minds need to be fed. No-one wants an anorexic head.


Guy ends up quoting Halsbury's Laws of England ("Administrative Law is nothing more than an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for Administrative Courts in the country, and no Act could be passed to legitimise them") which results in a:

DELICIOUS MOMENT at 6m 40s, when JC says "That's going to cause a few problems, isn't it?"

What does this all mean?

1. Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts & Administrative Law FORMS NO PART OF "the laws and usages of the realm". Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts/Law is "merely an arrangement between the Executive & the Judiciary".

2. At a Coronation Ceremony a Monarch swears to uphold "the laws and usages of the realm".

3. When a Judge is sworn in, s/he takes on Oath which swears to support the Coronation Oath to uphold "the laws and usages of the realm".

4. Therefore Judges have NO JURISDICTION in Administrative Courts or under Administrative Law. They only have jurisdiction on a Common Law Court with a Jury of 12 (which is part and parcel of "the laws and usages of the realm").

Magistrates Courts (where this Hearing was held) and all County Courts are Administrative Courts, applying 'Administrative Law'. They are thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CRIMINAL, AND FRAUDULENT. And, to quote Judge Cadbury's masterful understatement: "That's going to cause a few problems, isn't it?". (Even Crown & High Courts, with a Jury, are not entirely CONSTITUTIONAL, because the Judge is allowed to 'direct' a Jury's Verdict)

Guy then points out that the whole process is an occult (occult means "hidden") C'est Que Vie Trust. And then proceeds to read from the Fraud Act 2006, and explains that Council Tax Summonses are issued by the Council - NOT BY THE COURT (we have indisputable evidence of that!).

Guy makes many claims about the lack of "due process", the lack of "due diligence - particularly on the part of Councils", the lack of just about everything - which actually results in Common Law crimes of 'breach of the peace' against all & sundry. Creating continual Torts against everyone.

JC requests a copy of Halsbury's (with John Hurst whispering the references), and decides to retire to consider what has been said.

I got that from here:


Good stuff, innit!!


Anonymous said...

Thanks CR.
saw that too. by citation I meant it in its formal sense chapter and verse. Page/para/section

Captain Ranty said...

In that case, I know not.

If my good pal John Hurst swings by, perhaps he can point us in the right direction.

Or, is it possible to search the phrase in an on-line edition of the book?


Anonymous said...

One more time!

Captain Ranty said...


Done. Again.

Let's try it their way. Keep demanding a debate until they get the answer right......


Anonymous said...

latest Halsbury's on-line ? ?
please tell me this is so and give me/us the URL

Anonymous said...

I may have this incorrect - I hope I do have it incorrect! - but AFAIK, Halsbury's is only available online here for a fee, or at various places within the world of academia where access is restricted. Buying it costs several thousand quid although you may be able to get older editions for less, YMMV. (The site linked above has it available for £7885.) Out of reach for one, perhaps, but several...?

Corpus Juris Secundum is similar - I think it is online at Westlaw and have seen the full edition priced elsewhere at almost $10000 although there is second-hand one on Amazon.com for $2100 (in 163 volumes). The guy in the Ungrip film speaks about how he went and purchased the lot for several thousand dollars and found there were something like 200 pages on or definitions of the word "person" (I think it was "person" but it may have been something else). Rather puts Black's to shame.

Whilst is is unlikely one would need the entirety of them at any one time, it is still a case of "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."



Anonymous said...

yup those prices are there for a purpose. Good job everyone has easy access to a free law library. oh, hang on....

You can see why I asked for the exact citation.

The dictionary of Judicial words and phrases is also a tad expensive

Anonymous said...

@Anon 17.53, &c

Have a read of Who Owns the Law? (Wired, May 1994) to see just how West Publishing was able to restrict access to things like Corpus Juris Secundum, and why CJS has never entered public domain as a result.

"The law" is not what was copyrighted - it was the citations & page numbers by which the cases were organised within the corpus. Neat, neat trick. The $10000 is not for "the law" but for the pagination of it!

More here.

Presumably Lexis-Butterworths went through a similar process with Halsbury.



TTC said...

Utterly fascinating.

Inspired as I have been (lawfully and morally justifiably) to fight bankster crooks on the basis of FMOTL-related reading matter, I too would like to see that Halsbury text myself.

I do live in Central London - wil have to see if the British Library has a copy.

Bound to (no pun intended), I'd have thought?

...if so, I may need to come back and enquire about volumes, sections, editions, page numbers et al. ;)

James Higham said...

the judiciary in the UK will be rudely awoken, possibly for the first time ever

Or else they'll quietly try to ignore it.

Anonymous said...

I have it here if theres a reference of any kind to follow ....hmmmm!
It is a lot of volumes to plough through a page at a time!

handymanphil said...

Herefordshire magistrates etc - hump0f Ranty, bloody humpf!
I will never forget how they treated Tony Blows over his ridiculous 'smoking in a workplace' charges. I can honestly say that in all my years i have never heard or observed such a one sided load of 'legal bollox in my life. They even brought in a District Judge who was clearly batting for the council.
It might only be 'bettered' by a local case due to be heard shortly, though I do hope not!

mike collin said...

Bloody brilliant

Anonymous said...

awesome cap.

Anonymous said...

what a great set of comments ! and informative links. Thanks for those.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
when its a closed shop with gatekeepers ! harrumph.
Shame we don't have annotated statutes as they do in the USA but then our legal system has had much longer to set out its pieces on the chess board...

Archbold very worthy of investigation. Go to a good book shop and look at the standard texts on Admin Law e.g. Timothy Endicott. Not a mention of that key phrase from Archbold. not in my copy anyway. It is my view that law school is used to house train lawyers. just like good puppies they must not pee on the carpet.

re the case in the thread I think the suggested appeal is a two edged sword.
he suggest taking to the Admin Court - who will have no interest at all in cutting themselves off at the knees.
And the exact terms of the appeal probably won't lay open the Archbold issue at all, it may close it off !!
More thought needed methinks but it starts with dissecting Archbold.

Anonymous said...

I suggest that the various lawful rebellion supporting websites and their readers create a 'fighting fund' to pay for things like Halsbury's/law dictionaries etc. I'll also suggest it at the British Constitution meeting in London on 5th Nov (now there's an appropraite date)! Is anyone else on here going - apart from the Captain?


Anonymous said...

how would that solve access issues for all and sundry ?

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Captain, here are the Halsburys references:

1. Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts & Administrative Law FORMS NO PART OF "the laws and usages of the realm". Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts/Law is "merely an arrangement between the Executive & the Judiciary".
Captain, Here is the reference from Halsbury’s 2010. It is the first paragraph in the article on “Administrative Law”:

1 “ For at least half a century after the publication of Dicey's Law of the Constitution (1st Edn) (1885), the term 'administrative law' was identified with droit administratif, a separate body of rules relating to administrative authorities and officials, applied in special administrative courts. As thus defined, administrative law did not exist in England: see Dicey's Law of the Constitution (10th Edn) 330. See also Re Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2) [1965] Ch 1210 at 1261, [1964] 3 All ER 354 at 372, CA, per Salmon LJ; Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 at 72, [1963] 2 All ER 66 at 76, HL, per Lord Reid ('We do not have a developed system of administrative law--perhaps because until fairly recently we did not need it').........
R v Lancashire County Council, ex p Huddleston[1986] 2 All ER 941 at 945, 136 NLJ Rep 562, CA, per Sir John Donaldson MR ('Notwithstanding that the courts have for centuries exercised a limited supervisory jurisdiction by means of the prerogative writs, the wider remedy of judicial review and the evolution of what is, in effect, a specialist administrative or public law court is a post-war development. This development has created a new relationship between the courts and those who derive their authority from the public law, one of partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration')...”.

In other words Judges have moved the goalposts.

This is in breach of the Coronation Oath:

“28. The Crown's duty towards the subject.

The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject1 are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath2 are:

(1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs3;

3 By the Act of Settlement s 4, it is declared that 'whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same..the same are..ratified and confirmed accordingly'. As to the Crown's duty to exercise the prerogative in conformity to law see para 368 post.

Regards, John Hurst.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Guy was in great form on the day and also at the BCG conference the following Saturday.

Regards, John Hurst.

Anonymous said...

This is (a) interesting and (b) possibly, significant. However, it should be appreciated that no magistrate's court (even one chaired by a district judge) may bind another magistrate's court by its verdict and certainly no magistrate's court may bind a higher court (such as the crown court). What really, really matters in terms of legal precedent is the decision of the court of appeal. Such court of appeal decisions are taken note of by the entire legal system.

John the Bastard

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

John the Bastard,
That is the conventional route and worth trying to see if there are any honest Judges left.

The problem that the present regime have is an inevitable consequence of the House of Lords Practice Statement of 1966 and the efforts of the Law Commission that do not follow presecent. They can only get away with it until they are challenged. Then they can only say "a Judge said it was all right". That is not working anymore.

Regards, John Hurst.

Captain Ranty said...

Excellent comments from all.

Special thanks to John for swinging by with the relevant bits.

So it all rests on the appeal then?

If Judge Cadbury stays true to form, it should be a good result.


Anonymous said...

John Hurst,

Thank you for the full quote from halsbury's. Not being ungrateful but can you provide you provide the citation reference please ? Volume, page,chapter section number etc

Anonymous said...


Magna Carta Society Blog said...

It does not rest on an appeal alone. John Hemming MP at a public meeting last Sunday clearly stated that the Court of Appeal was corrupt. It depends also on commercial liens, private prosecutions and arrests if necessary.

Anonymous said...

We have the citation !
Make a not of it folks !

many thanks to the poster,

F***W*T TW****R said...

Loving it C.R. Posted on Digg.

Veronica said...

http://hereford.fmotl.com/ ... for the full SP.

I'll be posting any 'Hereford follow-ons' there, as well.

(http://birkenhead.fmotl.com for "Birkenhead" last March)

Michael Doherty's Private Prosecution against Met Police Commander's Secretary Tracey Murphy (Luton Crown Court 28/10/2011) Half-Time Result:

1. Murphy bailed until resumption on the afternoon of 24th November 2011.

2. Michael Doherty & supporters were ..... BRILLIANT!

Veronica said...

Oh ... btw ... here are a couple more links you might find useful:

http://contempt.fmotl.com ... to find out all about "Contempt of Court" (and how to dealt with it)

http://lien.fmotl.com ... to find out how to apply your Rightful & Lawful Remedy for anything ... via the Common Law Commercial Lien (it's the mechanism that forms the basis of a Mechanic's Lien - if you take your conveyance in to be fixed - and don't pay the bill - then the Mechanic can keep your conveyance until you do - or eventually sell it, in order to pay the debt)

Anonymous said...

So this bloke has been challenged for bankruptcy over a Bill that has been shown to be an overcharged Bill and also over some land he did not own (in feudal, freehold) or he did have in (in feudal, freehold) but it was just waste land I.E. no rent?

A motoring offence that has had no “absolute discharge” or “not guilty”?

And a business that was not a business so no such rates due?

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Anonymous,this all came about as a result of an exchange of information between what could be described as Constitutionalists and Freemen.

The Constitutionalists invoked Chapter 61 of Magna Carta in 1999 and 25 Barons duly formed a committee which instructed Elizabeth Saxe Coberg Gotha to comply with the contract known as declaration of rights and refuse Royal Assent to the Nice Treaty. She failed to comply and lawful rebellion became mandatory.
Constitutionalists in the British Constitution Group settled on Council Tax as a good way to distrain and distress The Crown. That is because it is a tax that requires individuals to pay it personally and also because collection is done by Councils and Courts colluding together in administrative proceedings that are forbidden by the Declaration of Rights. Challenges need test cases. Roger Hayes and Guy Taylor, amongst many others are making progress.
The BCG is holding a Constitutional Convention in London on 5th November this year. The aim is to continue the work of the Barons Committee and to warn all Crown Officials that the time has come for them to choose sides.

Regards, John Hurst.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Anonymous, regarding traffic offences, the issue is breach of traditional freedoms.

Fixed penalty Notices, for example, are contrary to Ch. 20 of Magna Carta 1215:

“ A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet saving always his "contentment"; and a merchant in the same way, saving his "merchandise"; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his "wainage" if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood...”.

In other words, personal circumstances are not taken into account and you do not get a Jury trial.

Regards, John Hurst.

Veronica said...

CORRECTION: The resumption of Michael Doherty .vs. Tracey Murphy (Luton) may be the 25th November (not the 24th as I said above). Contact Michael on cam4just@gmail.com for details, if you are thinking of attending.

(Coca-cola is, indeed, "the devil's spawn" - as someone above rightly said. Guy listens to me on many things, but he wasn't listening when I told him that. I'll tell him again. However, the point being made was that it was a flagrant breach of so-called "Court Rules". But then - as Guy told the Judge - IT WASN'T A COURT - because there was NO JURY. In the past, Guy has been threatened with "Contempt of Court", and his reaction was "It's NOT a Court! If you think at was, then BRING IT ON!". The CPS subsequently wrote him a letter saying they had declined from taking that matter any further. So, the CPS must know that "It wasn't a Court").

Anonymous said...

"In other words, personal circumstances are not taken into account and you do not get a Jury trial."

So if it’s a victimless crime and personal circumstances when known shows he/she has the ability to, they can then pay the made up fine? Strange legislation that and where does it say in the Magna Carta about made up victimless crimes are unlawful?

Anonymous said...

"Elizabeth Saxe Coberg Gotha to comply with the contract known as declaration of rights and refuse Royal Assent to the Nice Treaty. She failed to comply and lawful rebellion became mandatory."

How about all the other legislation that has Royal Assent and what about the larger crimes like usury as one example. Where we just don't pay any of the debts from thin air, and it’s all redistributed to the people and where is that explained in the Magna Carta and how it’s done? It can be proven that even over the last 80 years, as it always has been, that Royal Assent still takes place, which should be obvious that the bankers who are married into the not so Royal families many years ago dictate to the hireling politicians.

Anonymous said...

"That is because it is a tax that requires individuals to pay it personally and also because collection is done by Councils and Courts colluding together in administrative proceedings that are forbidden by the Declaration of Rights."

All taxes for whatever reason are just made up unlawful legislation aren’t they? Is that in the “Declaration of Rights”?

Anonymous said...

From what I can find of the Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights it’s a load of nonsense just as John Harris eventually said about the Magna Carta, re: “I know a lot about the Magna Carta it certainly wasn’t written for us.” John Harris - It's an illusion Part 5/5: 11 Feb 2009 youtube.
Even though it take five minutes to see that and has done a 180 on that and then says that Royal Assent no longer goes on, re:
John Harris - Undermining Democracy: 5 Aug 2011, youtube.

Anonymous said...

You’ll find out more about common Law from this link in 10 minutes.

Not fully correct in the Law and lots missing but that was the common law of the freeman; and free land for every family.


Mike Burke said...

Interesing that you find the Declaration of Rights nonsense. Most dont know that the Declaration of Rights even exists, let alone the Bill of Rights. There is so little to find of the Declaration on the internet that it impossible to form such a conclusion. I have photographs of both the original documents. I know of no other photographs that exist. They were taken in the House of Lords record office by a friend a few years ago and both documents were unrolled for the pics. One was about twelve feet long and the other about sixteen feet.
Following the Revolution of 1688, limitation was placed upon the Monarch by changes to the Coronation Oath and by the Declaration and Bill of Rights. This was an undoubted limitation upon the source of all governing power. Sir William Blackstone dedicated a short chapter of his commentaries to the ‘Duties of the King’ which he regarded as certain. One such duty or limitation was that the Declaration and Bill of Rights were to be followed and observed as the mode of government.
This revolutionary settlement declared all but Common Law Courts illegal and this constitutional principle was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250:
“There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.”

Anonymous said...

The right to bear arms
The right to petition the Sovereign
Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause
The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies
Habeas corpus is not to be denied
No person will be compelled to make loans to the King, and there will be no tax without the approval of Parliament
Soldiers and sailors will not be billeted on civilians
Government will not impose martial law during peacetime

Most interesting that people pretending to be against the Marxist/Corporate state crown, think that the nonsense above will seem convincing. How gullible would you have to be?

As for the Queen and Parliament, the nearest lampost would do for treason.

Veronica said...

I think Anonymous, above - who quotes John Harris - will find that John's ideas were always half-baked from the very start - due to his adoration of 'Royalty'. And subsequent disillusion when 'Royalty' let him down with a bump (as it would, of course).

If one starts on a different tack - as we did at FMOTL - then lots of options become very possible, and lots of possibilities open up. And this has what has led to the progress we all seem to be making.

Here's a link to one of them: http://law.fmotl.com/AdministrativeLaw.htm
… which is a general de-construction of all so-called 'Administrative Law', and thus supports the contentions of Mike Burke and John Hurst etc (see above).

(You can argue this out endlessly. However, I think you'll find that you'll always come back to YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT)

Veronica said...

1. Latest message from Michael Doherty.


For all those following the case of the Private Criminal Prosecution of the member of Metropolitan Police staff, TRACEY JANE MURPHY and wondering what happened at the hearing on FRIDAY 28th OCTOBER, I must apologise but I may not tell you. The judge has placed reporting restrictions on the last hearing. Whilst this is of course disappointing, we must and will adhere.

I am permitted to report that there will be a hearing on FRIDAY 25th of NOVEMBER at 2pm, you may wish to call and confirm nearer the time with Luton Court 'listings' office that the time hasn't changed.(01582 522000) The hearing on the 25/11/11 is the case arraignment where the defendant, TRACEY MURPHY enters her plea to the
indictment that she stands accused, namely perverting the course of justice.

I would like to formally extend my thanks to the masses of well wishers and those that took the
time to attend last Friday, there was a very good turnout.

My very best,

Michael Doherty

2. Halsbury's Laws of England:


(68Mb download)

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Whichever Anonymous you are, The Queen, for all her faults, is a lady.

Decapitation with a sword is the prescribed penalty.

Regards, John Hurst.

Anonymous said...

"Whichever Anonymous you are, The Queen, for all her faults, is a lady.

Decapitation with a sword is the prescribed penalty.

Regards, John Hurst."

Lol, no Lady just a woman, and evil dangerous to all around her, best she high tallied it.

Anonymous said...

"Michael Rivero said...

OccupyAMERICA is less anti-oligarchy than it is anti-criminality.

All this financial mess started in 1999 with the repeal of Glass-Steagal. Wall Street went on a gambling binge culminating in the mortgage-backed securities fraud; the biggest financial swindle in history.

Iceland had the right idea. They jailed their bankers and tossed out the government that helped the bakers screw the people, and Iceland's economy is on the way up.

Here in the US, we are $45 trillion in bailouts and buybacks with no end in site.

And THAT is the reason people are marching in the streets and building guillotines."

By the action of "we the people"

"The US Constitution was founded on Biblical Laws, but omitted some fine detail and also missed out some of the weightier Laws, such as Usury and how the “year of release” prevents the issuers of currency or credit taking advantage of it (by the action of the people not paying debts or interest, as it is only a means of exchange person to person, so no debt is owed to the issuers.) It also missed the Law on land distribution, so even farmers would not exchange money for land. The Law on “enemies foreign and domestic” was wrong, as only enemies domestic was needed and defence from invasion (to set an example for other nations to do likewise.)Some correction was attempted with Allodial title, but was quashed. Just to mention a few."

Anonymous said...


Mike Burke said...

This is another interesting link.


I submitted a 20 page sworn affidavit of evidence to the Her Majesty, as can be evidenced in the bundle of documents.

The method by which administrative law is forced onto us is ingenious and stems back to a novel idea used to pass the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Act 1919.

The method used was to have an ecclesiastical committee of 25 Privy Councillors, who were not responsible to Parliament, to advise to Her Majesty to pass laws but without a minister responsible for it and with Parliament being unable to debate or amend it. They can only accept or reject it. This method was by the laying documents on a table for 40 days, the current practice. It is a way of giving Royal Assent without any recourse to Parliament.

The following extract is from the debate, and note the meaning of the word “measure”. How often does one hear the words “My government will introduce a measure….!!!”


This body is to take what appears to me the singular step of advising that the Royal Assent be given to some measure of the Assembly before that measure has been laid before Parliament………There is, and there can be, nothing to provide that each measure should deal only with one single subject. The word "measure," according to the definition in subsection (5) of Clause 1, means— A legislative measure intended to receive the Royal Assent and to have effect as an Act of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of this Act"; and there is nothing to prevent it containing fifty or more clauses. Apparently there is no question of any power of amendment being left to Parliament; either to this House or to the other. When we consider how wide the powers given under the Bill are (that by subsection (6) of Clause 3)— A measure passed in accordance with this Act may relate to any matter concerning the Church of England, and may extend to the amendment or repeal in whole or in part of any Act of Parliament, including this Act, we shall see that the possibilities of the case are almost unlimited.

These ideas were mirrored into the Law Commission Act 1965, The Church of England Convocation Act 1965 and the Royal Assent Act 1967, amongst others.

From memory, law commissioners are not responsible to Parliament and there is mention of this in Halisbury’s on administrative law.

All this legislation are not Acts of Parliament, merely to have “effect” as an Act of Parliament.

This is why the words “Acts of Parliament agreed on” was taken out of the Coronation Oath sworn by Her Majesty at Her Majesty’s Coronation in 1953. The privy council removed words from an Act of Parliament by their own authority and without the sanction of Parliament by claiming precedent.

The significance of this was that the Privy Councillors could now advise Her Majesty to pass legislation that had not been sanctioned or debated in Parliament.

The reference to the step of advising Royal Assent before the measure has been put before Parliament can be seen in the debates on the CHURCH OF ENGLAND CONVOCATIONS BILL LordsHC Deb 17 December 1965 vol 722 cc1624-7 1624

I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Church of England Convocations Bill [Lords], has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

We are now operating under ecclesiastical law, this briefly gives some indication as to how they did it. The Law Commission set up under the 1965 Act mirrors the Ecclesiastical Committee of Privy Councillors.

It is they who decide legislation, not Parliament.

Anonymous said...

The sound file is dead

What has happened since ?