/** Tools */

08 August 2005

No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority

More arrests took place outside Parliament yesterday as about 100 people gathered to protest against the Serious Organised Crime And Police Act (or, SOCrAP Act - does nobody ever take into account the creative acronym-antagonism potential of these silly acts when naming them, or is the notion of Thoughtcrime not that refined yet?)

Parts of the act came into force last month and ban demonstrations within a half-mile radius of Parliament unless prior permission is obtained from police a week in advance.

The arrests yesterday were in addition to those that occurred last Monday during the Stop The War Coalition's defence of the freedom to assemble which others joined in opposition of SOCrAP [BBC | Guardian | Bloggerheads].

As with Monday's protest, the police were once again acting as their own propaganda machine, the BBC noting, "officers had been handing out leaflets warning demonstrators that they were in violation of the law." Apart from loving the inherent ambiguity of the BBC's observation, The Antagonist can only wonder if these were copies of the same law-breaking leaflets that the police had been handing out at Monday's demonstration.

Speaking yesterday about the protests, long time protestor Brian Haw, whose four-year Parliament vigil predates the SOCrAP Act that was, at least in part, designed to oust Mr Haw's presence from outside Parliament, said:
I'm the last of the Mohicans, I'm the last of the Great British.

My fellow compatriots have been denied a voice. I'm outraged by this, I'm outraged that the police are busy chasing old ladies with peace signs down Whitehall when there are bombs going off in London.

Under the terms of the act, assembling within the designated protest zone is now a criminal offence and must first be sanctioned by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at least six days in advance of the protest or, if not "reasonably practicable", 24 hours in advance. Failure to do so will result in any 'unauthorised' people assembling in the protest zone facing the prospect of removal, arrest or a fine of £1,000, none which are vaguely free at all.

The Parliamentary Beef

Armed only with little more information than outlined above, The Antagonist set about investigating further the nature and implications of SOCrAP, using as a basis for proceeding only the assertion of the European Court for Human Rights that 'freedom of assembly' is a:
fundamental right in a democracy and || is one of the foundations of such a society

Facts are always a good starting point, as keen readers of The Antagonist will have noted, so first up was a glance at a copy of the act (just 225 pages long) in conjunction with a burning desire to help the rest of us think a little more rationally about the country and the world which a largely unaccountable handful of people are creating around us without appropriate consultation or redress.

That doing so might also antagonise those who think nothing of removing our fundamental liberties is merely an added bonus.

The front page of the SOCrAP Act proudly proclaims:

Mr Secretary Blunkett has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
"In my view the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."

Immediately, SOCrAP is nonsense. As far as a blind man can see, SOCrAP and human rights are compatible. Little more really needs to be said but The Antagonist will continue undeterred.

Immediately, we have the opinion of one person - deficient to the tune of at least 20% in the human sense stakes - versus the opinion of at least several hundred people over the last week and many millions more if you account for other high profile events such as the march in opposition to the Iraq war.

That there already exist several million people in direct opposition to one who is meant to represent the views of those people seems a tad undemocratic. That this opposition of millions was known to exist way in advance of SOCRaP makes the imposition of these laws so undemocratic that it makes a mockery of the notion of democracy.

And we haven't even got past the front page of the SOCrAP Act yet!

A cursory glance at the contents and opening definitions of terms and criteria and the immediate conclusion is, "They can really fuck you up!" Further study does nothing to dispel this sentiment.

Section 123 (all together now, "One, two, three - we reclaim our liberty!"), and it's accompaniment, Section 124 ("One, two, four - is that Special Branch at the door?") of the SOCrAP Act are the ones that pertain to the eradication of civil liberties in the vicinity of the people's Parliament, and rather further too which, cunningly, includes arbitrarily sized and defined areas, created by the Home Secretary, outside of SOCrAP, at a whim.

We know Mr ex-Secretary Blunkett can't see us, but with the acute sense of hearing that develops with the loss of other senses, he must be able to hear us. At the very least the SOCrAP Act means we're all going to have to shout a little louder than before to make ourselves heard.

So be it.

Manipulating the Bounds of Acceptable Public Debate

Already there exist two distinct sides to the debate that will be allowed to perpetuate themselves in the media via sensationalist tabloid headlines, letters pages of the broadsheets and, of course, bloggers everywhere who, in the humble opinion of The Antagonist - barring very few notable exceptions - do little more than regurgitate the same myths as the 'old media' from which they source their information. While this debate goes some way to raising awareness, irrespective of people's opinions, none of it un-legislates the laws that have been passed, nor does it affect any new laws which are in the pipeline and integral to, but entirely external from, SOCrAP's scope.

The self-defeating nature of the ongoing diatribes that arise from maintaining two distinct sides of permanently contradictory debate, which apparently form the consensus of public opinion and which do nothing to change anything very much, is precisely why we're still allowed to have these debates.

On one side of the argument are the government who will claim, "we haven't removed the right to assemble, you just have to have permission to be, er, free to assemble", and on the other side are the people - over 99% of the country, lest we forget the staggering percentage of the population we comprise, most of whom aren't criminals or terrorists - upon whom the government has introduced additional legal impositions that further restrict the foundations of democracy.

It is worth remembering that the scope of SOCRaP is far greater than that of merely removing the right to assemble outside Parliament and, as such, loss of the rights to assemble must be understood within the context of a considerably larger, far more restrictive and invasive framework than the current noise in relation to milling about outside Parliament implies.

So what are the people to do about a demonstrably out-of-control British government, headed by a compulsive, evasive liar, that is rabidly and rapidly instituting laws that have already torn our essential liberties from us and which lay the foundations for police-state enforcement of laws against a public that is almost entirely innocent?

The Legitimisation of Creative Dissent

The Antagonist has long been of the belief that the ultimate winning move in any game situation is to not play the game. In this manner the framework of rules that dictate the way in which 'the game' is played are then rendered null and void because 'the game' is deficient in the required participants for it to function by its own rules.

The introduction of SOCRaP is perfectly in keeping with other governments around the world whose actions - both domestic and international - are dictated by the ongoing imposition of the new rules of law that underlie what some call a New World Order. These new rules of the game cleverly outline how none of us has any rights left to fight for the rights that those same rules remove.

Through the imposition of the SOCrAP, the government have shown their hand and stated categorically that the choice for the British Public, whether they are yet aware of it or not, is now one between that of 'choosing' to blindly follow imposed rules and regulations under the ever-increasingly watchful eyes of government, or that of 'choosing' to give up even more essential liberties than the rules, its watchers and its enforcers have already removed. That you might be one of 60 million or so who might have some objection to the subjective, totalitarian imposition of such rules in the name of 'democracy' is of no consequence to the rule makers.

This, you understand, is one of the rules of the game of law.

The game of law is fundamentally no different to any other game that we might choose to play only, somewhere along the line, we have forgotten that we have a choice over which games we play. What distinguishes the game of law from other games we might actively choose to participate in is the unnatural right assumed by those who dictate the rules that non-participation in the game is an offence punishable by the further removal of liberty and life. Whether or not the imposed rules are just, humane, or in the best interests of the general public is of no consequence to the rule makers.

This, you understand, is another of the rules of the game of law.

Understand too that it is a game. The law is nothing more than the power-play of the few in a bid to ensure the continued control of the many. At every turn, the rules of law are dictated by whatever lowest common denominator threat can be easily projected as the greatest challenge to established bases of power, control and the illusion of security. These lowest common denominators by which we all allow ourselves to be ruled are the very things from which practically 100% of us are so far removed that we assume the restrictions imposed by law on the entire population of the country somehow exclude us. If these mistaken beliefs are allowed to continue, one day it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it.

The government has brought the battle for freedom to all of us - live, direct, in full Technicolor multimedia - all backed by a soon to be armed police force whose mission is to ensure we all play by their rules whether we agree with them or not. The stakes in this game are higher than ever and opposition to these new rules could get you killed. At the very least it will result in the removal of considerably greater portions of your liberty than before. Jean Charles de Menezes would probably explain further the finer details of these new stakes but British government enforcers removed his life and his ability to do so from him, and the rest of us, on the morning of 22 July.

de Menezes life was taken with full backing of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, Prime Minister Tony Blair, the cabinet, and every politician in the house of democratically elected 'representatives' who didn't dare to voice any opposition to the act prior to its legislation. That de Menezes life was taken in the heat of a moment by plain-clothes, armed enforcers with full government complicity, in full compliance and accordance with the new rules of the police state that were laid down in SOCrAP, should serve as warning to us all.

The government and their new rules, along with the implicit dictats that the-few have issued to the increasingly militarised and armed forces that once served to protect the general population, and who are now armed against us, have affirmed clearly the government commitment to the oppression of every single one of us, irrespective of race, colour or creed and whether we know it, feel it, or not.

In time, and without considerable change, we will all come to know and all feel this oppression far sooner than we might imagine. 'We' includes you, dear reader, if you happen to be resident in the UK and are not exempt from the imposed laws of the land in which you live. If you happen to have sufficient conscience that you have felt moved in the past to voice your opinion on matters of politics, you have just lost the right to exercise that conscience without the approval of the state.

The war on almost mythical terror, led with no sense of irony, by those responsible for the greatest acts of actual terror the world has ever seen serves no greater purpose than to reinforce the power of nightmares in all of us. The basis for these nightmares is little more than the terror we have inflicted on others but it serves the purpose of allowing the authorities to impose new laws on an almost entirely innocent population. Better still, it then allows quick and easy suppression of any internal dissent that the new laws might have caused.

As with all nightmares, the dreamers eventually wake up to the fact that the hideous realities which occupied their minds as they slept were nothing more than a bad dream. The increased availability of information, knowledge and wisdom about the way in which the world is run is causing more and more people to wake up to their nightmares. Understand that it is this process of awakening, not the perceived threat of terrorists, that is driving the imposition of ever more restrictive laws.

No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority

Lysander Spooner wrote in his treatise, "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority":
Whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.:
  1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called) puts into its hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will.

  2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future.

  3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so?

  4. If a man wants "protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will.

  5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.

  6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.

Lysander Spooner
No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority

Six simple rules by which you can then go on to understand any action taken by any government. Written at the tail end of the 1860s, Spooner outlined what governments throughout history have continued to demonstrate, that once responsibility and funds are placed into the hands of government, no second thought is given to placing swords to be used against the people into those hands.

Recently we also learned that the most deadly of these swords - that of the legislated right to take life - will be used if they don't think we are following their rules sufficiently well. It matters not if we are innocent for we might after all have been - as they will repeatedly tell us in their indefensible-defense of murder - some sort of terrorist.

The murder by the British authorities of an innocent Brazilian who had the misfortune to be going about his daily business in the eye of a storm of political agendas so confused that - superficially at least - nobody had any idea what was going on serves as testament to the verity of Spooner's words and confirmation to the rest of us that the relationship between the people and government has only changed in 150 years with respect of the increased number and efficiency of the manifold swords deployed by governments against the people they claim to serve.

Jean Charles de Menezes was given no choice about whether he played by the new rules of the game in the split second of misguided judgements on all fronts that he was not allowed to survive. Is this the sort of country in which you want to live?

The general public have a choice about whether or not they participate in this game of law that men with guns will seek to enforce in a crazy world of fear and terror that most of us would rather not live in. The enforcers may have the weapons backed by laws that give them permission to use those weapons against us at will, but we have the critical mass of people without which no government can exist.

The implied threat of further loss of liberty issued by those that have already legislated against any rights to that liberty is just that, an implied threat; you cannot lose again that which has already been lost. Of course, the government can lock-up a few dissenters but when sufficient numbers of people have opted out of rules with which they don't agree, either through choice, or further government sanctioned restrictions, the very governments whose first mistake was to assume this unnatural order of control cease to exist also.

Safe in this knowledge, and until you are faced with law enforcement officials pointing guns at your head and shouting, "Here are the new rules, breach them or die!", rest assured that there is always a choice.

If not you, who? If not now, when?

When they tell you we must fight a war against terror, ask them which war has ever been fought without the use of terror.

When they you tell you it is the terrorists taking away our freedoms, ask them who passes the laws that remove our freedoms.

When they tell you it is about defending our fundamental liberties, ask them to meet you outside Parliament.


moss said...

Great blog. Great Piece :)
A very interesting artilve which opens my eyes far wider than before.

Dunno how I got here ... but I'm glad I stopped by!


The Antagonist said...

Thanks Moss, I dunno how you get here either (looking for protest info maybe?) but I'm glad that you stopped by, and that you enjoyed the article and blog enough to say so! Hope to see you again soon!

Anonymous said...

To the antagonist i have asked this question of a number so called
anti E.U mps,so far none have responed apart from michael ancram who said he would look into it, i am surprised of the lack of interest to this act as it is the only law that will kill the EU dead
and put the traitors on trial good luck and keep up the work reguards
all i want to know is when has the bill of rights been changed or amended the
amswer never, as to do so would an act of high treason and if anybody has signed any document or charter to change our status as a sovereign power it would be an act of high treason under the
naval act and the bill of rights of 1689 and if any police officer or local council officer disputes
this law then they are also guilty of treason and they should be sent prison without trial.the reason
i say this is since sixtys we have had an organization called common purpose this is suposed to be a
charity so why does our government and the eu fund it, why are we paying our taxes for this so called charity to train selected people from every police force and council in the uk and charge between three and nine thousand pounds a time,thats our money so what do about it, my awnser that you
can ask every council police and governmet department to supply this information under F.O.I act.
then we can find who the traitors are,and we can put them into navel courts so the can legally hanged
for treason.please look up u/gov site and the bill of rights i think somebody has been trying to edit it or at least trying hide the bits that they dont want you to see,but if you all law here is it in full

Avalon Home Document
Collections Ancient
4000bce - 399 Medieval
400 - 1399 15th Century
1400 - 1499 16th Century
1500 - 1599 17th Century
1600 - 1699 18th Century
1700 - 1799 19th Century
1800 - 1899 20th Century
1900 - 1999 21st Century
2000 -

English Bill of Rights 1689
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
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 thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

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

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

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;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare 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. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

17th Century Page Constitution Page

Avalon Home Document
Collections Ancient
4000bce - 399 Medieval
400 - 1399 15th Century
1400 - 1499 16th Century
1500 - 1599 17th Century
1600 - 1699 18th Century
1700 - 1799 19th Century
1800 - 1899 20th Century
1900 - 1999 21st Century
2000 -

© 2008 Lillian Goldman Law Library
127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.
Avalon Statement of PurposeContact UsYale Law LibraryUniversity LibraryYale Law SchoolSearch MorrisSearch Orbis
names to look on google 1 albert burges 2 brian gerrish 3 David Noakes 4 John Harris

This is what david noakes has to say and i couldent agree more well done that wise man there should be like him telling as it is,to stop the insidious actions carried by common porpose the house of lords labour conservative and worst of all liberal party for not voting on the lisbon act of treason
but we will not forget.

Fifty reasons to leave the EU

We joined the EU (EEC) in 1972. After 36 years inside we now know:

1. The European Union’s six constitutional treaties build a dictatorship.

2. The EU has the laws of a police state - enforced after the Lisbon Treaty, from 1st January 2009.

3. The EU's 120,000 regulations will bring us a soviet style command economy and abject poverty.

4. Unelected EU dictators will control the nuclear weapons of former nations of Britain and France.

5. The EU 's six treaties will compel us to hand over all our armed forces to the EU.

6. Our armed forces and police have been told they will swear a new oath to the EU, or be fired.

7. The EU’s 120,000 regulations will rigidly control our personal lives - more than any nation in history.

8. EU regulations now cost us £100 billion a year. (Better Regulation Commission annual report 2005)

9. When enforced, those regulations will destroy most of our 4.5 million small businesses.

10. Up to 13.5 million will be unemployed after EU regulations close small businesses.

11. The 120,000 regulations will make us subject to continual arrest (SOCPA 2005).

12. There are now 3,095 "Crimes against the EU state" on the British statute book.

13. We will be stopped on the street for continual checks on our EU ID cards after 2009.

14. The EU’s Constitutional treaties replaced the British Constitution on 1st January 2009.

15. The EU treaties will close our Westminster Parliament after its 5 years expire on 5th May 2010.

16. The EU's Road Pricing and then ID chips will keep the state informed of our exact position.

17. Huge taxes/fines by the EU's Road Pricing, Congestion Charging and global warming policies.

18. The EU Regionalisation Plan will abolish England and our 48 counties in favour of 9 EU regions.

19. The 9 EU regions will report direct to Brussels, not to Westminster, which will be defunct.

20. The EU Regionalisation Plan will abolish our 19,579 councillors.

23. British common law mainly replaced by EU corpus Juris by 1992. Government is now above the law.

21. Police have shot 30 innocent people dead since 1992 and have not been successfully prosecuted.

22. 1,100 deaths in police custody since 1992 and no successful prosecutions.

24. Police Shoot to Kill policy now in force; illegal under British common law, OK under EU corpus juris.

25. EU conceived in Germany from 22nd June 1940 as the EEC - speech by Hermann Goering.

26. First EEC conference Berlin University 1942, 13 nation summit Berlin 1943 run by von Ribbentrop

27. After fall of Germany, the Germans switched the EU from a Nazi to a communist basis in1946.

28. Hitler's Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst Intelligence Department (DVD) still controls EU development.

29. Edward Heath, Geoffrey Rippon, Roy Jenkins recruited by the DVD in 1958 as saboteurs.

30. DVD has arranged finance to put pro-EU ownerships into British newspaper groups.

31. EU has been sabotaging Britain with German Frankfurt School techniques since the 1950's.

33. The EU's main subversive organisation in Britain, Common Purpose, was run from the ODPM.

34. The EU's Common Purpose has trained 30,000 local leaders for "the post democratic era"

35. Common Purpose has been inside the NHS for 20 years, controls it, and has wrecked it.

36. Common Purpose has 400 staff inside the BBC censoring out anti-EU news and and current affairs.

37. Common Purpose has staff in hundreds of local newspapers censoring out anti-EU news

38. Common Purpose is transferring power from councillors to the unelected council executives.

39. Common Purpose has built the EU gravy trains inside local and national government.

40. Common Purpose has built most of Britain's 8,500 quangos costing us £167 billion pa

41. These quangos bribe compliant, pro EU local officials and businessmen with £150,000+ salaries.

42. EU quangos are the reason your council tax is going through the roof.

43. The EU is utterly corrupt and cannot account for 95% of its expenditure (yes, ninety five % lost)

44. The EU has over 200,000 offshore bank accounts from which it pays bribes.

45. We now lose £45 billion a year trading with the EU. Outside, we had an even balance of payments.

46. EU Constitution is similar to the Soviet. And EU Commissioners similar to Soviet Politburo members.

47. The EU parliament is a sham with no power - just like the old Soviet parliament.

48. The leadership of the Conservative Party has been controlled by the EU since the 1960's.

49. The Labour and Lib Dem leaderships EU controlled for 20 years - that's why your vote doesn't count.

50. The Amsterdam Treaty 1997 gave the EU control of our immigration, now running at 2.6 million pa.

51. Our infrastructure can't cope with the 10 million immigrants the EU has let in since 1997.

52. 380,000 highly qualified British emigrate annually to escape from the EU and its overcrowding.

You can stop the EU with the campaigns at http://eutruth.org.uk/campaigns.pdf. You can do it.

David Noakes. http://eutruth.org.uk 07974 437 097

albert bergess is an ex policeman who has found some intresting facts about english law and will
open your eyes to the con that has been going on since 1967 look please google it then go to local
police station and ask for the traitors to be put on trial,they will be a little confused at first untill the understand what you asking is for the law of the land to be upheld under the bill of rights