by

How The Commoners Will Topple The Regime

For legislation to be lawfully enacted a proposed Bill must be voted on and requires the consent of the Commons before it becomes an Act of Parliament. This is an ancient principle and is a fundamental principle of our English constitution.

The House of Commons consists of parliamentarians elected by ordinary commoners. Those elected are our representatives in Parliament and in that role their job is to settle grievances, but more importantly, it is to represent our consent to enact legislation.

We are governed by our consent and we vote for a representative and entrust that representative with that consent. It is only our consent via our vote that enables our representatives to vote on prospective legislation, there is no other lawful authority which gives them this great power. We are the highest authority in this regard.

If there was ever a great secret that they were keeping from us, then this is it.

Parliament are not sovereign and cannot lawfully create whatever legislation suits them regardless of the consequences to the People that they were chosen to represent. The reason being is that they need our consent to be chosen as representatives and if nobody votes for them they don’t go to parliament. They have to be chosen. More about this later.

Over the years many people have come to realise that the politicians in Parliament are now self serving and do not represent the Will of the People. No further comment on this is required.

The fact is that the majority of those people have chosen not to vote, so consequentially the turnouts at elections is generally very poor. This means that if for example there is a 60% turnout, 40% of English peoples Will is not represented in Parliament and they have not consented to future legislation being enacted. They have not taken part in the legislative process, which is the constitutional Right of all Englishmen. What they have essentially done is abstained from voting, thus accepting by their lack of performance any and all legislation that is enacted by their absence in the electoral process. We are governed by a minority chosen by a minority of the total electorate, which is easier to manipulate by those that will do so.

But, whether they know it or not, these “non-voters” hold the majority power because the 60% is divided between all of those standing for election and it is unlikely that 40% of those votes would go to one person or party. The non-voters are the only people that have the ability to topple the current regime and restore the English peoples Constitution to the state that it was originally intended.

The fundamental principle to remember here is that by law, ALL ballots must be counted and recorded, INCLUDING SPOILT BALLOTS.

By taking part in the electoral process you are exercising a constitutional Right and by spoiling your ballot with the words ‘SPOILT BALLOT, I DO NOT CONSENT’, you are officially and legitimately withdrawing the consent needed for legislation that affects you from being lawfully consented to in the voting process by those in Parliament.

As stated earlier Parliament is not sovereign, the People are, and if a parliament does not have the consent of the majority of the commoners (us), they cannot lawfully nor constitutionally enact or enforce any legislation binding on us.

It is this constitutional principle that is designed to keep us free from the arbitrary Will of tyranny.

So to conclude, the majority are the non-voters but by not voting are not taking part in the electoral process and so cannot effect any change. They are at the mercy of the regime and bound by the laws that they create. By law the regime DO need the consent of the majority to enact and enforce legislation, which is given when voting for a representative at elections. By law all ballots must be counted and recorded.

England belongs to all of the People, not the minority under the authority of usurped power. We are self governing by consent. It is this principle that is intended to keep us a free people.

SPOILT BALLOT, I DO NOT CONSENT.

by

A Message Against Hate – And The Right Attitude To Succeed

This is a quality presentation.

One thing that is always omitted from these kinds of these kinds of historical presentations is the Societal rules put in place by our forefathers that we have lived by that encourage Justice and Right, and punish what has been determined repugnant. I’m speaking here from the perspective of England but as the first Americans adopted our system of law and constitutional principles it applies to them also. Historically the thought processes and reasoning behind these rules, or Laws, have been the most fundamental in the shaping of our thinking, determining our behaviours toward people of our own groups and, people of other groups. They have been quite likely the biggest influence in determining who we are as a People.

Today the very same system of law has been usurped and used to psychologically neuter and turn our People into a shell of what we once were. Up is down, left is right, bad is good, women have penis’s, men can give birth, diversity is our strength, positive discrimination is not racism, etc, leaving us with the belief that we are without options to resist or fight back.

Even the vast majority of patriots and nationalists the one group of people who you would expect to understand, and who despite their talk of love of their country have no knowledge or understanding of what it is that the country of their forefathers has bequeathed to them (their birthright), and when authoritative evidence is provided are quite happy to deny it with a confident “yeah, but …”!

But, these Laws and their administration are themselves subject to a higher authority put in place by our wise forefathers as higher Law. Collectively that authority is a set of principles most of which are ancient in origin that, provide checks and balances to governing power and enshrine ancient Rights and liberties of our People. This is known as the Constitution of our Nation.

Parliament relies on the authority of the Constitution of our Nation to exist, specifically the Constitutional Statute named the Bill of Rights (1688). That is from where they draw their authority to Assemble. No where else does this authority exist.

WE can evidently prove our claim as true, whereas they cannot prove an alternate source of their authority.

This is good news for us because, for them to admit the existence of their authority being our Constitution, they by implication must also accept our Constitution, as a whole, in it’s entirety. The BoR not only authorises a Parliament to Assemble but also enshrines certain ancient principles that our fore-fathers thought prudent to include for OUR protection and the protection of future generations.

From our perspective this is massively encouraging because it offers real solutions for the People of our Nation under despotic governing power, solutions the knowledge of which have been all but drummed out of us over the centuries, leaving us impotent and subject to the doctrine of passive obedience.

To give an example of the true attitude of our Constitution, which should by Rights still be the attitude of all freedom loving Englishmen, I’ll leave you with a few word from one of the co-authors of the Bill of Rights, Lord John Somers.

“In all Disputes between Power and Liberty, Power must always be proved, but Liberty proves itself; the one being founded upon positive Law, the other upon the Law of Nature.”

“The same Reason that obliges People to submit to Governors and Magistrates when they govern according to the Laws and Constitution of the Country, and act for the Good of the Society, does as much oblige the People to oppose them, if they design their Ruin or destruction; it cannot be supposed that God, who has obliged Mankind to preserve their Lives, and consequently to use the Means that are necessary for that End, should require People to suffer themselves to be destroyed, or made Slaves, to gratify the Lust or Barbarity of any single Person, or a few who are by Nature their Equals, and only above them by being in an Office which the People erected for their own Convenience.”

“He that lets any Person whatsoever destroy him, contrary to Law, when it is in his Power to preserve his Life by defending himself, does tacitly consent to his own Death, which he is obliged to defend by the Law of Nature, and therefore is guilty of his own Blood, as well as he that destroys him; whereas by defending himself, there can be but one guilty of Blood, (which is the Invader) in which Defence, if he kills the other, his Blood lies at his own Door; by which it follows that Passive Obedience to unjust Violence is a sin, but resisting such Violence is no Sin, but the Duty of every Man. The first Duty which I owe is to God, the second to my self, in preserving my self, &c. the third is to my Parent and Sovereign, in obeying of them in all Things reasonable and lawful.”

Download: The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, And The Rights, Priviledges, and Properties Of The People.

“Recommended as proper to be kept in all Families, that their Childrens Children may know the Birth-right, Liberty and Property belonging to an English-man.”

by

Update: Charlie Staple Torture Case

For reference, the “old man” spoken of in the quoted text is an English Constitutionalist who goes by the alias English Bulldog. He was arrested at a protest where he had is shoulder dislocated by the police for the heinous crime of insulting a policeman with the word “knobhead”.

The old man is also an English Constitutionalist. Non violent. Thank you for tweeting about this. I am in the USA and preparing a case to be put before federal courts against the British regime. The case is about the Torture of another English constitutionalist Charles Staple. The police and crime act 1988 has a torture crime at Paragraph 134 with a state veto at paragraph 135 (illegal).

Under international law we are bringing the case in the USA (common law jurisdiction) – universal jurisdiction- and The Alien Tort Statute.

The last time this was used successfully was against Sir Vince Cable as the British did not want to bring him to trial for the murder and torture of Nigerian indigenous tribesmen (environmentalists).

If I wasn’t in the USA I’d be at the court case representing him. The English should STOP taking cases to court under EU law. Our English constitution is real and our ancestors fought and died for our FREEDOMS. The EU is communist. Globalism is Communism.

by

Liberty Tactics: Graham Moore Discusses The Birth Of The English Constitution Party

Graham Moore leader of the English Constitution Party chats with Lou Collins on her Liberty Tactics podcast. They discuss how the Party came to be and, the “unwillingness” (let’s call it), of the Electoral Commission, Companies House, and the Banks, to accept a Party that advocates for the Rights and Liberties of the English People, and what he had to do to convince them to re-think their decisions.

This is a very good interview in my opinion.

by

We Are Not Slaves Or Cattle, But Freeborn And Are Going To Stay That Way

You need to know that our English Constitution and Common Law are on our side.

It is an ancient principle and very well documented that in England no legislation can be enacted, and no tax imposed without the consent of the People.

You should brush up on it because the Courts will have no choice but to act within the bounds of our Constitution and by our Law. The Coronation Oath Act (1688/9) ensures that we are governed by our Laws and Customs which Charlie recently took a Solemn Oath to promise to do as the head of the Courts.

There is no lawful justification or legal precedence for forcing laws on the People that they do not consent to.

There is no evidence that the ruling power of today can rely on proving that the People have ever voluntarily given up their ancient Rights or on the Constitution of our People, our Nation. Everything that our forefathers set up by Statute and Law stands to this day.

We are not Slaves or Cattle, but Freeborn and are going to stay that way.

Understand that, this is where our power lies and, that our Constitution also supplies remedies for the removal of tyrannical power. But we are not at that point yet.

by

John Somers

John, Lord Somers or 1st Baron Somers was instrumental in drafting the Declaration of Rights and Bill of Rights (1688/9). He understood the Constitution and history of England perfectly.

What you’ve never heard of him?

John Somers who:

“In the secret councils of those who were planning the Glorious Revolution Somers took a leading part, and in the Convention Parliament was elected a member for Worcester. He was immediately appointed one of the managers for the Commons in the conferences between the houses, and in arguing the questions whether James II had left the throne vacant by abdication and whether the acts of the Convention Parliament were legal—that parliament having been summoned without the usual writs—he displayed great learning and legal subtlety. …”

and:

“Although some historians such as Macaulay have claimed Somers was made chairman of the committee which drew up the Declaration of Right, the committee’s report was delivered to the Commons by Treby (the chairman always delivered the report to the House). However Somers did play a leading part in drawing up the Declaration, which would be passed in Parliament and become known as the Bill of Rights 1689. …”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Somers,_1st_Baron_Somers

Written by him 20 years after the Bill of Rights, this book, more of a pamphlet really, explains it all.

Tip: If you want to download it click the ellipses icon (three dots in a circle) on the left and chose from the menu. It is also in my Library.

This book is a great read if you are an Englishman and want to understand the true nature of our English Constitution. It’s only 90 pages long and written, as you might appreciate, someone very knowledgeable and experienced in these matters.

From the front cover:

“Recommended as proper to be kept in all Families, that their Childrens Children may know the Birth-right, Liberty and Property belonging to an English-man.”

https://archive.org/details/judgmentwholeki00defogoog

by

Ever Get The Feeling That Something Is Not Quite Right?

Everyone has the feeling that something is not quite right with the World. You hear this time and time again and no one seems to be able to put their finger on precisely what it is.

Well I can tell you exactly what it is, and when you think about it it is clearly the case.

First and foremost at the root of our being we are the product of Nature, born both physically and psychologically free. We are born with free Will, the ability to reason, and a sense of Right and Wrong, so any attempts to subvert any of these causes internal mental stresses.

It especially causes confusions when you are born into a world where you are told that you are powerless to act other than by the authority of another.

But to understand that we have been lied to, that this situation in England is not new, and that the remedies were figured out and set in Constitution and Law, clears the fog and clears the mind.

You also often hear people say that We have the Power and that We are Sovereign and that if We Unite then there’s nothing that “they” can do about it. Or words to that effect.

People say all those words intuitively, they just know that it’s true.

But what they don’t realise is that this line of thinking is as old as the hills, and in the past battles were fought and Laws were made that made these principles the rules of our Nation, our English Constitution.

The primary principles governing our English Constitution are that the People are freeborn, self governing BY CONSENT, and that ancient Rights and Liberties are our birthright.

This is not the Constitution of the tyrant but of the People, and is why “they” deny it’s existence, subvert it when they can’t deny it, and even threaten to enact a “British Constitution” written by “their” hand, ffs! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

John Somers, one of the original drafters of the English Bill of Rights (1688/9)

“The same Reason that obliges People to submit to Governors and Magistrates when they govern according to the Laws and Constitution of the Country, and act for the Good of the Society, does as much oblige the People to oppose them, if they design their Ruin or destruction; it cannot be supposed that God, who has obliged Mankind to preserve their Lives, and consequently to use the Means that are necessary for that End, should require People to suffer themselves to be destroyed, or made Slaves, to gratify the Lust or Barbarity of any single Person, or a few who are by Nature their Equals, and only above them by being in an Office which the People erected for their own Convenience.” The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, And The Rights, Priviledges, and Properties Of The People (1710) (page 12) – John Somers

https://archive.org/details/judgmentwholeki00defogoog

by

The English Constitution Really Is, The Solution

“In all Disputes between Power and Liberty, Power must always be proved, but Liberty proves itself; the one being founded upon positive Law, the other upon the Law of Nature.” – The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, And The Rights, Priviledges, and Properties Of The People (1710) (page 11) – Lord Somers

Source: https://archive.org/details/judgmentwholeki00defogoog
Bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Somers,_1st_Baron_Somers

This Constitutional principle is an important one because in our initial state all men are considered born free, and it is only by consent or force that another born of the same initial state can hold Power over another.

In the case of England, for Parliament continue to be Constitutionally legitimate, Parliament must show by which authority it relies on that proves EXPRESSLY to THE AGGRIEVED PEOPLE that, the People freely and willingly gave up their ancient Common Law Right to consent to be bound and subject to legislation that they would not ordinarily freely and willingly consent to.

For the uninitiated in English Constitutional matters, this legal authority outlines ancient fundamental principles that characterise our elections for Parliamentary representation.

“This is the proper remedy which the plaintiff hath pursued, being supported by the grounds, reasons, and principles of the ancient common laws of England.

For first, which is to show the plaintiff hath A RIGHT to give his vote at the election of parliament burgesses for his borough.

It is very well known that always THE COMMONS of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, WITHOUT WHOSE CONSENT NO TAX CAN BE IMPOSED NOR LAW ENACTED, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so ESTABLISHED IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves AND THOSE WHO SENT THEM.” – Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby vs White & Others (1703): The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others (page3).

If no such proof is forthcoming then Parliament should either, admit their “mistake” and start to act within the limits of our Constitution, and make restitution, or, admit that they are acting as a tyrant and are willing to accept the consequences of the People, who WILL be acting within the limits and by the authority of our English Constitution and Common Law. Our birthright.

That is how this is going to play out because we have no choice but to force it.

“That Cause is just which defends the Laws; which protects the common Good; which preserves the State: And that Cause is unjust which violates the Laws; defends the Breakers of the Laws; protects the Subverters of the Constitution. That is just which does destroy tyrannical Government: That is unjust which abolish just Govenment.” – The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, And The Rights, Priviledges, and Properties Of The People (1710) (page 12) – Lord Somers

John Selden talking about duelling explains an important principle of our English Constitution.

“2. A Duke ought to fight with a Gentleman. The Reason is this : the Gentleman will say to the Duke ’tis True, you hold a higher Place in the State than I : there’s a great distance between you and me, but your Dignity does not Privilege you to do me an Injury ; as soon as ever you do me an Injury, you make yourself my equal ; and as you are my equal I challenge you ; and in sense the Duke is bound to Answer him. This will give you some Light to understand the Quarrel betwixt a Prince and his Subjects.

Though there be a vast Distance between him and them, and THEY ARE TO OBEY HIM, ACCORDING TO THEIR CONTRACT, YET HE HATH NO POWER TO DO THEM AN INJURY : then they think themselves as much bound to vindicate their Right, as they are to obey his Lawful Commands ; nor is there any other measure of Justice left upon Earth but Arms.” – The Table-Talk of John Selden, (page 48).
Source PDF: https://archive.org/details/tabletalkofjohns00seldiala/page/48/mode/2up
Bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Selden

by

The Essex Angels vs Colchester Council, Round Four

Round four, ding ding …

Once again YouTube won’t accept this type of comment so I leave it here in the hopes that one of the ladies will see it.

Honestly I’m sitting here grinning from ear to ear. The confidence that you ladies have and the way that you stand your ground is admirable beyond expression. It does appear that you are having a positive effect on their thinking so well done. 💯👍

But why does it take members of the public to do all of this research when it should be part of the job that they get paid to do?

Regarding what was said about paying council tax.

As I think I’ve mentioned here before, the council as with Parliament are voted in to represent the electorate’s consent to be subjected to laws, without which we cannot be bound. That is the proper relationship between governing power and the Commons (the People).

Last time I posted the common law authority Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126 that expressly stated the proper relationship.

“By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, …”

However it seems that these reports are only a summery of the case. I have since found the exact judgement as written by the judge in the case, Lord Chief Justice Holt no less, and I believe that it will strengthen your discussions with the council. This is that part that was summarised above. It is the third paragraph that you should mainly focus on. (The Commons means the Commoners, or the People, if you didn’t know.)

“This is the proper remedy which the plaintiff hath pursued, being supported by the grounds, reasons, and principles of the ancient common laws of England.

For first, which is to show the plaintiff hath a right to give his vote at the election of parliament burgesses for his borough.

It is very well known that always the Commons of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, without whose consent no tax can be imposed nor law enacted, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so established in the original constitution that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves and those who sent them.” – Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby vs White & Others (1703): The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others (page3).

No tax can be imposed nor law enacted without our consent. That is an ancient principle that goes back hundreds of years. That is the law. It is also a common law Right. Ssshusssh, (whispers) … we’re not supposed to know.

In all honesty no one would freely consent to paying taxes or having laws enacted that are detrimental to our Rights and Freedoms if they understood that they have the choice would they?

So would we consent to paying council tax when we know how the monies are going to be wasted in this way? Also would we consent knowing that those taxes are being used on projects and technologies that in essence will enslave us in all but name?

They should be reminded that they are our equals and only there to represent our interests (and ours alone) and we do not consent to any measures taken to our detriment, and neither would the rest of Colchester if they were aware of the implications.

by

A Little Gem Discovered That Strengthens The Rights and Liberties of The English

This is a copy of an email that I sent to Graham Moore leader of the English Constitution Party, and his reply.

It is in regards to the wording of the Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126 case and the original wording of the judgement as written by Lord Chief Justice John Holt.

The version I usually quote is as follows, but what I have discovered is way superior as authority in law, and for demonstrating the proper relationship between the People (the Commons) and Parliament.

“By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, …” – Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126 http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1738/87.pdf

Graham,

Just bought a book called The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others.

I believe that the wording of Ashby case that is online is a summery??

These are the words of John Holt from the Ashby case written in that book. What I find encouraging this case is that it explains in great detail everything about the vote and why we have it.

You’ll notice that he expressly mentions that along with laws, no tax can be imposed without consent. This is not mentioned in the summery version, so I think it’s a great authority to show and convince people.

I believe that this case represents the reason why all knowledge of our Constitution has been removed from public knowledge. I also think that if you didn’t, then maybe it would have been a great argument in Charles’ case for the voiding of the torture abstention clause, because who in their right mind would consent to Parliament enacting such a repugnant piece of legislation?

“This is the proper remedy which the plaintiff hath pursued, being supported by the grounds, reasons, and principles of the ancient common laws of England.

For first, which is to show the plaintiff hath a right to give his vote at the election of parliament burgesses for his borough.

It is very well known that always the Commons of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, without whose consent no tax can be imposed nor law enacted, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so established in the original constitution that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves and those who sent them.” – Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby vs White & Others: The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others (page 3).

Keith.

Keith

You are a star!

My explanation of that Judgement (Ashby v White 1703) and Knowledge of the constitution and reading law.

In the context of laws being made within the limitations of the constitution, “a plenary authority” refers to the complete or comprehensive power vested in a governing body to create laws. However, this authority is subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution. The constitution acts as a framework that sets out the fundamental principles, rights, and boundaries within which the legislative authority operates.

Taking the example of the English Bill of Rights 1688, this law codified and recorded common law rights into positive law through a statute. The Bill of Rights was enacted and established by a revolutionary convention parliament, and it holds a special status. A regular parliament does not possess the power to change or modify it. In effect, it is outside of it’s jurisdiction.

This illustrates that the English Bill of Rights 1688 places restrictions on the plenary authority of the legislature. It recognizes the authority of judges to invalidate primary legislation if it conflicts with the provisions outlined in the Bill of Rights. In this sense, the constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, acts as a limitation on the otherwise plenary authority of the parliament, ensuring that laws created by the legislature do not violate the established rights and principles enshrined in the constitution.

Therefore, the authority of judges to void primary legislation, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights 1688, serves as a safeguard against potential encroachments on individual rights and the constitutional framework by ensuring that laws are consistent with the limitations imposed by the constitution.

Kind Regards

Graham Moore

I have updated www.SpoiltBallot.org your book could come in handy at court

Kind Regards

Graham Moore

This was discussed on The Full English, Friday 23rd June 2023.

Starts at 17:50 minutes in. (… and no, I was never in the military, dunno where he got that from 😀 )

by

No Taxation Without Representation: An Important Update, And An Insincere Apology

In a previous article that I wrote entitled “No Taxation Without Representation” I posted a quote by Lord Chief Justice Holt that he wrote regarding a case that he delivered judgement on called Ashby v White (1703).

“By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, …” – Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126 http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1738/87.pdf

I would like to apologise because it would seem that these were not his words, but an interpretation or a summery.

He did not say the words:

“By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent.”

or any of the words as expressed above in his judgement.

This authority regarding consent is what I was relying on to make my point and I will not be using it again, …

Because he actually wrote this:

“This is the proper remedy which the plaintiff hath pursued, being supported by the grounds, reasons, and principles of the ancient common laws of England.

For first, which is to show the plaintiff hath a right to give his vote at the election of parliament burgesses for his borough.

It is very well known that always the Commons of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, without whose consent no tax can be imposed nor law enacted, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so established in the original constitution that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves and those who sent them.” – Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby vs White & Others: The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others (p3).

So there you have it expressly stated in plain English, no tax to be imposed nor law to be enacted without the consent of the People (the Commons). It just gets better eh.

Read the whole thing until you fully understand it. This is what has been removed from our education. This is the law, the Common Law, and what is meant by “laws” the Act of Settlement (1700) where it states that the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People, and it forms part of our English Constitution, the rules and principles that govern governing power.

Once again I do apologise for the confusion, haha. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

by

Windrush: New 50p Coin to Mark 75th Anniversary (of the theft of the English national identity) Released

Windrush: New 50p coin to mark 75th anniversary released

A new commemorative 50p coin marking the 75th anniversary of the arrival of HMT Empire Windrush in the UK has been released by the Royal Mint.

Designed by artist Valda Jackson, the coin depicts two black people standing against a backdrop of the Union Flag.

The coin pays tribute to the British Caribbean and Commonwealth citizens who arrived in the UK from 1948-1973.

Bristol-based Ms Jackson, whose parents came from Jamaica in the 60s, said it honours “our parents and their legacy”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65932266

Hmmm, 1948, what else of great significance happened in that year that the English people did not consent to?

Well 1stly, our English National identity was taken without our express consent. In legislating a replacement British identity for the English people we have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally robbed of a fundamental part of who we are.

British Nationality Act (1948)

“1 British nationality by virtue of citizenship (1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/enacted

What else? Oh yeah, 2ndly, the Right to be governed by your own people, removed, again without our express consent.

Act of Settlement (1700)

“[F2 That after the said Limitation shall take Effect as aforesaid no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be F3. . . made a Denizen (except such as [X1 are ] born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Councill or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civill 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 ]”

F2 Words repealed, so far as they relate to British subjects and citizens of Eire, by British Nationality Act 1948 (c. 56), Sch. 4 Pt. I
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/III

This in effect is what that coin represents to this Englishman. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

by

ChatGPT AI Defines Our Birthright

A while back I questioned the ChatGPT AI on a few things, one of them was the meaning of the phrase “Whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people”.

Despite it coming back with the source of the phrase being the Bill of Rights, which it does have the tendency to do now and then with sources, so you need to check everything yourself if using this for evidential research, it gave a pretty good interpretation.

ME: What is the modern interpretation of “Whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof”, as defined in the Act of Settlement 1700?

AI: The phrase “Whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof” is generally understood to mean that the laws of England belong to the people of England by virtue of their birth, and that they are not the property of the monarch or the government. This concept reflects the idea that the people of England have certain inherent rights and liberties that cannot be taken away by the government or any other entity.

The modern interpretation of this phrase is that it reflects an important principle of the English legal and constitutional system, namely that the law is made by the people and for the people. This principle is reflected in the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which holds that ultimate authority rests with the people, as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.

In summary, the phrase “whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof” is an important statement of principle that reflects the idea that the English legal and constitutional system is founded on the rights and liberties of the people. The modern interpretation of this phrase is that it reflects the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which holds that ultimate authority rests with the people of England.

by

No Taxation Without Representation

The complaint most commonly expressed today by the patriotic, traditionalist, and the ordinary man in the street electorate, in regards to monies paid by the government for globalist type activities, is that, it’s our money that’s paying for this.

That implies that the common man does not consent to where his taxes are being spent.

He is being taxed without proper Parliamentary representation of his consent.

The People as individuals have the Common Law Right to consent to laws made in Parliament which may encroach on their Constitutional, and Common Law Rights and Liberties.

This ancient principle of individual consent is enshrined in the Common Law, clearly and expressly stating that:

“By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, …” – Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126 http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1738/87.pdf

Note, elected by them for that purpose.

The principle of consent is an ancient one, and one which the Barons and others convinced King John agree to acknowledge and confirm by oath in the Great Charter:

“12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom except by the common council of our kingdom, …”

It is such an important constitutional principle that it is further enshrined in another of our Constitutional Statutes, the Bill of Rights (1688):

“4. That levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.”

This principle of consent is foundational for the ability to exercise Rights and Liberties, and this fact should be fully accepted and understood as true by the individual, you, because by the authority of Constitution, Statute, and the Common Law, it is your birthright.

This consent is expressed in the individuals electing of persons (representatives) to represent and express that consent in Parliament.

Constitutionally Parliament are authorised to Assemble as a representative body only. There is no provision for any alternative.

“WHEREAS the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the …”

and …

“And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid; do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare;”

(Note that elections were held to elect representatives of the People from the various communities in England who, themselves would form The Commons, who along with the Lords drafted the Declaration of Rights (1688). The Declaration and the BoR was therefore by the common consent of the Realm.)

The Laws which protect the individuals Rights and Liberties are the birthright of that individual:

“Section IV: The Laws and Statutes of the Realm confirmed.

And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right 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 said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do therefore further humbly pray, That all the laws and statutes of this Realm for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are by His Majesty, by and with the advice of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed accordingly.” – Act of Settlement (1700) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/IV

Today, we are taxed and yet we do not have genuine representation as directed by our English Constitution. Parliament have taken on the attitude of past tyrannical Kings by enacting legislation contrary to the Will and consent of, and repugnant to, the People.

Parliament asserts that it is sovereign and can enact any legislation that it wishes, but that principle is false.

Parliaments authority to assemble was authorised and styled by the consent of the electorate at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. By the consent of the electorate it was granted and expressed in the BoR that a representative Parliament would be created that would assemble for the redress of grievances of the People, and to maintain, strengthen, and preserve the Laws.

The electorate did not consent to or make provision for Parliament to enact legislation that does not require the consent of the People, and to date they never have. What Parliament have done is unconstitutional and violates the trust placed in them as our representatives.

It is accepted that some taxation may be necessary for the administration of a Society, but it MUST be by consent of the governed, and only for as long as necessary. For obvious reasons this has never been make clear to us, in fact that knowledge was removed from our education.

But now we know the truth, and now you know why and how the Laws of England are the birthright of the People.

Your birthright.

by

The Full English: Papers Served On The Met Police Commissioner And Four Officers

Graham Moore and Charlie of the English Constitution Party chat about their day out in London to serve the papers, Charlies case and the difficulties Common Lawyers (the People) face in initiating proceedings.

Graham goes through the background of the law regarding torture, how governing power have given themselves a veto, and the remedy.

Criminal Justice Act 1988, on the 300th anniversary of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 Her Majesty the Queen allowed a veto to be passed by parliament effectively nullifying the common law on torture, yes a veto that the Crown holds that can and does allow for the escalation of violence towards crown subjects.
Criminal Justice Act 1988, UK Public General Acts1988 c. 33 Part XI Torture para 134. (1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.

(6) A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

[Veto] 135 Requirement of Attorney General’s consent for prosecutions.
Proceedings for an offence under section 134 above shall not be begun—
(a) in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General. This part we say is unlawful and encourages the police to torture

This is in effect vetoing our common law rights against state torture of a subject of the realm.

by

Youtube And The Spoilt Ballot

I’m not sure exactly what to think about this.

I posted a comment below a Youtube video. I remembered about it a couple of days later and went to see if there was a reply. My comment had gone.

I always write comments and emails etc in a text editor then copy/paste where I want it, so I still had the comment on my computer.

I submitted it again. As usual the comment showed up, but as soon as I refreshed the page it was gone again. Obviously the channel owner hadn’t removed it so clearly this was down to Youtube.

Why is Youtube censoring this?

Does Youtube have some sort of policy about this kind of topic?

Or is it specifically because of what my reply implies?

This is what I replied to:

Do not rely on voting them out. Stand for position and remove them from the inside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5uProaEIg0&lc=UgwHvZcJcilcvbP-wdl4AaABAg (see first “Highlighted Comment”)

My reply …

Another option is spoilt ballots.

Our Right to vote for representation is absolute. That is a founding Constitutional principle of our Society. If there is no one willing to represent your Will you have no representation.

“By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, …” – Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126

You can voice that lack of representation while still exercising your Right to vote by spoiling your ballot, maybe with the words “Spoilt ballot: I do not consent.” or “No valid representation: I do not consent”.

Your consent is the key!

When you vote you are giving your consent to that representative to make rules or laws that may potentially diminish or even remove your Rights freedoms.

When you don’t vote, as some people wrongly advise (or knowingly advise wrongly!), that is abstention and seen as tacit agreement with the winning parties.

Spoilt ballots are counted!

A spoilt ballot is a protest vote that is very significant and very powerful.

The law dictates that representation must be voted for. Spoilt ballots indicate that the people do not consent with the representation on offer, especially if that lack of consent is made known. Therefore a spoilt ballot count higher than that of the offered representation automatically makes that representation illegitimate. It is not lawful and so can, AND WILL be challenged in court.

So you are right though in that if there is a valid representative vote for them, else spoil your ballot.