- King John attempted to surrender England to the Pope in 1213. The Roman Church wanted an annual payment of 1000 marks (£666).
- The costs which the Roman Church wished to recieve from England were never payed because there can be no foreign authority in Britain under constitutional law to demand such a payment.
Writing in December, 1960, Lord Kilmuir spoke on this issue, saying that:
“King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings [and Queens] were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.”
The peoples Declaration of Rights 1688 which spawned the Revolution Settlement containing both the Claim and Bill of Right(s) in 1689, resonating words within the Act of Supremacy 1534, states that:
“all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm . . . no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm . . . but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever”
The 37th of the 39 Articles of Religion passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, which still have legal force, and which can be seen in any book of common prayer (which the Monarch kisses at her coronation), says:
“The Queen’s Majesty … is not, and ought not to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.”
Similarly, this sentiment is also repeated and reinforced within the Act of Settlement 1701 which declares that:
“no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him.”
“The king,” says Bracton, who wrote under Henry III ( l. 1. c. 8.), “ought not to be subject to man, but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the king. Let the king therefore render to the law, what the law has invested in him with regard to others; dominion, and power: for he is not truly king, where will and pleasure rules, and not the law.”
Not only was the United Kingdom never in the supposed “common market” or the EU to begin with at constitutional law, the people were also tricked into believeing this so-called ‘trade deal’ would not effect the sovereignty of the Britain.
This is evidenced by two documents which were kept HIDDEN AWAY for 30 years:
Heath knew that the supposed trade deal would turn into a foreign government beyond the control of the British people and their Parliament.
These files are documents which, obtained via the 30-year rule, meticulously document the Heath administrations Treason, Sedition and Fraud which were used to admit us to the “common market” which later flourished into the European “Union.”
The Heath Administration were fully aware at the time that there would be a “Loss of Sovereignty” which was also admitted in the Kilmuir letter. Even the Bill which took us into the EEC, said:
“there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty…”.
This mantra, in one form or another, was repeated throughout the campaign and the debates in Parliament. So we see a Government White Paper which attempted to bury the truth. Nothing changes as we shall see.
‘They’, the (un)establishment, had a stunningly accurate picture of the EU, which never was the EEC (an Economic Community), expecting Britain to be abolished after the turn of the century.
The authors of the evidence within FCO 30/1048, all civil servants and ministers, who are all very pro EU. Their intent is clearly to conceal the loss of sovereignty. But they understood perfectly it would all be abolished.
In public Heath’s government all lied the treaty would not affect our sovereignty. This includes Douglas Hurd, still an active senior Conservative, who is also both a liar and a traitor. At a point the facts were put to him at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool. However he was reassuring that his connections in the legal profession would ensure he was never convicted.
The people never voted for a foreign government.
The ‘Devorce Bill’
Ultimately, the truth is that we were never under the control of a foreign potentate to begin with. However this is not the only reason that British people owe absolutely nothing to the EU.
Another reason why the British people owe nothing is not only because no foreign power may have jurisdiction, but because on the 23rd of March, 2001, the Crown including all devolved authority was deposed from all authority by a constitutional committee of Barons who seen the deciet and betrayal in what has been happening for the past 45 years and sought to bring an end to it using the ultimate constitutional laws of the UK.
The self-purporting executive cannot legally make the British people pay any capital whatsoever to the European Union. They have lacked the authority and capacity to do so since 2001.
Any attempt made to coerce the people into aiding and abetting institutionalized Treason will be an illegal one, and will so be made in ultra vires.
Furthermore, there is a third reason why we CANNOT pay the European Union or Westminster anything.
The law which was invoked resulting in the deposition of the Crown sixteen years ago, known as the “Security” or “Enforcement” Clause states makes clear that anyone not under oath to the constitutional committee at this time is an outlaw, and that they may be forced to swear the said oath:
“And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress usas much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it.”
If they are an outlaw then to aid them is a criminal offence.
Lord Craigmyle, one of the original and active lords of the Barons’ Committee who invoked Article 61 stated recently (2017) that:
“Any movement away from our inherited legal tradition is to be resisted. If the law fails to deliver on occasion, it must be brought round by complaint, public pressure, opprobrium, debate, ridicule, even threat.”
The European Union’s constitution destroying Treaties, signed and sealed by impostors within Westminster, like the incoming “Divorce Bill” (as it is being called) must be resisted lawfully by the people.
The people have a right and a constitutional obligation to withhold all payments made (or to be made) under treasonous directives to the EU and to the tyrannical (un)establishment here in the UK on the basis that not only the EU itsself is illegal in Britain, but so is aiding and abetting a treasonous administration of governance.
How can this payment be blocked legally?
Within Article 61, it states that anyone may take an Oath to the constitutional committee, which was formed in 2001, to “distrain amd distress” the Crown in all ways (peacefully) and that no citizen can ever be prosecuted for, or stopped from, taking the Oath.
It goes on to say:
“[the Crown], we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command.”
As it is by Royal Command, and a moral and legal obligation, there is NO lawful way that the treasonous regime can make the British people pay any money at all to Brussles.
If and when the impostors within Westminster do indeed try to make the people pay, now you know that they cannot pay without breaking the law and aiding and abetting a treacherous institution.
The Final reason to not pay
There are five main areas which the EU has been pursuing in order to establish what it calls an ‘EU Defence Union’ across the 28 countries, including the UK with no debate in either purporting parliaments.
- Procurement policy and incentives
- Intelligence, Battlegroups and PESCO
- UK defeat over HQ
- Contradicting statements over UK involvement.
So far since ‘Brexit’, parliament has agreed with the EU to:
● More power for the EU to enforce EU-wide tendering in defence contract;
● An expanding remit for the EU over defence industrial strategy and joint-built assets;
● An expanding remit for the EU in purchasing and conduct of joint-owned assets;
● Incentives for UK defence companies to engage long-term with the developing EU-wide industrial
● The creation of the EU’s first central military budget, the European Defence Fund;
● The use of European Investment Bank money (16% UK shareholding) for the European Defence Fund;
● The creation of a Cooperative Financial Mechanism (CFM) to augment the European Defence Agency;
● The creation of a Coordinated Annual Review of Defence (CARD), a mechanism which sees the EU
offer financial incentives for adherence to EU planning over member state defence budgets.
● An increased size, scope and infrastructure of the EU’s military intelligence agency as a central ‘hub’;
● Participation in a 2019 EU Battlegroup under EU Council control. Approval given pre-referendum. No
confirmation from MOD about whether it is cancelled or continuing;
● Drop objections to Permanent Structured Cooperation (first version of permanent military unification) by
willing member states. MOD will not confirm whether the UK is staying out or not.
● The reordering of EU agencies to include ‘permanent planning’ of EU defence missions and a
‘coordinated military command chain’;
● The creation of a permanent military HQ with staff responsible for strategy and operations. It was kept
as a non-executive function of the EU, but executive power over EU military developments rests with the
EU Council and EU Commission;
● Drop its objections to the wordings that describe the new HQ (May 2017) because previous approval in
March 2017 had made later objections invalid.
● Participate in measures that apply to UK defence without the approval of Parliament, nor even a debate;
● Participate in developing plans until at least March 2019, possibly March 2022 or even longer;
● Provide the EU with several new powers over UK defence and a new bargaining chip for the EU;
● Accept measures that mean a more complicated and time-consuming withdrawal process that the UK
didn’t face before the first of the EU Defence Union agreements in November 2016;
● Provisional statements on PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) while keeping open the
prospect of UK participation in PESCO and the EU Council-controlled EU Battlegroups in 2019.
The Military integration is HIGHLY ILLEGAL and should be resisted at all costs. We can no longer aid this treason. If we do, we WILL truley cease to be Britain within 5 years.