- Sedition means to overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order
- Sedition includes the subversion of the constitution/constitutional law and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority
- To deny/denounce the British constitution publicly is sedition which is a very serious crime.
On the 21st of June 2017, the self-purported sovereign delivered her newest speech. A speech about what changes would be happening in the near future regarding “Brexit”.
Here is just some of what was said:
“My Government will seek to maintain a deep and special partnership with European allies”
What kind of deep and special relationship will be maintained?
“convert EU law into UK law as we leave the EU”
Not only is this Sedition. This is institutionalized treason. The Declaration of Rights 1688 specifically says that “no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.” The Bill of Rights 1689 also repeats this and so does the Act of Supremacy 1534. Both still very valid. There is no lawful way to convert EU law into British law without continuing the deciet, fraud and treason.
“maintain the scope of devolved decision-making powers immediately after
This one very much speaks as loud as the rest of the Seditious statements. To maintain is to cause or enable something to continue. Did the British people not speak loudly enough about what they wanted? Or is voting right now actually a treasonable offence?
“the same rules and laws apply after exit”
This one definitely takes the whole cake of betrayal. Not only will “Brexit” do nothing, but we were NEVER legally part of the “eec” or what it later flourished into (the EU) and mostly of all if it is not apparent already, the Lisbon Treaty, like all illegal European treaties imposed on Britain, was a TRAP!
“Legislation will also be introduced to modernise the courts system”
- Real courts of law (Grand Juries) started dissapearing around 1848.
- Administrative courts which replaced Grand Juries under British constitutional law are illegal according to Halsbury’s Laws of England.
- Ever since the Crown was deposed in 2001 when the enforcement clause of Magna Carta 1215 (Article 61) came back into force since it was last used in 1688, the Crown and the so-called courts in “service” it administers authority to have had no legal standpoint whatsoever. They are in fact, and can/should be considered to be, foreign to British constitutional law.
All legislation, treaties (etc) since 1911, if tried in a Grand Jurie, would have the verdict of null and void. The 1911 Parliament act which illegaly distilled the prerogative by handing the supremacy of law-making to the House of Commons whereby laws made after this period were created under a tyrannical administration.
This constitutional safeguard should have never been illegaly changed. It was the second act of treason since the first in 1848.
How much more could you modernise these illegal courts? Will it be fully digital? Will the self-proclaimed “Judge” even be in the same room?
The British publich better wake up soon or this will become the most irreparable and treacherous trap in the 21st Centurary.