People do not understand it seems the true meaning of why we have “Law”. Then again people prate on about the supposed “Sovereignty” of Parliament. What is worse they claim the absolute “Sovereignty” of Parliament, while others wonder how much of the above it has in fact. The answer is simple enough- As much as the Common Law grants to it. Like any other institution it is subject to laws- good laws too- impermeable, timeless self-evident truths agreed over generations through common consent. Even though the “Monarch” is said to be the embodiment of “The Law” the individual upon the throne is subject to it. Indeed in her very coronation oath Elisabeth the Second swore to abide by the Laws of England….
Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering,
I am willing.
The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:
Archbishop ~ Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen ~ I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop ~ Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen ~ I will.
Archbishop ~ Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen ~ All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
Yet look at us today? In complete thrall to a foreign Dictatorship- a clearly Communist one too. When my friend and colleague Albert Burgess states that High Treason has been committed-He is actually making an understatement. In the last 41 years, enough evidence has been amassed to send the wicked deviants and traitors who led us here through fraud, to not only face execution under the Treason Laws, dating back to 1352 but enough too of those- the rest of us who knowing that such had been committed, we refused to thwart it and so became accomplices “After the fact” for the offence of misprision of Treason.
Daily we see out ancient constitution and laws suborned by persons and groups who have nothing but harmful intent towards us and our society. Then add to this the foul “legislation” to force through a change in the ancient natural laws of marriage itself and one may add genocide to the indictment of the accused.
The hangman in more sane happier times would have been very busy indeed. Technically the whole population is guilty of assisting treason, simply by failing to defend itself, against these appalling depredations.
The usual “bienpensants” to be found in the fast Islamising metropolises of the country will no doubt smile their most condescending grins at my words above but, what I say is fact….And a condescending smile or ignorance of the law, even feigned ignorance is no excuse to avoid the charges of guilt, even as an accessory.
Now we know why the Treason Acts themselves were altered, or the courts system changed in 1970 prior to the fraudulent “accession” to the European Soviet in 1972. I refer of course to the Administration if Justice Act 1971. Most importantly, the very basis of our Law, was altered as long ago as 1967, when the ancient definition of law itself was changed to repudiate the distinction between a felony and misdemeanour – a distinction that thankfully still exists in the United States and other lands of English legal ancestry.
The distinction is actually one of scale, in the traditions of equitable justice and to prevent abuse by the Executive of individuals hauled before a court. A Felony is serious like murder or robbery with violence, while a misdemeanour is a lesser offence to be dealt with on summary conviction with a light fine or telling off.
The 1967 Act “Europeanised” our laws and has led directly to the terrible state of illegal abuse we see today where British “Stasi” arrest an newsagent over a silly Mandela joke on the Internet, breakdown his doors, steal his computers and lock him up of 10 hours, or threaten priests like me for reporting harassment by queers, as evidence of a “homophobic hate crime”. This is the European “corpus juris”, that needs “Human Rights” to ensure the investigative barons or Kommissars, don’t go too far in punishing the accused.
It hasn’t stopped them has it exceeding those “human Rights” that supposedly “Absolute”, are actually conditional if one is a native European and not a favoured “community member” of the “elite ”– while English Common Law needed no “Human Rights” to enforce good law and legal protections like the right to be heard before a jury- a system that is being removed as I write?…Let me reprise my statement from my last but one article…
The historical lawyer Coke (circa 1628) stated that even though Parliament claimed “sovereignty” and sees itself able to pass any law however iniquitous, such a law would be immediately voided and “struck down” by English Common Law. In truth “Parliament” is far from “Sovereign” – It is only conditionally “sovereign” when it serves those who allow it “sovereignty”, or to rule on its behalf- The truly Sovereign- The British People, who allow or tolerate an elected Executive to rule for a limited 5 years. Cromwell instituted this system.
You all know my position of what constitutes law in our land. I will repeat a legal maxim drummed into me as a law student 40 years ago- “No law, no decision in any court, no instrument, no act, no intent, shall be lawful and bonding if arising from an unlawful or prohibited act or case, no matter how seemingly beneficial to society, group or person it may seem. It shall be struck down and voided and cannot therefore stand!” Coke agrees with me…..
So what does that inform the reader about the current state of “Parliament” and its clear proclivities in favour of perverts? A Parliament full of “gays” doesn’t have “Absolute Sovereignty” in any sense and genocidal laws, that seek to substitute anal intercourse as the legal standard of “marital consummation” are immoral and therefore illegal and void, at Common Law as Coke and I have stated and will continue to state.
No Parliament is “Sovereign” in fact, nor is the Queen, if they openly and wantonly defy The Law. Henry VIII executed Thomas More when he pointed this out and Charles 1st was rightly executed for attempting to use a foreign power to restore him. The Law as More pointed out, is there for all to obey for eternity….
It is this fact alone that separates Man from the beast…..A condition we seem hell bent on returning too, with even apes being given “Human Rights” as reported in the Press today….
By ~ Guy Leven-Torres ~ 10 December 2013