In 2009, the Coroners and Justice Act was imposed under the administration of Gordon Brown.
In Section 73, this Act purported to abolish the Common Law offences of Sedition, seditious libel, defamatory libel and obscene libel.
However, there are numerous reasons why this attempt to abolish the Common Law crime of Sedition, like when Tony Blair attempted to repeal the 1795 Treason Act, was not only seditious and illegal, but treasonable and thus, void.
One of the reasons that the Common Law (legem terrae) cannot be transgressed by Statute, is because the Common law is the will and Custom of the people and Statute law is the will of Parliament. Statute can and does give expression to Common Law, but that common law cannot be disregarded or changed by Parliament, nor can it be repealed. It can only be extended or “improved”, but it is open to much misuse.
As Sir Edward Coke rulled in 1610 whilst sitting on the post of Chief Justice in the Common Plea Court:
“[I]t appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void.”
[Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 114]
1. It WAS Sedition!
- Sedition at Common law means to overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. When in writing, it is seditious libel.
The Coroners Justice Act purported to abolish not only a vital piece of the legem terrae which protects constitutional law and we the people, but an offence which describes the actions which Ministers were engaged in when this Bill was drafted.
- Sedition includes the subversion of the constitution/constitutional law and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.
By the actions engaged in by Ministers, in order to do this, sedition was committed. The constitution of this country may only be altered by the complete will of the population. Amendment and improvement may be included, or to “make better of” in other words. To remove, dismantle or destroy established law/constitutional authority or any part of the peoples constitution, and in this case, without the full will of the total population actively authorising such in a plebiscite, would be an act of treason, contrary to the rulling of R v Thistlewood in 1820.
- To deny/denounce the British constitution publicly is the Common Law crime of sedition, which is a very serious crime and is punishable with life imprisonment and total asset stripping.
2. The Act is Treasonable.
The reason for this is because in 1911, Parliament unlawfully pushed through the Parliament Act which provided the illegal theft of the Royal Prerogative. This meant that The House of Lords were not able to reject bad law from being passed by Parliament.
In 1910, the Asquith administration attempted to put through a Finance Bill, however, the Lords rejected the bill because it imposed too high a tax burden on the Subject. Asquith then went to the Lords and told them he was putting forward a Bill which would limit their authority to reject all future Bills. If they did not pass this Bill, he Proposed to put 500 new Peers into the Lords and they would vote for the closure of the Lords. The Lords gave their consent to the 1911 Parliament Act under duress.
The Bill was also presented to King Edward VII who refused the Royal Assent on the grounds that it removed a protection given to the Subject and was unconstitutional.
King Edward told Asquith he would have to go to the country. Shortly after this, the King died. King George the V then came to the Throne but he was told by a government minister that, as King he kept all his prerogatives. He could not use any of the Royal Prerogative without the backing of a government minister. This ministerial advice has no basis in our constitutional law and amounts to a clear act of treason. Since it imagines the death of the King as a Sovereign King it is an act of High Treason under the terms of the 1351 Treason Act.
Meanwhile, Asquith went around the country telling every one about the Lords refusing the consent to a Bill. He told the public this Bill would give them a pension, but failed to mention the tax burden it would impose upon them.
In one fell swoop Asquith had neutered the power of the Lords to protect the subject from bad law, and removed the right of the Sovereigns to refuse the Royal Assent to a Bill.
Asquith was a Fabian. We believe the undeclared policy of the Fabians was the destruction of the Constitution and our way of life. Consequently Asquith’s actions amounted to a clear Act of Sedition which at this level, amounts to High Treason.
3. The Coroners Justice Act was created under foreign directives. That’s illegal under constitutional law.
Here’s something that most people do not take into account when speaking of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Foreign rule is 100% illegal in Britain, and has been all this time.
For example, not only is there evidence available, (put togeather by us) some of which was kept locked away for 30 years, which irrefutably demonstrates that there was a large amount of manipulation and deciet involved with the United Kingdom’s entry to the-then EEC (See: FCO 30/1048 and the Kilmuir Letter in above link), it is actually highly illegal under the British constitutional law.
“The king,” says Bracton (famous for his Great Constitutional Works), who wrote under Henry III ( l. 1. c. 8.), “ought not to be subject to man, but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the king. Let the king therefore render to the law, what the law has invested in him with regard to others; dominion, and power: for he is not truly king, where will and pleasure rules, and not the law.”
The Declaration of Rights which spawned the Revolution Settlement containing both the Claim and Bill of Right(s) in 1689 states:
“all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm . . . no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever.”
The Act of Settlement 1700 also reinforces this sentiment by enacting that “no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him.”
The 37th of the 39 Articles of Religion passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, which still have legal force, and which can be seen in any book of common prayer, also says that “The Queen’s Majesty … is not, and ought not to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.” Yet the treasonous Maastricht Treaty imposed an all embracing and compulsory EU citizenship on the Queen. She is no longer sovereign, and hasn’t been since 1992.
It is clear that the UK Parliament may do many things but it cannot surrender its governing powers to any foreign source of power unless it has been defeated in war.
As the Coroners Justice Act was created under foreign directives, it is illegal. But it goes even further…
4. The Act is VOID.
In 2001, the Crown and all devolved authority was legitimately deposed by a constitutional barons’ committee, which, by their invocation of Article 61, rendered all so-called “laws” made after the 23rd of March that year, completely null and void. It was even reported on by The Telegraph at the time covering on the 7th of February and on the 23rd of March.
Subsequently, Article 61 (or The Enforcement Clause) calls for all the people to UNITE under the Constitution and restore their Laws and Customs. It was last used in 1688 during the start of the Glorious Revolution.
Enforcement, that is, relies entirely in the peoples hands today, sixteen years later. Will the people wake up?
Sedition: Does it still exist?
The answer is YES. To say it doesn’t exist IS Seditious.