The Layman’s Guide

[Download as PDF here] or alternatively, you can make a donation to the Campaign by buying a physical copy in book form via PayPal for only £5 by searching for:

peter-maddison@hotmail.com

(Please leave a note of your name and address)

15-03-2017 by David Robinson
THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES

Lawful rebellion and the practical application of the law (Plus three complete examples of successful processes used, most of the replies and all of the notices we served).

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ― Marcus Tullius Cicero

This publication has been written in layman’s terms as much as possible to provide the reader with the necessary tools to stand up against an incredibly corrupt system of administration in Britain and the commonwealth today, peacefully and whilst standing entirely under the protection of the law using nothing but legal evidenced facts. Please understand that the common law judicial system in Britain and the commonwealth has been systematically dismantled since at least 1848 when the grand juries were removed from service. The grand jury process is a fundamental part of the law of the land and should never have been allowed to be replaced by the corporate magistrate courts that we have today, especially without the consent of the people. More on this later. To change ANY constitutional safeguard without first obtaining the consent of the people is treason. High treason is to hand over the authority and decision making processes which governs the people to any foreign entity, without first being beaten in open battle. What most people consider to be law these days is not law at all.

The ‘banksters’ have sought to take control over governments for many generations now, and have largely succeeded in doing so on a global scale by controlling the flow of information, education, wealth, and by manipulating common concepts. Amchel Rothschild quote, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws,”. Illegal wars have been created by false flag terrorism events that are destroying other sovereign nations on earth, its a war on sovereignty as there is no place for sovereignty within the “Big Society” Camoron mentioned. Millions of civilians have been culled in the middle east by our so called leaders, done in our names under the guise of a war on terrorism, but many lives are also being destroyed at home more covertly, although it is being done in plain sight if we care to look at all the evidence. I don’t intend to go into all of the problems here. ALL true law in Britain and the commonwealth is protected by the constitution which was created by the peoples uprisings against tyranny in the past. The law also complies with the 10 commandments in the Christian faith which is at the heart of British law.

The constitution is consented too by the good people because it is natural law, it guarantees justice for all and is very simple to understand. It protects the innocent and vulnerable and is simply common sense. The sovereign peoples of Britain and the commonwealth consent to be ‘governed’ by the common laws of the realm because they are just, not ‘ruled’ by corporate policies that do not comply with the constitution and are unjust, which is what we have going on today. It is not denied by those pretending to be in service to the people that we are policed by consent in Britain. This simply means as said, we consent to be governed by a fair and just system of service as subjects of a constitutional monarchy under the common laws and customs of the realm. The monarchy today is anything but constitutional therefore we all have a duty under the law (Article 61 MC 1215) to reject the crown until the constitution is once again properly observed. We have a duty to ourselves, ancestors and to those yet unborn to safeguard the laws that protect us all equally against injustices.

My name is David Robinson and I have been standing in open rebellion against the crown (as demanded by law) since March 2010. I have enjoyed a 100% success rate with every process that I have completed by using Article 61 of the Magna Carta against all demands made upon me (and upon others) by the present illegal administration. I have acted successfully with power of attorney for two other people as well as protecting myself from aiding and abetting a rogue government.

I began my individual legal/lawful stance against the corrupted system in 2010 by conditionally accepting an £80 fine that I had received from DVLA for not displaying a tax disc. After completing a simple process of putting all concerned on Notice (i.e., police, courts, DVLA etc) that I was standing in lawful rebellion, and that I had lawful excuse not to consent to their illegal demands for tax, summonses, fines etc, and that it would be a criminal offence for me to do so, I achieved a stalemate situation whereby nobody would act against me because if they did they would be acting against the British constitution in full knowledge of the facts, therefore evidently aiding and abetting high treason at common law, a very serious crime indeed.

The death penalty still exists in Britain for high treason, never mind what the so called government may say. ‘They’ claim that the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act was repealed in 1998 when the Right Dishonorable Tony Blair introduced the Crime and Disorder Act, in chapter 36 he attempted to repeal the 1795 Act and the death penalty for high treason but Blair had no lawful authority to do so, and he committed treason in his attempt. He committed three counts of high treason in all (among other very serious crimes). He would be in prison today if only the people would stand united under the common law in lawful rebellion as the law demands. The remedy to this mess relies on the people uniting and rejecting their demands, whilst at the same time demanding that the police act according to the evidenced facts and assist the people in this monumental struggle, all it takes is numbers – Your country needs YOU!!! The corporations (led by the Bankster’s) have taken over the governments of Britain and the commonwealth alike. All elections for the past few decades have been rigged, allowing the corporate elite criminals to rule by deception and coercion.

This can only continue if the people are kept in the dark or decide to do nothing once they have been informed of the facts. Personally, I will never aid and abet such a disgusting regime as that would make me equally guilty for their acts of terrorism, paedophilia, genocide and many other very serious crimes, which are all well evidenced. I don’t intend to go into all of the problems within this publication but you already know things aren’t right. Its time to focus on the remedy whilst we still can. I first entered into lawful rebellion in March 2010 by serving two affidavits on the crown (Buckingham palace) with the first affidavit demanding that the Nice treaty (France) be repealed and parliament be prorogued (ended its term and calling for a general election). I provided them with 40 days (as is required by constitutional law – Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215) to remedy their unconstitutional behaviour. After 40 days had elapsed with no response I denounced my presumed allegiance to the crown within the second affidavit. From there on in my lawful duty is to distress the crown and reject its alleged authority until redress has been achieved.

I didn’t need to individually petition the crown however because previously in 1999 a committee of 68 barons had convened to discuss whether or not it was unconstitutional to enter into the EU’s treaty of Nice (France). The evidence proved that it was an act of high treason to enter into such an agreement so they dutifully (according to the correct protocols of British constitutional law) petitioned the crown, demanding that she (QE2) not ratify the Nice treaty. After their petition was only vaguely replied to and the treaty of Nice was passed into law anyway, the barons committee invoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta on the 23rd day of March 2001. It has not since been revoked publicly by the barons which means that Britain and the entire commonwealth is in a state of open rebellion i.e., the law demands that ALL British and Commonwealth subjects rebel against the crown in order to protect the British constitution, whilst doing so we are protecting our god given rights and freedoms that the constitution defends (our individual and collective sovereignty).

By courageously invoking Article 61 the committee of the barons provided us all with a peaceful remedy against the systematic deconstruction of our ancient laws and customs by imposters within Westminster. Britain (constitutionally) has a very good system of justice but it has been denied us for generations, and most people think that the corporate rules being used today are laws! Any rule that does not comply with the British constitution is NOT a law. Rules require your consent (tacit or otherwise) and the law of course demands that nobody consent to treasonous rules. The common law has our consent because it is fair to all. Britain has ‘National Sovereignty’ within a common law jurisdiction. If this is not the case today then treason MUST have been committed. Indeed treason has been committed many times and is still being committed to this very day. National Sovereignty means that we are all literally kings and queens in our own land, it has to be that way if real equality under the law is to exist. ONLY those who are working within the system as public servants are at that time, not sovereign beings because they are in service to the sovereign (people) until they clock off from work, and once they have, they automatically revert back to their natural sovereign state of being.

To cut a long story short I ended up conditionally accepting demands to attend their court summonses (for alleged driving offences), not paying any fines that were imposed on me in my absence and refusing to consent to an arrest warrant issued by the so called court. I have never paid a penny of said fines, never been to court and the police wouldn’t arrest me when I walked into Bath city police station (in 2012) to report the crimes being committed against me by various public servants, including a police chief inspector for roads traffic policing, a court manager, legal advisor, the attorney general at the time (Dominic Grieve) and, an agent of the DVLA. Five years on (2 years doing the process) and still nobody has acted against me for the unpaid £700.00 fine or my none appearance in their corrupt courts, yet I am also ignored as I demand a trial by jury on the matter(s) of treason, coercion, torts against me etc in a properly convened court of law (court de jure – court with jury), because it is unlawful for me (or anyone else) to consent to their de facto courts, which are nothing more than private corporate entities trading for profit by deception, whilst using treasonous rules against us. There are NO courts of law in Britain because they all gain their authority from the deposed crown. I later went on to help others stand against the system when I moved to Glastonbury because nobody in the judiciary, police or government would communicate with me, so I went to the people. I later acted with power of attorney for a couple of people to further prove article 61’s validity and won every battle that we entered into.

None of these battles went to a hearing in front of a jury as we demanded of course, the demands against my clients just fizzled out, summonses were not acted upon by the police, warrant officers or process servers and bailiffs did not act upon their threats either. We even stopped a 7 day committal order to prison for contempt of court issued by a so called district judge process included). Two years on and my client has never been dragged into their corporate courts, nor has she served any time in prison or police stations, no fines have ever been paid by her nor has she complied with charges for water and sewage either (which is what the matter was all about). We also had HMRC refund £1700.00 to another client whom had previously paid fines for not filling in tax returns for a few years. The fines kept on coming even though she had paid some of them under duress because of the threats she had received, so we decided to put the agents of HMRC on Notice of the fact that the crown has no authority to make such demands. After HMRC agents realized that they had opened the flood gates by eventually zeroing her account and refunding what she had already paid, they sent a debt collection agency after her, I believe as a damage limitation exercise. The debt collection agency were put on Notice and they handed the matter back to HMRC who again zeroed her account. The ONLY argument we used was that they have no authority to make any demands since article 61 came into effect…..another rebel brother whom has had a similar result against HMRC is now attempting to claim back all the tax he has paid since the 23rd March 2001 when article 61 was invoked….there is no reason why he shouldn’t succeed but we will see.

I began my rebellious career by claiming to be a “freeman” within my documents, I was a free man as I wasn’t in prison and have never been. I stood stubborn on the first point and did not go too deeply into their rules until jurisdiction was proven and it never was of course. The freeman on the land movement is a very different movement than the lawful rebellion one. A ‘free man’ (to my understanding) means someone not already incarcerated and therefore not restricted. Sadly the freeman movement misdirects good people into using their rules against them. I soon realised that by using their rules and attempting to remedy any lawful/legal matter within their courts was double think, illegal, and would never remedy the fact that treason is being committed. Instead I decided to only use the laws (not rules) of the land (British Constitution) to challenge the system and by doing so, defend myself and others against their corruption.

To deny/denounce the British constitution publicly is sedition which is another very serious crime and is why they ignore our Notices. By ignoring us they tacitly agree to the contents of our notices by acquiescence under the law. The same applies if we ignore their notices which is why we don’t. All demands on you are unenforceable if you use this remedy correctly but that wont stop them trying to scare you into consenting. Courts are not courts of law and they all know it. Police constables are nothing more than corporate policy enforcers today, most police men and women don’t even know what real law is or where it comes from because they have never been educated with regard to the British constitution.

THE BASIC PROCESS WITH EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL NOTICES USED:

Step 1. Create an Oath of allegiance to the committee of the barons or declare your standing under article 61 within a ‘Notice’ served on a Police chief inspector (or above the rank of), or an alleged judge, magistrate or any other agent of the crown that has an oath of office. The Oath of allegiance can either be sent by recorded post to one of the accepting barons or simply kept as a document proving your intent. It needs to be signed and dated by yourself and three signatory witnesses to make it a legal instrument, which can then be used as evidence of your lawful standing (intent) within any process you may undertake. If your oath is returned or gets lost (if you post it to a baron) it doesn’t matter, the fact that you posted it and have a copy proves intent and, intent is very important in law. You are no longer an outlaw once you join the rebellion.

Example of an oath of allegiance to the Barons:

To: Lord Craigmyle (for example).

Scottas House, Knoydart,

Invernesshire PH41 4PL

From: Joe Public. Glastonbury Somerset BA6

Sent by recorded post.

Date:

Dear Lord, Craigmyle, In full knowledge of treason being committed in Parliament, by delivering the Sovereign Peoples of this Common law land into the hands of foreign powers, in understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the office of Sovereign, from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons’ committee whom invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 as long as they act strictly according to the constitution at all times, and in accordance with the protocols set out within article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 until such times as redress of these present wrongs is achieved.

Sworn and subscribed on: (Date) Signed. 3 Signatory witnesses (anyone on or over the age of 21 can witness your oath, they do not need to be professional people and nobody is going to question the validity of your witnesses anyway). NOTE…you can word your Oath as you wish as long as you follow the basic structure of its intent and purpose. The same applies with all Notices, Affidavits etc.

List of Accepting Barons:

Lord Craigmyle [Definitely Accepting] Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire PH41 4PL

Marquis of Aberdeen House of Formantine, Methlick, Ellon, Aberdeenshire AB41 7EQ

Earl of Cromer 6 Sloane Terrace Mansions, London SW1X 9DG

Earl of Devon, Powderham Castle, Exeter, Devon EX6 8JQ

Viscount Exmouth, The Coach House, Canonteign Falls, nr. Exeter, Devon EX6 7NT

Lord Newall 18 Lennox Gardens, London SW1X 0DG Wotton Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 0RZ

Lord Milne, 188 Broom Road, Teddington, Middlesex

Lord Oaksey Hill Farm, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9HS

Earl Cathcart, Gateley Hall, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5EF 18 Smith Terrace, London SW3 4DL

Lord Ailsa, Cassillis House, Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7JN

Lord Napier of Magdala The Coach House, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1HU

Lord Sudeley (Merlin Charles Sainthill, interesting name) 25 Melcombe Court, Dorset Square, London NW1 6EP

2. Send a ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ to any individual acting as an agent for the crown with regard to any demands that you may receive. You are not saying that you wont comply with their demand(s) you are instead stating that you will comply with all of their demands as long as it is legal for you to do so since article 61 was invoked.

Example of a successful notice of conditional acceptance used.

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).

HMRC DMB 380 BX5 5AB From: Joe public xxxxxxx xxxxx, xx xxxx xxxx ,

Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 xxx Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx Date Notice served:

Sent by recorded post.

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle

Dear Mrs C Graham, I am writing to you after I received a demand for a payment of £1,200.00 for ‘Overdue Tax, Tax Return & Penalties’ dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Please be aware that this is a Notice, a lawful instrument that requires your urgent attention. This ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ may be used as evidence in my defence.

Whereas I, Joe public, stand entirely under the tenets of constitutional law in lawful rebellion as to my duty under the law and, that it is to my understanding entirely unlawful to pay any monies to HMRC at this time and since the 23rd March 2001 and, that I have withdrawn ANY/ALL presumed allegiance to the office of Sovereign (including HMRC) due to my individual duties under the law (see exhibit ‘D’, Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons), those duties being stated within Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (see exhibit ‘C’, Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 text), invoked by royal command according to the correct protocols of British constitutional law on the 23rd day of March in the year of our Lord 2001 (See exhibit ‘B’, Letters between the barons’ committee and the office of sovereign), therefore it is to my understanding that the law forbids me to comply with your demands for monies.

Whereas it cannot be denied that the invocation of this most important constitutional tenet did occur on the aforesaid date and, that it stands as the CURRENT LAW of the realm, please provide me evidence in substance to counter this claim within 7 (Seven) days from your receipt of this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ and I shall promptly comply with your demand for payment. I do not wish to break the law Mrs Graham, if I am coerced/forced under threat into breaking the law by you, then you shall be solely liable for the consequences. Maxim in law: ‘Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus’ – “Any act done by me against my will is not my act”.

The Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 on the 24th March 2001. An article by Caroline Davis (see exhibit ‘A’) which can also be viewed online under the title ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’. Magna Carta Society wrote: “The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September (2009) that Magna Carta, sealed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.” Therefore I, Joe Public does conditionally accept that HMRC has the lawful authority to make demands on me for tax or fines, on proof that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today and, that the ratification of the treaty of Nice has been revoked and, that the crown does indeed, according to British Constitution law, have the legal/lawful authority to make and enforce such demands.

Whilst the law provides me with ‘lawful excuse’ to distress the crown and its institutions at this time, it is to my understanding that I CANNOT BY LAW consent to the fine demanded by you Mrs C Graham as an officer for HMRC. British constitutional law forbids me to aid and abet the crown until Article 61 has been publicly revoked by the barons’ committee. It also forbids me to aid and abet any other man or woman who is not also standing in open rebellion in compliance with the law under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215. I must (by law) also compel you Mrs C Graham to abide by the constitutional law yourself, and to stand with us in lawful rebellion as the law demands.

Failure to respond to this ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’ within the reasonable time frame allotted, or without providing evidence in substance that clearly defines that article 61 is no longer in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including interested third party interlopers) that HMRC has NO lawful claim against I, Joe Public and, that any further attempt to extract monies or goods from me over this matter would be harassment, which may invoke a counter claim for damages against HMRC and you personally Mrs C Graham. Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. We are ALL responsible and culpable for our own actions or omissions under British Constitutional law. Please check the facts for yourself before replying. Ignorance is no defence in law. Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to appear vexatious and, with all of my inalienable Constitutional rights reserved. Signed: Joe Public. Witnessed by: Signature. Printed name: Date: 1.–—————————————– – –———————————– 2.——————————————- – –———————————— 3.—————————————— – –————————————

Enclosed evidence. Exhibit ‘A’ (Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of MC 1215 on the 24th March 2001). Exhibit ‘B’ (communications between the Committee of the Baron and Sir Robin Janvrin, Queens private secretary) Exhibit ‘C’ (Article 61 of MC 1215 text) Exhibit ‘D’ (Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons).

EXHIBIT ‘A’. Peers Petition Queen on Europe. Daily Telegraph. By Caroline Davies 12:00 AM GMT 24 Mar 2001

FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe. The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter’s Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended. The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution. The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public. They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta’s provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.

EXHIBIT ‘B’. The petition of the barons and letters from both parties in full. The Petition.

A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61of Magna Carta 1215 February 2001.

To Defend British Rights and Freedoms. Ma’am, as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:

1. the loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973;

2. the terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to the European Union:

a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your Government;

b) to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;

c) which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice, abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers of enforcement;

d) to create a military force which will place British service personnel under the command of the European Union without reference to British interests, and contrary to:

i) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces

ii) the Queen’s Commission, and;

iii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;

e) which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in British interests;

3. the creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights”at will;

4. the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to; a) suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath Act, 1688; b) subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;

5. Your Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in 1707; WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953.

We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects. (signed)

Notes: The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straws aid as much on 1O ctober 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force.

Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”

The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:

Article 24 –transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting.

Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.

Article 191 – assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [ie: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Articles 29 and 31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).

Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.

Article 17 – establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: “The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed.”

Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty. The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU “competence”, including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.

Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000. Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [ie: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta 1215, the Declaration of Rights, 1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee the country. The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “ Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.” (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation) In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.

Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was “still part of statute law…on which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.” The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:

“…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.”

Both Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between the sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.

List Of Signatories Peers signing the petition: Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel), Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace. The petition was also signed by: Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.

Letter To The Queens Private Secretary

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen Buckingham Palace London 23 March 2001

“You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you. The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet unborn. We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights. As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone,directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty’s ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition. Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty’s obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them. From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract. Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty’s promise to her loyal subjects.

Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative. Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogativa regis is merely declaratory of the common law… The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws. For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed,faced in due course with a Bill seek in gratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the issue. The exgovernment would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished. Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: 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 any time 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. So it is clear that no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people – may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees.

We inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish. Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by tyranny. We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty’s subject. The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion. Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib.Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People. It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite? These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:

1.That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act)

2.That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

4.That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is further protection of our common law rights)

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others– have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops..until redress has been obtained. We are and remain Her Majesty’s most loyal and obedient subjects.” Signed: Ashbourne, Rutland, Massereene & Ferrard, Hamilton of Dalzell

The Reply

“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice. The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”

EXHIBIT ‘C’. Article 61 the entire translated text;

“61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.

3. Send a follow up ‘Notice of default and opportunity to cure’ once the time frame for you receiving a response to your first notice has expired or they have ignored your conditions (we normally give between 7-14 days for a response depending on the urgency of the matter). This second notice is providing them with another opportunity to respond to the first Notice of conditional acceptance if you have been ignored, or the question within the Notice has been ignored. You can offer more opportunities to ‘cure’ (make good) if you like? the law demands that we offer at least one opportunity to cure to remain in honour. It is important to remain in honour in law.

Example of a Notice of default and opportunity to cure: From; Joe public. xxxxxxx xxxxx, xx xxxx xxxx , Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 xxx Date Notice served

NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Dear Mrs C Graham I, Joe Public do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This is a lawful notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says and there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein. If you fail to comply with this Notice then you will be deemed to be in absolute agreement with the points raised. Do not ignore it.

A reply to this notice is REQUIRED and is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full name and on his or her full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Your response is required within TEN (10) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice; failure to comply will represent your tacit acquiescence with the FACTS of this Notice or that you are unable to provide lawful proofof-claim. You are hereby put on Notice of my standing and the lawful facts. Do not ignore this Notice unless you agree to acquiesce to the facts, thereby agreeing in full with the lawful points that I made in the previous Notice served on you dated: xxxxxxxxxxx and delivered by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery date xxxxxxxxxxx – tracking number xxxxxxxxxxxx and signed for by xxxxxxxxxxxx (basically just roughly copy the signature, if illegible provide a photocopy/screenshot of it and add it to the evidence file).

If you fail to respond to the aforesaid Notice in ‘substance’ or within the reasonable time frame provided herein, without first legally rebutting the points raised within previous Notice(s) served, it shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that all points and concerns raised by me herein/therein are true and indisputable lawful fact and, that you agree to them entirely and without exception. It will also be taken to mean that any further action taken against myself would be deemed by all interested parties to be harassment or coercion to commit crime under common law.

I, Joe Public over the age of twenty one years, competent to witness and with first hand knowledge of the facts do say the following, that: STATEMENT OF TRUTH: I have asked you previously to provide the evidence to confirm or deny whether Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is still in effect at this time. I am concerned that by complying with the demands of HMRC that I shall be in breach of the laws of this land since said Article came into effect and, that I would also be in breach of my sworn Oath of allegiance to the committee of the barons. I do not wish to break the law Mrs C Graham, please advise me in accordance with the truth in law so that I may do the correct thing according to law. Being the second Notice to be served I use this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ as a reminder of the first preceding notice, which was either ignored or mislaid or not answered to correctly according to the points raised within it – in SUBSTANCE. Allowing for a reasonable time frame for you to respond to this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ I provide a further TEN (10) days from your receipt of this document for you to reply in substance. I hereby offer you this further opportunity to rebut or confirm my understanding of the common law as referred to in my previous Notice(s) so that you may remain in honour and thus by doing so, enabling an opportunity to remedy this matter amicably to save any breach of the peace.

I hereby attest and affirm that all of the above is the truth and is my lawful understanding. Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with my natural, indefeasible and unalienable rights reserved. Sworn and subscribed on the date: Signed: Witnessed by: 1:_________________________ 2:_________________________ 3:_________________________

4. Send a ‘Notice of Default’ to put an end to the matter. By ignoring you they will have tacitly agreed to all the points you made within your Notices, they are in dishonour and cannot legally pursue you further. ALL public servants have a ‘duty of care’ to respond to any concerns of the public.

Example of a Notice of Default:

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC) HMRC DMB 380 BX5 5AB From: Joe Public. xxxxxx xxxxxxx, xx xxxx xxxxx, Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx Date Notice served: Sent by recorded post NOTICE OF DEFAULT Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle Dear Mrs C Graham, You have failed to respond to the two (2) previous Notices that I served on you, which is now taken to mean that you and all interested parties agree entirely with the points of law that I previously stated and, that HMRC has no claim against I, Joe Public since you have provided your tacit consent to said Notices. I provide you with a further Seven (7) days from receiving this ‘Notice of Default’ to respond to the Notice of Conditional acceptance in substance and in full. You are in dishonour at this time as you have a duty of care to respond to the very serious constitutional points that I refer to within said Notices. Any further action taken by HMRC against I, Joe Public, whilst my lawful claims remain un-rebutted without substance providing evidence to the contrary of said claims, shall be agreed to be harassment by all interested parties and a counter claim may ensue against you personally Mrs C Graham. Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury and within reasonable time. Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to be vexatious and, with all my inalienable constitutional rights reserved. On my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Signed: Joe Public. Witnessed by: Signature. Printed name: Date: 1.–—————————————- – –———————————– 2.–—————————————- – –———————————– 3.–—————————————- – –———————————–

5. If the demands continue however (they are sometimes automated) we serve a Notice of Misprision of Treason on the individual(s). This Notice contains evidence that treason is being committed and, that the agent is aiding and abetting a criminal administration. Everybody has a duty under British constitutional law to stand in defence of the constitution under article 61 when it is in effect, and we also have a duty to compel others to stand with us. The bottom line is that by taking this stance we are only acting according to the laws of the land. Nothing more.

Example of a Notice of Misprision of Treason:

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC). HMRC DMB 380 BX5 5AB From: Joe Public. xxxxxx xxxxxxx, xx xxxx xxxxx, Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx Date Notice served: Sent by recorded post

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OF MISPRISION OF TREASON

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent

Dear Mrs C Graham Please read the following ‘Notice’ thoroughly and carefully. It is a NOTICE, a LAWFUL DOCUMENT and EVIDENCE. It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION. Please be aware that failure to act on this LAWFUL NOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act, which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/any British sovereign man/woman within or without the realms of the British Isles and Commonwealth and, is an OFFENCE under the ‘misprision of treason Act 1795,’ SECTION 1 (Misprision of treason). Whereby;…it is an offence at common law for any person(s) who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace. Also please be aware that the penalty for committing ‘misprision of treason’ in this day is life imprisonment and total asset stripping, and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not malice, menace, frivolity, vexation nor ill will.

Whereas you persist to harass I, Joe Public despite being notified of the facts and that you have made UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself/legal fiction, and that you are continuing to coerce me to comply with unlawful statutes by threat of enforcement and, that you are acting for a ‘corporation’ whom has at this time no lawful claim against I Joe Public, a sovereign man standing in lawful rebellion and, that the crown is committing high treason against the sovereign peoples of the British Isles and Commonwealth at this time therefore I cannot lawfully nor morally support financially, or in any other way, a treasonous administration of governance or any private entity not also standing under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DO SO! Therefore… It is to my understanding that you must now by the common laws of this realm and, with the evidence herein/therein supplied, STOP all actions against I, Joe Public. I have lawful excuse to deny payment to HMRC or to deal with anyone/entity not also standing under said article 61. In light of the evidence reported to you personally Mrs C Graham herein this notice, this evidence by LAW must now be reported by YOU to the police for you to stay within the bounds of constitutional law, failure to do so would contravene the 1795 Treason Act section 1 and would therefore be an act of ‘misprision of treason at common law’.

I will be forced by law to report any further unlawful demands from you to the police. THEREFORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that:

1) A long range deception to overthrow the sovereignty of the British Isles, by controlling its currency and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalized by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion. Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled ‘Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’ (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as ‘European Economic Community’. The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

2) Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.

3) The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-Frenchpro-federal European lobbying body posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. The documentation evidencing these events are present on the discs FCO 10 30/48.

4) The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.

5) The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

6) Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970-72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents have been released after the thirty year rule.

7) The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are all born free to do whatever we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm,injury or loss to another’s life, liberty or property or their rights to life, liberty or property.

8) The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a common law jurisdiction and British parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender land or transfer, even temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war.

9) No man (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common law of Great Britain that forms the British constitution (Magna Carta 1215, The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/89, the Coronation Oath Act 1689 and the Act of Union, succession, Supremacy and settlement 1701-1707).

10) The Declaration of Rights 1688 is an un-rebutted claim of Right by the people and therefore beyond the reach of parliament and still stands to this day. The Declaration includes the clause: “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”. This is mirrored in the Bill of Rights 1689 which still stands as legislation.

11) Treason in statute law was redefined by the Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include; a) compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his/her spouse or eldest son; b) levying war against the sovereign in his/her realm, which includes, any insurrection against the authority of the sovereign or of the government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder; c) giving aid or comfort to the sovereigns enemies in wartime.

12) Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

13) Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes the subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

14) The evidence presented in the ‘Shoehorned into the E.U.’ files shows that the Heath Government of 1972 was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.

15) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British parliament, was a criminal act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.

16) The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain’s independent decision making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

17) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original EEC Berlin document 1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, this was an act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.

18) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 increased the European Unions powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police,judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

19) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government repealed the Treason legislation in section 36 of the ‘ Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ‘abolishing the death penalty. This included the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law still stands as common law has primacy.

20) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further acts of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

21) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word ‘sovereignty’ from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

22) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 surrendered further control of policy including that relating to immigration and borders. This was an act of Treason at common law by the Brown administration.

23) The ex Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is evidence to prove that this is an act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.

24) The current Prime Minister Theresa May, by misleading the British public to withdraw from the European Union via the use of the Lisbon Treaty, whilst Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect is an act of treason by the May administration.

25) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by professional accountants of their books in the last 15+ years. One year of non-publication is a criminal offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U’ s own court of auditors for the past 15+ years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance of British taxpayer’s funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.

26) The six European Treaties since 1972 are all unlawful and should be struck completely from the statute books. The evidence submitted herein is to my understanding precise and factual and is in no way whatsoever intended to deceive, mislead, cause mischief or as an act of frivolity, vexation or ill will. Whereas this document is required to be responded to in its entirety within 28 days on your receipt of this ‘Notice of understanding of Misprision of treason’ please respond as to your lawful standing in light of this evidence presented on your full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Our constitutional law demands that we ALL take up lawful rebellion in support of the barons petition of the 7th of February 2001 and, to continue to distress those that refuse (as to the terms and conditions laid down under Article 61 Magna Carta 1215), which was Invoked by the barons’ committee on the 23rd March 2001 and reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davis on the 24th March 2001, under the title ‘Peers Petition Queen on Europe’ the invocation of Article 61 still stands to this day as the lawful position of the British Isles and commonwealth.

The evidence confirming that treason has and is being committed, is provided within a computer disc format compilation of public records documents amounting to almost 500 pages entitled ‘FCO 10 30/48 Shoehorned into the EU’. Within this compilation of signed and sometimes stamped documentation the evidence of both sedition and treason are proven. This information can be found on the internet for your perusal. I now AFFIRM that all of the information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and first hand experience and that I am of lawful age and mentally competent to serve this ‘Notice of misprision of treason’.

I hereby affix my name to all of the affirmations and claims made herein this document with explicit reservations to all my natural, unalienable sovereign Rights and habeas Corpus, and to my specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract nor obligation which I have not knowingly, willingly, voluntarily and without misrepresentation, duress or coercion entered into, and that any hearing with regard to this matter(s) is to be heard under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land in open forum as this matter is of course in the public interest and, that this is in accordance with my constitutional rights. Without Malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Signed: Witnessed by: Witness 1). Witness 2). Witness 3).

EVIDENCE. Copy of the Daily Telegraph report ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’ 24th March 2001. Exhibit A. Copy of the letters between the barons Committee and the office of Sovereign in 2001. Exhibit B. The entire text of Article 61′ Enforcement clause’. Exhibit C. Maxim: ”Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.” (evidence the same as from pages 14-25 above)

Treason is an unproven claim at this time because those of us attempting to secure a court of law have been ignored, the policy enforcers (police) do nothing when we report these crimes why? Because they are led to believe that anything political is not within the police remit. That is of course not true. Each police constable that carries a warrant card has the duty to observe the truth and, to investigate ALL allegations of crime, especially very serious allegations of treason. It will only happen when enough of the people demand it. Many cops are completely unaware of the facts and are not paid to think for themselves, they are there to stream revenue for the corporations who now own and run the police service in Britain, that is why arrest quotas were introduced which are totally unconstitutional. However, I have met some decent cops that quietly support our stance, I had conversations with ex magistrates who followed my earlier case, even attending the hearing (that I never arrived at).

Another Notice that can be used is the Notice to Stop. Used to put further pressure on any agent before the Misprision of Treason notice is served, and again after if necessary (All notices provided as examples within this document have been used with success).

To: M Mansha (Doing business as A Debt Enforcement Agent for HM Revenue &Customs) Debt Management Enforcement & Insolvency Service. Centenary Way, 1 St Blaise Way, Bradford, West Yorkshire. BD1 4XX From: Joe Public. xxxxxx xxxxx, xx xxxx xxxx, Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Your reference xxxx xxxxxxxx Sent by recorded post. Date: 16/11/2015

NOTICE TO STOP

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Dear M Mansha, Whereas I, Joe Public stand fully under British Constitutional law in defence of the Sovereignty of our nation at this time, which is to my understanding the lawful truth and duty of ALL British and Commonwealth subjects to do, and evidently so since Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect on the 23rd March 2001 (see exhibits A & B) and, that I have complied with the law with ‘lawful excuse’ with regard to this matter (see exhibit C), that being in a peaceful and honourable manner, by putting you M Mansha on notice of the evidential facts in an attempt to remedy this matter lawfully, and to inform you of your own duty under British Constitutional law. By pledging an Oath of allegiance to one of the Committee of the barons whom invoked said article, it makes it my sworn duty to distress the present regime and this I do by ‘Royal Command’.

To my understanding it is entirely unlawful to aid and abet the crown or ANY of its agents at this time. I therefore demand that you do due diligence on this matter and STOP any further proceedings against me unless and until it has been evidenced that my understanding of the law is incorrect. I, Joe Public has ‘lawful excuse’ to “distress and distrain” the present regime until present constitutional wrongs have been remedied. Proceeding against me may make you personally liable for any torts or criminal acts committed, which may result in a counter claim for extortion and demanding monies with menaces if you do not immediately stop further enforcement actions against me, whilst ignoring the evidence herein provided. Whereas you state within the letter I received from you dated 6 November 2015 “ Your liability to tax is not dependant on HM Revenue & Customs meeting the conditions you seek to impose”.

Let me remind you that it is THE LAW that imposes these conditions on us ALL. You are personally responsible for your acts and omissions under the law just like everybody else! You further wrote “ The amounts outstanding are due under legislation and your liability for these amounts is not dependent upon HM Revenue & Customs providing answers to the irrelevant questions you have posed”. Sir, the question that I pose is entirely relevant to the fact that it is UNLAWFUL to aid and abet TREASON AT COMMON LAW and thus to adhere to the demands of HM Revenue & Customs at this time. Ignore the evidence presented at your own Peril. Your statements are evidently seditious. To conclude your letter you wrote that “ I have nothing further to add to this and I consider the matter to be closed. Any further correspondence from you on this topic will not be responded to”. If you fail to respond to the RELEVANT points of constitutional law herein, then by your acquiescence it shall be deemed to mean, by all interested parties involved in this matter, that you agree wholeheartedly with the facts I have stated and evidence that I have included. And that any further actions taken against me shall be considered harassment and criminal acts.

Any reply MUST be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. Without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With prejudice and written under duress and protest. On my full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

Maxim: “Actusme invito factus, non est meus actus.“ – An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

Signed. Joe Public. Witness 1. Date: Witness 2. Witness 3.

When dealing with bailiffs or anyone threatening to call at your property we serve them with an extra notice in addition to the process above, A ‘Removal of Implied Right of Access’ is sent by post and a copy also placed near or on the front door. An example of a Removal of Implied Right of Access Notice:

TO: Name of Bailiff(s) (Ex; Ross & Roberts). Their address From: Joe Public. Address Sent by recorded post: Date:

Removal of Implied Right of Access

TO: (Name of Bailiff(s), Process Server, Warrant officer, Police etc).

Any presumed Implied Right of access has been removed from Ross & Roberts, doing Business as civil enforcement service providers/certificated bailiffs, their agents and officers, with immediate effect on this day, Wednesday, 29th April 2015. ‘A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages, Morris v Beardmore (1980) 71 Cr App 256.’ (reference used under duress as case law, not common law because it was adjudicated on within illegal courts).

Failure to comply with this legal notice may attract a claim for damages and charges for harassment against employees of Ross & Roberts and the authority they claim to be acting under. including Ivor Bignose, and any other agents working on behalf of Ross & Roberts, You are being asked to leave now before you decide to act. If you decide to act upon the alleged authority of the Magistrates/County or Crown Court, which are not courts of law, and which have no legal authority since the Crown was deposed when Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came in to effect (23rd March 2001), which your office has been notified of. I suggest you, I, Bignose read thoroughly all my previous correspondence with your office, which was addressed to all agents of Ross & Roberts. If Article 61 has not been invoked or has been revoked then please prove it. Any action taken against I, Joe Public may result in a counter claim where you I. Bignose, will be made personally liable. If you are classed as a trespasser the police will be called and you may be forcibly removed in accordance with the common law.

Without vexation, frivolity or ill will, in no way intended to deceive or mislead from the truth In law, with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. Yours Sincerely Joe Public. 3 signatory witnesses.

An Affidavit of truth is another powerful document because it must be rebutted point for point by another Affidavit. It is basically a statement of truth sworn too on penalty of perjury, so ONLY put in evidenced facts. Number the points you make within the Affidavit that you require to be answered. Keep it simple and focus on the matter of jurisdiction before entering into irrelevant points like terms of contracts and their illegal rules. You can create whatever notice you like and head it as you like. The more that are created individually the better because they tend to use the lame excuse that your “letter” was a template and as such can be dismissed, even if it is a template so what? you are free to use whatever words you choose to use. No matter if someone else words match your own.

Some people may think that an Affidavit needs to be nororised by a notory public but it can’t be unless that notory is standing in lawful rebellion (I’m writing strictly according to the constitution here). Three signatory witnesses is fine. Who has the authority to deny your notices to be lawful anyway? if you still think the courts, police, councillors or any government agents do then you haven’t quite yet understood the process.

WHAT QUALIFIES YOU TO ACT WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR OTHERS? (once you are well experienced with the lawful rebellion process)

ANSWER: Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215. I challenge any alleged official to deny it. A Notice of Lawful Objection is generally used to serve on the local chief inspector of police, if by rebelling you think the police may get involved. You can also serve one of these notices on any institution that you may in future have dealing with….you will be acting honourably by attempting to seek clarity with regard to their legal stance and yours, before any action is due.. To: Simon Edens (Doing business as Chief Constable for Northampton Police Constabulary). Northamptonshire Police Wootton Hall Northampton NN4 0JQ From: Paul Harris Northampton NN7 Date: Sent by recorded post NOTICE OF LAWFUL OBJECTION Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal – Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Dear Simon, Please pass a copy of this Notification onto your colleagues Deputy Chief Constable Andy Frost, Assistant Chief Constable Rachel Swann.

I, do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my first hand knowledge. This is a lawful notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you and there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein. If you fail to reply with this Notice then you will be deemed to be in absolute agreement with all legal claims raised herein. Please do not ignore it.

A reply to this notice is required and is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full name, sworn or attested to on his or/and her full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Your response is required within Fourteen (14) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice. Failure to reply shall be taken to mean that I have your tacit agreement with the facts herein presented for comment. And that you are aware of my legal position without objection. Please be fully aware that this is a legal instrument and which may be used in evidence for my defence. Whereas I, Paul Harris, by the constitutional law arising from the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, is obliged by Royal Command to stand in defence of the British Constitution against the treasonous RULES which now stand in the stead of the common laws of the realm, that today “govern” this country under the direction of evil traitors in Westminster, whilst using European Union Directives and corporate rules to harass and distress the common people which is illegal.

I have ongoing issues with regard to Northampton Magistrates Court and Northampton Borough Council over the legality of paying into the coffers of said unauthorised corporate enterprise’s at this time and since Article 61 came into effect. I require your involvement in the matter as I am making extremely serious claims against local alleged authorities. I have a duty by law to inform you personally Simon, and all those under your direction by consequence, as Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent applies, to put you on Notice of the fact of my lawful standing. I provide the proof of my lawful standing herein with an enclosed copy of my Oath of allegiance to the Barons’ Committee (exhibit ‘B’). The invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 occurred on the 23rd March 2001 and is evidenced by the report made by the Daily Telegraph on the 24th March 2001: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petitionQueen-on-Europe.html) – (Transcript of Article enclosed; exhibit ‘A’) and, which is also evidenced by researching the letters available on the internet between Sir Robin Janvrin and the Committee of the Barons at the time. Transcript enclosed (exhibit ‘C’).

This means that I, along with all people of this realm have a lawful duty under common law / constitutional law, to stand by the invocation of Article 61 and, whilst remaining a lawful, peaceful and loyal sovereign man, I take full responsibility for my actions therefore I hereby notify you of my standing so that I may: a) avoid confrontation between myself and government departments or any agents acting for the crown and; b) inform you of the fact that you also have the same duty to serve and protect the constitution according to your Oath and/or law. Whereas I, Paul Harris is a peaceful and law abiding man, I seek to conduct myself lawfully and honourably, I hereby serve you with this ‘NOTICE OF LAWFUL OBJECTION’ and request from you any objections you may have to my common law right and duty to stand under Article 61 at this time. Whereas you have a ‘duty of care’ as public servants to reply to my concerns, you also have the duty to protect and to serve the people according to the constitutional law under a constitutional monarchy, which has been usurped by criminals in public office for over 40 years. Indeed, it is to my understanding that not to protect the sovereign by standing behind the Committee of the barons invocation of Article 61, which is after all by Royal Proclamation, would be an act of treason at common law.

I urge you to investigate this as a matter of urgency. On November 1st 2014 the Nice treaty came further into effect and by doing so it is destroying the constitutional laws of the entire realm of Great Britain and the commonwealth. This is an evidential act of Treason at common law and must NOT be allowed to occur. The Nice treaties ratification by Britain was the grievance that the committee of the barons were referring to with the petition to the office of sovereign on the 7th February 2001 and, which the office of sovereign failed to correctly respond to resulting in the invocation of Article 61. Brexit is more governmental misdirection and high treason. If there is no reply in ‘substance’ or otherwise to this ‘Notice Of Lawful Objection’ then it shall be taken to mean by all interested that you have no objections whatsoever to my lawful standing and, that I will not come into conflict with ANY police constables under your direction, nor will they make ANY demands on me unless they comply with common law. I, Paul Harris is a law abiding sovereign man as opposed to the legal fiction, of which I do not and cannot by law re-present so please do not address me as Mr, thank you.

I hereby attest and affirm that all of the above is the truth and is my lawful understanding. Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury, with no admission of illegality whatsoever and with my natural, indefeasible and unalienable rights reserved. Sworn and subscribed on the date of: Printed: Signed: Witnessed by (autograph): 1: 2: 3:

Enclosed Evidence. Exhibit A (Transcript of Daily Telegraph report on 24th March entitled ‘Peers Petition Queen on Europe’); Exhibit B (copy of Oath of Allegiance to the Committee of the Barons); Exhibit C (Transcript of the letters between Sir Robin Janvrin (Queens Private Secretary and the Barons Committee in 2001); Exhibit D (Article 61 translated text). (Evidence as from page 14 – 25 of this publication).

Further reading….. There is a great deal of propaganda surrounding the British Constitution, the traitors/imposters within Westminster even (seditiously) state that we don’t have a written constitution, which is easily proven to be a blatant lie. The fact that the British constitution is not formally codified into one document makes no difference as to its validity. Magna Carta 1215 is one of the founding documents of the British constitution, this cannot truthfully or legally be denied. It is in full effect today therefore, we are using the invocation of Article 61 to defend our rights and duty under the constitution not to aid and abet treason (and many other disgusting crimes). The system today is completely corporate run and we are all being massively conned by it!……some people sadly believe that it is just the way it is today and that nothing can be done, but there is something that you can do about it if you have a mind to do so.

You only need to have the will to act completely peacefully under the laws of the land with a little courage. Only a little knowledge of evidenced facts is required, you don’t need a degree in law to understand how we can each stand in defence of our birth-right and freedoms under the constitution. Please remember that our mothers and fathers and their mothers and fathers created a welfare state from their taxes for future generations to enjoy. Please also remember that many of them fought in muddy bloody trenches to defend this countries’ right to self governance, which we are collectively allowing to be destroyed today by being too damned subservient….. slowly slowly the lies and deceptions have reduced our once great system of service under the common laws of the land, to a system of servitude to a self serving regime no matter what political party sits at the helm.

The truth of how the system is operating today, which is supposed to be operating as a service to us all, especially with regard to the law, is very different than most people have been led to believe. This is not their fault initially as the propaganda is rife and has been so for generations. Its the concept of who we are and our place within society that most people appear to struggle with, its not the process we use itself that they find difficult. You have much more power within society than you may realize, knowledge of the truth which cannot be denied because it is all well evidenced, is all that we use and require. The system is extremely corrupt and we all know it. The ONLY real peaceful way out of this mess is to reassert the rule of law again, to do that we must demand it, all trials must be held in a properly convened court de jure for any reason whatsoever, who will deny you this when it is sedition to do so publicly? Nobody will, and so fines, summonses etc just vanish into the ether. This remedy is powerful even used individually. Once we unite properly we can bring a class action against the so called government, and demand a hearing for the allegations of treason that many individuals have already made to the relevant alleged authorities. Unity is the key to successfully restoring the common laws that protect the good people of these shores. That is what Article 61 was invoked to create UNITY….all good people standing together under the common law in order to protect it, which in turn protects our rights as free sovereign individuals, and as a nation to retain the right to self determination. It is basic common sense in my view.

In order to explain how very simple the lawful rebellion process is, and why we have no choice but to peacefully rebel against the crown at this time, and what is likely to happen if we don’t, we first need to take a look at the facts as well as some of the propaganda that has, over many generations been used to distort the consciousness of the masses. I call this ‘concept control’ rather than mind control but its the same thing really. Social engineering has been the plaything of the traitors for a long time. The biggest concept controller of them all, that was introduced en masse in the 1950’s has been the television set. Its not so much the lies that are told but the subtle changing of words and concepts that I refer to here. Like the changing of the word ‘benefit’ (of a welfare state) to ‘credit’ (universal credits). This changing of words changes how people view the system and their place within it. We have been slowly conned from understanding the reality, which is that we are a sovereign nation, whereby we each have ‘national sovereignty’ which guarantees our equal entitlement to justice, peace and basic needs. This is extremely important to remember because without our sovereignty there can ONLY be slavery, most people are already slaves to the system today but with this information that is now a choice!. With the loss of national sovereignty goes the constitutional laws that PROTECT US THE PEOPLE NOT THE REGIME this is why they are attempting to destroy the constitution, and even say that we don’t have a constitution (which is almost laughable, except for the fact that its far too serious a matter to be taken light heartedly.

The imposters within Westminster state that Britain doesn’t have a written ‘codified’ constitution which is correct, but there is no requirement for a constitution to be laid down in one document (codified) in order to be valid. The British constitution is unique as it has been created over many hundreds of years. It was the basis of many other later constitutions like the USA’s for example. It is most certainly written down and MUST be adhered to by all British and commonwealth constitutional subjects at all times, by doing so we protect the law that protects us the people which does not allow changes to the constitution without the peoples say so. A constitutional convention of the people is a lawful requirement that must be done before it can be changed in any way whatsoever. Another concept that has been deliberately changed by the imposters within Westminster is the concept that we vote governments into ‘power’, when the fact is we vote them into a position of ‘SERVICE’ to the people under constitutional law, which is the only true law that there is, and which stands under the 10 commandments also. ALL other rules MUST comply with the ‘rule of law’ (British Constitution – the will of the people). Today they are using illegal corporate rules and concept control to mislead good people into coughing up their hard earned cash, and to blindly, ratchet by ratchet, accept a police state under global corporate control, whilst they are being kept too busy to look at what they are really doing.

Those who say they don’t have time to look at the threats to our liberty and safety deserve neither. The pen is mightier than the sword (or keyboard these days). We rebels only need to put the truth into written documents and post them to those people who are making demands on us, and also to inform the police that they also have a duty under the law (to stand under Article 61) to observe the evidenced facts themselves and to start acting according to the truth (not too much to ask is it?). With enough of us putting pressure on the police they would eventually have no choice but to act according to the facts, some may even be silently glad that they have no choice bit to act or aid and abet treason?. All it takes is enough good people to stand by the truth assertively but peacefully, to bring about a just system again. Please take responsibility and join the rebellion…moving on… The statement I made earlier (that “we vote them into a position of service”) is also a little misleading because ALL elections since at least the 1970’s have been rigged. We have had corporate representatives in positions of power for far too long!

They (collectively) have committed acts of sedition, treason, war crimes, false flag terrorism, murder/genocide, paedophilia, fraud, kidnapping etc, to name but a few of the more serious crimes that have been allowed to continue by the present system. They control the mainstream media entirely, and they know how to use ‘double think’ and concept control to gradually mislead the people into accepting extreme changes to their environment. Its called ‘boiling the frog’…apparently a frog wont notice the water getting hotter if it sits in a pan of cold water whilst it slowly comes to the boil…..time to jump out of the proverbial pot folks!

The police today (policy enforcers) don’t even know the law themselves because they stopped teaching it in universities decades ago. The process that we use to rebel educates them as to the facts, which they cannot then deny they know, this provides us with clear evidence that they are well aware of the fact that Britain and the entire commonwealth is in a position of open rebellion against the crown by law, meanwhile we build a case file against them and for our own defence by doing so, which may contain evidence of crimes committed within the system by public servants acting against us. By not standing under the law themselves they are all acting in outlawry, as outlaws! Anybody today not standing under Article 61 is in point of fact an outlaw. The correct protocols of constitutional law were used to invoke Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 on the 23rd day of March 2001 therefore, if it is denied publicly, that it is in effect today then that would be the crime of sedition at common law.

If any individual were then to act against you whilst you are standing under the protection that Article 61 provides, whilst they are on notice of the facts, then that would be an act of treason at common law (aiding and abetting High Treason). Nobody wants to provide evidence of their crime of treason we have proven that time and time again whilst using article 61 very successfully. The concern for many of us is that there are no courts of law in Britain nor the commonwealth in these dangerous times, the corporate machine has been marching on for generations, but this is why we all must unite under the common law in order to protect it, and our rights, since Article 61 was invoked it is compulsory for us all to stand in defence of our nation, that is clearly the truth which cannot truthfully be denied. Convening a court of law that adheres to the constitution is all we need. Plus a few thousand silent witnesses perhaps? They have been dismantling our justice system for generations, the grand juries were repealed as far back as 1848 and the passing into law of the 1911 Parliament Act was an act of treason at common law, because it changed the constitutional protections of the people without consulting them first. The royal prerogative was diluted, whereby the monarch was no longer able to stop or grant parliamentary Bills (proposed laws) without the aid of a government minister. It is constitutionally fundamental that the monarch of the day is the single last safeguard against unjust laws being introduced to the people. The grand jury process is a fundamental part of the principle of equality before the law, and to protect all subjects against unnecessary breaches of the peace. The grand jury was convened only to decide whether or not the common laws of the land had been broken, and if so, they would pass a verdict of a ‘true Bill’ for a trial to ensue. If not then a ‘No Bill’ was the verdict and nothing more was done.

The grand jury existed up until 1933 but for matters abroad only. The Grand jury service was a fundamental part of our judicial system, run as a service to the people it provided the people with a remedy against loss or harm by another no matter their social status. The people took the evidence to the grand jury service, providing a way for the dispute or claims to be sorted without a breach of the peace. If a true bill was declared then the matter would be sent to a petite court (a court with a jury of 12 ordinary people). Summonses would be issued and if the evidenced proved to be criminal, arrests maybe made. The grand juries sat under the common laws of the realm which are reflected within various constitutional documents, the Bill and Declaration of Rights 1688/9 (respectively), Magna Carta 1215, The Petition of Rights 1628, Acts of Union 1707- 07, Coronation Oath Act 1688 etc… The corporate Magistrates courts today (all corporate entities operating under the ‘Ministry of Justice Corporation’) are using unlawful rules against the concept controlled people, but only because they consent to it. Their so called law courts act entirely on presumptions, the presumption that you are the corporate legal entity and that you consent to their corporate rules is their hook. We remove all of their presumptions automatically by standing under Article 61 and informing them of our standing. They can do nothing but break constitutional law by continuing actions against us, this is why we act strictly according to the constitution and nothing else. The freeman on the land method, to use their rules against them in their so called courts, will never remedy the matter of treason. By using their rules and places of corporate business against them, they are consenting to those rules and granting authority to the so called courts to hear the matter. They will NEVER rule against themselves no matter how strong the evidence.

The common law (constitution) demands that we reject the crown not aid and abet it. WHERE DOES LAW ORIGINATE? The simple answer is, from the people, whom over many generations, through times of war and hardship, united to force the tyranny from continuing within the realm, by creating treaties under threat of revolt in more hostile times and in more peaceful times Bills, Acts, Oaths, Declarations etc, were demanded and created, written down in various documents that enshrine the rights of the people under the natural laws of decency, so that equality peace and prosperity would be had by all sovereign people for all time, which has compiled our freedoms into written (therefore verifiable) documents. The great concept control lie on the BBC lately is the argument whether number 10 Downing street or parliament holds the sovereignty (more double think/speak). It is WE THE PEOPLE who hold the sovereignty since it is no longer held in trust by a constitutional monarch under Oath and contract (Coronation Oath).

Article 61 legally deposed the monarch of that service/duty, rejecting the crowns authority by the use of the constitutional laws that the monarch agrees to abide by under the coronation Oath Act 1688. The sovereignty by default came straight back to the people the very first time the Oath was breached. It has been breached well over 3,500 times to date. All that is being asked of us all is to unite with the common people under the ancient laws that protect the common people (not the crown and or corporations), and to act peacefully and honourably at all times whilst doing so, by observing the evidenced facts ONLY. Its a far cry from the muddy fields of Flanders, lest we forget. All you need to do is create an Oath of allegiance or simply declare your standing under Article 61, which the law demands we all do, and then to simply conditionally accept whatever demand comes your way, on proof that they have the lawful authority to make that demand since Article 61 came into effect. …..the crown has absolutely no authority today, it’s a crime to even pay tax or aid and abet her majesties government or any aspect of the crown in any way. That is the simple fact of the matter which cannot be denied as it is entirely evidential. Its invocation was reported within some of the mainstream press at the time…though not front page news as it ought to have been! (Look up ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’ Daily Telegraph 24th March 2001).

I may repeat things that have already been written herein, but repeating it may help you understand how simple this process is? Since I used this process myself beginning 7 years ago, I have never appeared for any summons nor paid any of the fines that were demanded in my absence, furthermore, I more recently used article 61 several times for other people whilst they granted me power of attorney over their legal affairs. Article 61 qualifies me and you to have power of attorney BTW. Although I can boast a 100% success rate with every process that I have completed, if success is to create a stalemate situation that is? It maybe a victory of sorts on a personal level but it doesn’t remedy the fact that the country is being run by criminals so we all need to do a lot more. Educating others by using the process successfully is the best way to go in my opinion. Lobbying the police should be done by us all. Politicians are NOT above the law and they are all (at least) aiding and abetting a treasonous system of administration. In order to keep the peace whilst we rebel we MUST get the police to back the evidenced truth and to act according to their warrant card, without fear nor favour. This can be done if enough of us demand they do it. We denied a 7 day committal order to prison for contempt of court from ever being carried out, council tax demands and bailiff threats all failed to enforce their will against us, a cannabis cultivation charge (36 plants that were in fact hemp, but the policy enforcers claimed them to be cannabis) ended due to lack of evidence? HMRC returned fine monies paid for not filing tax returns for a few years, water and sewage demands have been impossible to enforce, various summonses and court orders have been denied and in October 2014, we even seized the town hall in Glastonbury by using Article 61 just to show that it is possible to do (video in the files of Practical lawful dissent facebook group). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqkaQaFBALY

This peaceful, lawful way to ensure we protect our rights and freedoms should excite you, it did me when I realised its worth. We all have ‘LAWFUL EXCUSE’ not to pay tax and to deny the police any authority unless they are acting under oath (according to common law). We must still abide by common law ourselves whilst doing this, we do so and educate those unaware working within the system of the truth, and to demand our rights to a fair trial so that treason can be heard in a proper court of law. We demand that any hearing MUST be heard within a ‘properly convened court de jure (a court of record standing under British constitutional law in public forum) ONLY. With matters that may involve you and the policy enforcers (police) it is advised to serve the chief inspector of the local ‘nick’ a notice of your standing, we use a ‘Notice of Lawful Objection’….do you (chief inspector) lawfully object to my standing under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, if so why? I Provide you Fourteen (14) days to reply or it will be presumed by all parties that you agree entirely with my understandings of the law, and that I will receive no harassment – breaches of the peace, or trespass by any police constables. Once a formal ‘Notice’ is served, co signed by three witnesses via recorded delivery, a copy of the notice retained with the postal receipt to prove it was accepted (check track and trace and record the delivery signature or take a screen shot) It is deemed to have been accepted in law.

You have acted honourably with nothing but the truth. Its a check-mate move if the process is done thoroughly/correctly according to law. We don’t leave them any wriggle room by keeping things very simple. We don’t argue the ins and outs of contractual agreements nor their rules because that is all besides the point. We deal with British constitutional law ONLY as its the only way that we will ever retain it. All we demand is proof of jurisdiction.

QUICK GUIDE (Without examples of Notices):

STEP 1. Declare your standing in lawful rebellion (remove the presumption of your consent). This is done either by serving a Notice of conditional acceptance onto the person making demands on you or, if nobody is making any demand on you at the time a Notice of lawful objection to the local police chief inspector;

STEP 2. Conditionally accept any demands made upon you, whilst you are putting them on notice that article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect today, and that they must provide evidence in substance (meaning evidence written down), that article 61 is no longer in effect (which cannot be done) therefore, the crown (courts, police, tax offices, councils etc) has no authority to make whatever demand is being made against you so, they obviously cannot provide evidence of such;

STEP 3. Serve a Notice of default and opportunity to cure if the first conditional acceptance Notice has been ignored or, your question has been ignored. We do this to remain in honour which is an important part of the process (you can serve a second Notice of default and opportunity to cure to give them yet another chance to respond to your original Notice if you like? (optional)….before serving the third Notice;

STEP 4. Serve the Notice of Default. You are now in default and have agreed by either tacit consent (ignoring you) or by lack of substance (providing no written evidence of them having authority to make demands upon you) that they have no legal claim against you goodbye;

STEP 5. Serve a Notice of Misprision of Treason on a persistent agent (making him/her personally liable for their actions under penalty of perjury). By evidencing acts of treason that have and are committed today, the agent would then have to decide whether or not to commit high treason in order to pursue you further. If they are in the know, so called judges, and the higher echelons of the police service etc you will very unlikely hear from them again, and the summons or other demand for payment or whatever will invariably not be pursued;

STEP 6 (if required, which will likely bring another process being started against the police if they refuse to act). Report any harassment, coercion or attempt of extortion etc to the police. Demand an investigation and remind them of their Oath of office. You will need three witnesses to accompany you to the police station. Within article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 it states that no-one will be restrained from declaring their allegiance to the committee of the barons, and that anyone unwilling to stand with them (and us at this time) must be compelled to do so. Thus we all have a duty under the law to peacefully rebel against the crown, and also compel others to declare their allegiance to the barons committee, including of course the police. Most people wont realize that they each have a duty by ‘royal command’ to rebel against a regime that does not abide by the peoples law (constitution). To understand this concept, which seems to be a contradiction in terms to some folk, that we each have a lawful duty by royal command to rebel against the crown, commanded by the crown. It needs to be understood that Magna Carta 1215 was a treaty and contract which contained equal consideration like all other contracts. We are commanded to bring the crown to order, to see sense as it were or, to protect them from a covert takeover.

Knowledge is power but unity is the key. Our ancestors understood that which is why standing under Article 61 is compulsory for all once it has been invoked. This peace treaty (MC 1215) effectively destroyed the ‘divine right of kings’, in which the king could do as he pleased without being subject to the common law. King John and his mercenaries were reported to have been stealing land, cutting off noses and ears, taking out peoples eyes etc…..yes he was under duress to seal the Magna Carta or face losing the crown by revolt. The people represented by the barons had spoken. This treaty like all treaties was signed under duress, he didn’t particularly want to stop his psychopathic habits. Indeed he attempted to get pope innocent III to null and void the treaty the following year (1216). This was an act of treason as the pope has/had no authority over these shores whatsoever.. Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has been used on a number of occasions in history, not least in 1688 which brought about the ‘glorious revolution’. This brought William and Mary to the throne and with them the Declaration of Rights and Coronation Oath Act into being. The Coronation Oath Act of 1688 bound the reigning monarch by said Oath and contract, to protect and observe the laws of god and the customs of the people of Britain. Gradually we have lost our fair system of justice by deception and misdirection, trials that were ALWAYS held within the public so that justice may be seen to be done under common law, no longer function in our land when it comes to the children. Gradually we have accepted these corporate hearings to such a degree that most people accept blindly that they are observing the law and, that they have the authority to make demands on us.

The concept that we are powerless within the system is another spoon fed subliminal concept. So….to summarise. We are supposed to living within a system of service, under the common laws of the realm. The law is NOT being observed within ANY of the judicial services today. The law commands us to reject the crowns authority, peacefully by pledging our allegiance to the committee of barons whom invoked Article 61 of the Magna Carta on the 23rd March 2001…reported within the media (Daily Telegraph and Mail) so it cannot be denied. It was invoked according to the correct protocols of British constitutional law which means anyone opposing it will be committing sedition, if not treason. The death penalty for high treason still applies today. The 1795 Seditious and treasonous practices Act was NOT lawfully repealed by Tony Blair within chapter 36 of the 1988 Crime and Disorder Act. To attempt to do so was an act of high treason at common law. He also committed a further two counts of treason by removing the word ‘Sovereignty’ from the police constables Oath of office and, by signing the ‘Nice’ treaty.

Thatcher signed the single European Act in 1989, John Major had Douglas Herd and Frances Maud sign the Maastricht Treaty 1992, Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty 2008 and the list goes on. You are a powerful individual in today’s society if you know the truth and wield it honourably with good intent. Britain and the commonwealth has ‘National Sovereignty’ under a constitutional monarch (in ordinary times). National Sovereignty means just that, we are a nation of sovereign beings (kings and Queens in our own lands). The invocation of article 61 qualifies you/me to act with power of attorney for others. Nobody who may wish to disagree with that fact (police) have any authority whatsoever to even do so, whilst they are aiding and abetting a treasonous regime. Being assertive with the truth is not difficult. The truth is always evidential or it is hearsay end of…..with the lawful rebellion remedy no hearsay is ever required. Strategy. Whereas under the law we ought not cause ourselves unnecessary harm or loss, as well as others, it pays to pick your battles well. If you need a car for work or whatever don’t fight the system on car tax, just pay it under duress, which you will be evidently doing anyway by standing under article 61, so you don’t even need to declare it. If I were to pay something under duress of circumstances I would add a V.C. Before my signature. (VC = Vi Coactus – meaning under duress). That means that you haven’t accepted liability for the payment or punishment you consent to, and if you have finished the process we use against these people, until forced by duress of circumstance to pay up or whatever, then you would have a claim against them in the future, because there is nowhere for it to be heard at this time,there are no courts of law they are all illegal corporate entities as previously said.

Our ‘mission’ so to speak, is to demand the return of the common law and due process of law, so we can have the matter of treason brought before real courts. I wouldn’t tackle the electric or gas corporations unless you are off grid, and had other means of those energies if required. The water industry however is a stolen public service and is thus fair game, it cannot be legally cut off as it is a fundamental requirement for life. Thatcher sold this PUBLIC SERVICE mostly to the unaware people that already owned it. We should ONLY be paying for the upkeep of this service. To pay for water and sewage at this time is to aid and abet theft. They can only reduce the water pressure to your home not cut you off so go for it. Council tax is also fair game as of course, since the crown has no authority neither does the council. Simple. HMRC have already conceded defeat with regard to the use of Article 61, so its ultra fair game especially as they are so close to the deposed crown. The process we used can be viewed herein. Voting registration, TV licences, parking fines etc are all unenforceable via this process. Starting the process by rebutting such simple demands first may give you more confidence in using it against greater demands.

Any alleged “summons” you get can be stopped, and if the police are forewarned of your intent it will make it much more difficult for them to act against you, because you can hold someone accountable if they do. The best thing that we can do for ourselves is gather small groups of like minded people to help defend each other (not that we have had any cause to do so), and as support for fellow rebels by supplying and receiving witness signatures for documents, and for general education purposes etc. With a group, the council, police etc can be peacefully lobbied more easily, Its much harder for 1 person to seize a public building for example.. The best way to approach this process is by having nothing pending i.e., fines, debts for tax etc, then you can choose the best way to distress the regime. A Notice of lawful objection to the local top echelons of the police service, is always a good way to proceed.. you may pre-empt actions before they begin? Your intent cannot then be claimed to be…. just trying to get out of paying for stuff. You can even have fun using article 61 and the lawful excuse it provides you. Seizing a town hall for example is an interesting venture as long as it is done very calmly and you have documented facts of your claims in hand. You will need to be assertive with the police and demand that they stand under their oath of office, once they do then they must stand under common (constitutional law) and accept article 61’s invocation or aid and abet treason in full knowledge of the facts. The police left us to it at the town hall, but we only seized it to make the point to the councillors that we could, we had to make a stand after they refused to answer where they each stood with regard to article 61’s invocation. They provided us with a superb example of how lawful excuse can be used. The so called “law” with regard to motor vehicles is not law as it cannot be since the constitution was usurped in 1911 by the passing of the Parliament Act.

I think a balance must be struck though. I think we need laws to stop some people driving fast near schools or wherever lots of people walk, perhaps at certain times of the day even?. We all have a responsibility to use a car whilst being capable to do so safely of course, or we can easily cause serious harm or loss to others, so a driving test and certificate of competence should also be obtained before taking to the road. Drinking alcohol and driving is a very dangerous act of course, which can kill innocent people and a law should definitely be there to discourage it (in my opinion). What I think doesn’t even matter though, its what the collective people want once we get our country back, and that will only happen peacefully if we can get the police back on the side of the people.

We all need to ‘Lobby the Bobby’ (as we put it). Its one of the fundamental objectives of the movement. When using this process, create a file and keep it well ordered with all the documents you serve and receive. Building a case file will make it very difficult if magistrates, county or crown courts attempt to kidnap you into their realm (I’ve rebutted at least six summonses, they have persisted but never acted upon any of them when it came to the crunch). If you want a simple job to do you can go after any individual within the system to stand under article 61…….at least we are educating people if nothing else by doing that. Some don’t listen unless or until they think that there maybe a real threat to their liberty or property by the evidence we serve them. Whatever you do please share information with others and support others that maybe using this process in any way you can. One or two spokespersons and lots of silent witnesses are all that is required, with any group planning to enforce the law by seizing properties etc….recording the events silently and intimidatingly for the criminals is a good strategy, see how they squirm or act more like human beings.

The first of three processes successfully used against the system whilst using nothing but Article 61’s invocation. The actual documents are not included but I, David Robinson Swear that the following statements are the truth under penalty of perjury. SECOND SUCCESSFUL PROCESS USED AGAINST HMRC. Thank you to Sandi Wicks for having the courage and trust in the movement to achieve this remedy. The outcome eventually included a promise from HMRC to repay fines that had already been paid under duress (not that she stated she was under duress when paying but as she is in lawful rebellion it goes without saying). Sandi had received yet another demand from HMRC to pay fines for not submitting several income tax forms on time, she had already paid some earlier demands when she was threatened with enforcement against her if she did not pay. She is a home owner and therefore has some assets so naturally she was concerned about the threats. She like others had assumed that those that had already had success against the regime by using article 61 (in various other matters) were those who have very little to lose, and that, although that is true, this is why they gave up on those successful pioneers.

With the greatest of respect to Sandi (and others that have made such an assumption) I trust now that this success is proof enough that this is not the case. Sandi is part of the lawful rebellion group in Glastonbury. After she witnessed the earlier success against HMRC pioneered by another group member Edward Alder (deadly Eddily), she decided to pluck up the courage to have a go. She always knew that she could simply pay up under duress of circumstances if things got too heavy for her, this is a safety net that is completely lawful to use if you are in lawful rebellion. By doing so you are not admitting liability by paying and will have obtained evidence of theft. This evidence can and will be used against those agents of the corrupt regime once the rebellion has been ultimately successful in restoring courts of law, and it will be. I offered to handle the process for her as she was very busy. I also had the intent to use the previous success Eddy had pioneered as a precedent within the process, but it didn’t even get that far. Sandi agreed to provide me with power of attorney over her legal affairs here is the contract that we agreed.

Sandra Wicks. xxxxxxx xxxxx, xx xxxx xxxx , Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 I, Sandra Wicks, do hereby authorize David Paul Robinson to act with power of attorney on my behalf with regard to any enforcement agency attempting to remove goods or monies with regard to income tax or any other mater involving the law, unless or until I have withdrawn my authority in writing. Sandra Wicks. Signed: Dated: David Robinson. C/o The King Arthur, 31-33 Benedict Street, Glastonbury, Somerset. BA6 9NB.

I, David Robinson of sound mind and good intent, do solemnly swear to act in accordance with the rule of law at all times, with power of attorney in any affairs with regard to the law and, for no personal financial gain whatsoever for Sandra Wicks. whilst upholding the laws of the land without deviation. Signed: Dated: Witnessed by: 1. 2. 3. The demand that she had received to begin this process is not included. We rebutted the demand by using the Notice of Conditional Acceptance (as we do).

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC). HMRC DMB 380 BX5 5AB From: Sandra Wicks xxxxxxx xxxxx, xx xxxx xxxx , Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx Date Notice served: 24th October 2015 Sent by recorded post

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle Dear Mrs C Graham, I am writing to you after I received a demand for a payment of £1,200.00 for ‘Overdue Tax, Tax Return & Penalties’ dated 8th October 2015. Please be aware that this is a Notice, a lawful instrument that requires your urgent attention. This ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ may be used as evidence in my defence. Whereas I, Sandra Wicks stand entirely under the tenets of constitutional law in lawful rebellion as to my duty under the law and, that it is to my understanding entirely unlawful to pay any monies to HMRC at this time and since the 23rd March 2001 and, that I have withdrawn ANY/ALL presumed allegiance to the office of Sovereign (including HMRC) due to my individual duties under the law (see exhibit ‘D’, Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons), those duties being stated within Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (see exhibit ‘C’, Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 text) invoked by royal command according to the correct protocols of constitutional law on the 23rd day of March 2001 (See exhibit ‘B’, Letters between the barons’ committee and the office of sovereign), therefore the law forbids me to comply with your demands for monies. Whereas it cannot be denied that the invocation of this most important constitutional tenet did occur on the aforesaid date and, that it stands as the CURRENT LAW of the realm, please provide me evidence in substance to counter this claim within 7 (Seven) days from your receipt of this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ and I shall comply with your demand for payment.

I do not wish to break the law Mrs Graham, if I am coerced/forced under threat into breaking the law by you then you shall be solely liable for the consequences. Maxim in law:“Any act done by me against my will is not my act”. The Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 on the 24th March 2001. An article by Caroline Davis (see exhibit ‘A’) can also be viewed online under the title ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’. Magna Carta Society wrote: The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September (2009) that Magna Carta, sealed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.” Therefore I, Sandi Wicks does conditionally accept that HMRC has the lawful authority to make demands on me for tax or fines, on proof that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today and, that the ratification of the treaty of Nice has been revoked and, that the crown does indeed, according to British Constitution law have the legal/lawful authority to make and enforce such demands.

Whilst the law provides me with ‘lawful excuse’ to distress the crown and its institutions at this time, it is to my understanding that I CANNOT BY LAW consent to the fine demanded by you as an officer for HMRC. British constitutional law forbids me to aid and abet the crown until Article 61 has been publicly revoked by the barons’ committee. It also forbids me to aid and abet any other man or woman who is not also standing in open rebellion in compliance with the law under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215. I must also compel you Mrs C Graham to abide by the constitutional law yourself, and to stand with us in lawful rebellion as the law demands. Failure to respond to this ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’ within the time frame allotted, or without providing evidence in substance that clearly defines that article 61 is no longer in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including third party interlopers) that HMRC has NO lawful claim against I, Sandi Wicks and, that any further attempt to extract monies or goods over this matter would be harassment which may invoke a counter claim for damages against HMRC and you personally Mrs C Graham. Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. We are ALL responsible and culpable for our own actions or omissions under British Constitutional law. Please check the facts for yourself before replying. Ignorance is no defence in law. Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to appear vexatious and, with all my inalienable Constitutional rights reserved. Signed: Sandi Wicks. Witnessed by: Signature. Printed name: Date: 1.–—————————————– – –———————————– 2.——————————————- – –———————————— 3.—————————————— – –————————————

Enclosed evidence. Exhibit ‘A’ (Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of MC 1215 on the 24th March 2001). Exhibit ‘B’ (communications between the Committee of the Baron and Sir Robin Janvrin, Queens private secretary) Exhibit ‘C’ (Article 61 of MC 1215 text) Exhibit ‘D’ (Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons). (evidence the same as from page 14 – 25)

We received no reply from Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC). Instead they chose to attempt to scare her into submission by using another agent (M. Mansha). Here was his reply:

HM Revenue & Customs. Debt Management Enforcement & Insolvency Service. Centenary Way 1 St Blaise Way Bradford West Yorkshire BD1 4XX Date 6 November 2015 Our Ref XXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Dear Mrs Wicks I have attached a statement of liability which shows your outstanding balance on our records. Please note the amount is still remains outstanding are if you wish to dispute this you will need to contact the self assessment helpline; SA Helpline 0300 200 3310 (help to complete tax return). Your liability to tax is not dependant on HM Revenue & Customs meeting the conditions you seek to impose. The amounts outstanding are due under legislation and your liability for these amounts is not dependant upon HM Revenue & Customs providing answers to the irrelevant questions you have posed. I recommend that you arrange to pay your outstanding liability immediately. Failure to do so may result in HM Revenue & Customs taking enforcement action against you. Such as the use of a debt collection agency, removal and sales of your assets. County Court proceedings or bankruptcy proceedings. I have nothing further to add to this and I consider the matter to be closed. Any further correspondence from you on this topic will not be responded to.

Yours sincerely (signature) M. Mansha

(attached document); H M Revenue & Customs. STATEMENT OF LIABILITIES date 6 November 2015 MRS S V WICKS Reference xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx Period ended Description Unpaid amount. 05-04-2013 Interest on Late Filing Penalty 4.43 05-04-2013 Interest on Daily Penalty 26.55 05-04-2013 Interest on 6 month Late Filing Penalty 8.85 05-04-2013 Interest on 12 month Late Filing Penalty 4.16 05-04-2013 SA Daily Penalty Tax 900.00 Interest To 06-11-2015 3.47 05-04-2014 SA 6 month Late Filing Penalty Tax 300.00 Total unpaid amount £ 1247.46 Interest accruing per day, until payment £ 0.09

Well……that told her!! she’d better just pay up then right? We then served the second Notice on Mrs Graham. We also drafted a special Notice for M Mansha…

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC). HMRC DMB 380 BX5 5AB From; Sandra Wicks. xxxxxxx xxxxx, xx xxxx xxxx , Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Date Notice served: 11/11/2015

NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Dear Mrs C Graham I, Sandra wicks do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This is a lawful notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says. I do not stand under the Law Society’s ‘legalese’ and there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein. If you fail to comply with this Notice then you will be deemed to be in absolute agreement with the points raised. Do not ignore it. A reply to this notice is REQUIRED and is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full name and on his or her full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Your response is required within TEN (10) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice; failure to comply will represent your tacit acquiescence with the FACTS of this Notice or that you are unable to provide lawful proofof-claim.

You are hereby put on Notice of my standing and the lawful facts. Do not ignore this Notice unless you agree to acquiesce to the facts, thereby agreeing in full with the lawful points that I made in the previous Notice served on you dated: 24-10-2015 and delivered by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery on 29-10-2015. If you fail to respond in ‘substance’ or within the reasonable time limit afforded to you herein, and rebut the points raised within previous Notice(s) served, it shall be taken to mean by all parties that all points and concerns raised herein/therein are true and indisputable lawful fact and, that you agree to them entirely and without exception. It will also be taken to mean that any further action taken against myself as a living woman or legal fiction would be deemed by all interested parties to be unlawful harassment or coercion to commit crimes under common law. I, Sandra Wicks over the age of twenty one years, competent to witness and with first hand knowledge do say the following, that: STATEMENT OF TRUTH: I have asked you previously to provide the evidence to confirm or deny whether Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is still in effect at this time. I am concerned that by complying to the demands of HMRC that I shall be in breach of the laws of this land since said Article came into effect. I do not wish to break the law, so please advise me with the truth in law so that I may do the correct thing according to law. Being the second Notice to be served, I use this Notice as a reminder of the first, preceding Notice served and the fact that it was either ignored or not answered according to the points raised within it – in SUBSTANCE.

Allowing for a reasonable time limit for you to respond to this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ I provide a further TEN (10) days from your receipt of this document by recorded mail for you to reply in substance. I hereby offer you this further opportunity to rebut or confirm my understanding of the common law as referred to in my previous Notice(s) for you to remain in honour and, thus by doing so, enabling an opportunity to remedy this matter amicably or to provide clarification of the lawful facts as to my standing under Article 61. I hereby attest and affirm that all of the above is the truth and is my lawful understanding. Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with my natural, indefeasible and unalienable rights reserved. Sworn and subscribed on the date of: Signed: Witnessed by: Date: 1:_________________________ 2:_________________________ 3: _________________________

And the Notice to Stop for M. Mansha; To: M Mansha (Doing business as A Debt Enforcement Agent for HM Revenue &Customs). Debt Management Enforcement & Insolvency Service. Centenary Way, 1 St Blaise Way, Bradford, West Yorkshire. BD1 4XX From: Sandra Wicks xxxxxx xxxxx, xx xxxx xxxx, Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Your reference xxxx xxxxxxxx Sent by recorded post. Date: 16/11/2015

NOTICE TO STOP

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Dear M Mansha, Whereas I, Sandra Wicks stand fully under British Constitutional law in defence of the Sovereignty of our nation at this time, which is to my understanding the lawful truth and duty of ALL British and Commonwealth subjects to do, and evidently so since Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect on the 23rd March 2001 (see exhibits A & B) and, that I have complied with the law with ‘lawful excuse’ with regard to this matter (see exhibit C), that being in a peaceful and honourable manner, by putting you M Mansha on notice of the evidential facts in an attempt to remedy this matter lawfully, and to inform you of your own duty under British Constitutional law. By pledging an Oath of allegiance to one of the Committee of the barons whom invoked said article, it makes it my sworn duty to distress the present regime and this I do by ‘Royal Command’. To my understanding it is entirely unlawful to aid and abet the crown or ANY of its agents at this time. I therefore demand that you do due diligence on this matter and STOP any further proceedings against me unless and until it has been evidenced that my understanding of the law is incorrect.

I Sandra Wicks has ‘lawful excuse’ to “distress and distrain” the present regime until present constitutional wrongs have been remedied. Proceeding against me may make you personally liable for any torts or criminal acts committed against me, which may result in a counter claim for extortion and demanding monies with menaces if you do not immediately stop further enforcement actions against me, whilst ignoring the evidence herein provided. Whereas you state within the letter I received from you dated 6 November 2015 “ Your liability to tax is not dependant on HM Revenue & Customs meeting the conditions you seek to impose”. Let me remind you that it is THE LAW that imposes these conditions on us ALL. You are personally responsible for your acts and omissions under the law just like everybody else! You further wrote “ The amounts outstanding are due under legislation and your liability for these amounts is not dependent upon HM Revenue & Customs providing answers to the irrelevant questions you have posed”. Sir, the question that I pose is entirely relevant to the fact that it is UNLAWFUL to aid and abet TREASON AT COMMON LAW and thus to adhere to the demands of HM Revenue & Customs at this time. Ignore the evidence presented at your own Peril.

Your statements are evidently seditious. To conclude your letter you wrote that “ I have nothing further to add to this and I consider the matter to be closed. Any further correspondence from you on this topic will not be responded to”. If you fail to respond to the RELEVANT points of constitutional law herein, then by your acquiescence it shall be deemed to mean, by all interested parties involved in this matter, that you agree wholeheartedly with the facts I have stated and evidence that I have included. And that any further actions taken against me shall be considered harassment and criminal acts. Any reply MUST be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. Without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With prejudice and written under duress and protest. On my full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. Maxim: “Actusme invito factus, non est meus actus.“ – An act done by me against my will, is not my act. Sandra Wicks.

Signed. Date: Witness 1. Witness 2. Witness 3.

Evidence included: Exhibit A (Daily Telegraph report on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215). Exhibit B (Letters between the committee of the barons and Sir Robin Janvrin) Exhibit C (Article 61 text). (evidence the same as from Pages 14 – 25)

We received no further communication from either agent and, after the time frame for a reply had elapsed we served the final Notice of default on Mrs Graham;

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC). HMRC DMB 380 BX5 5AB From: Sandra Wicks xxxxxx xxxxxxx, xx xxxx xxxxx, Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx Date Notice served: 30th Nov 2015 Sent by recorded post.

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle. Dear Mrs C Graham, You have failed to respond to the two (2) previous Notices that I served on you, which is now taken to mean that you and all interested parties agree entirely with the points of law that I previously stated and, that HMRC has no claim against I, Sandra Wicks since you have provided your tacit consent to said Notices. I provide you with a further seven (7) days from receiving this ‘Notice of Default’ to respond to the Notice of Conditional acceptance in substance and in full. You are in dishonour at this time as you have a duty to respond to the very serious constitutional points that I refer to within said Notices. Any further action taken by HMRC against I, Sandra Wicks, whilst my lawful points remain un-rebutted without substance, shall be agreed to be harassment by all interested parties and a counter claim may ensue against you personally Mrs C Graham. Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to be vexatious and, with all my inalienable Constitutional rights reserved. On my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Signed: Sandra Wicks. Witnessed by: Signature. Printed name: Date: 1.–—————————————– – –———————————– 2.——————————————- – –———————————— 3.—————————————— – –————————————

We later received two conflicting correspondences from HMRC. The first dated the 17th December 2015;

From: HM Revenue & Customs. Debt Management C Graham Northgate House Agard street Derby DE1 1RU Date 17 Decemberr 2015 Our Ref XXXXX XXXXXXXXX NI Number xxxxxxxxx

Dear Mrs Wicks Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2015 regarding your outstanding Self Assessment debt £1252.65 I have checked your self assessment record and we have not received your 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 income tax returns. Therefore because we have not received them you have occurred penalties. Your 2014/2015 Self Assessment Tax Return and payment are due by the 31 January 2016. To avoid penalties occurring please ensure HMRC receive them on time. If you have stopped being Self Employed could you please tell us the date you ceased? If you have any problems with filing on line your outstanding Self assessment Tax Returns please telephone the Online Service helpline on 0300 200 3600 and for any other Self Assessment problems contact our Self Assessment Helpline on 0300 200 3310. GO PAPERLESS If you are Self Employed with no other source of income, no employees and are not registered for VAT you can choose to receive messages through your on line account. To do this, go to www.online,gov.uk/login and login to your account then select the option to go paperless. If you do not have an online account for Self Assessment already, go to www. blablabla…to set one up. Please remember that the deadline for your 2015 Self Assessment Tax Return online is 31 January 2016, If you haven’t yet registered for online filing, please allow at least seven working days to complete the registration process. Yours sincerely (unsigned).

The second letter was dated 22 December is as follows;

HM Revenue & Customs. HM Revenue and Customs PAYE & Self Assessment Complaints BX9 1AS Tel 03000 581483 Mrs Sandra Wicks xxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx Glastonbury BA6 XXX 22 December 2015 Complaints id; xxxxxx NI Number; xxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your letter of 16 November. I am sorry for any concern we have caused but, frankly, I do not believe that the powers you seek to invoke override the specific statute under which we have sought the penalties we raised. Even so, on the basis that your circumstances have not changed since you submitted your last tax return, for 2011/2012, I will cancel the penalties and repay the funds you recently used to settle some of them. If you feel I have not dealt with your complaint fully or correctly, you may ask for a further review by a different complaint handler by writing to; HM Revenue & Customs. PAYE & Self Assessment Complaints BA6 1AS Please make both your letter and envelope ‘For the attention of the Operational manager (Customer Complaints) PAYE & SA – Complaint further review’.

If you require more information about making a complaint, you will find it on our website at; www….blablablab If you do not have access to the internet but would like a copy of our fact sheet, please contact me on the number shown at the top of this letter. Your sincerely (signature) Steve Jones Complaints Officer.

So there you have it. An admission that they were wrong to fine her but no admission to the evidenced facts provided of course (traitors). As Sandi rightly states “how do they know my circumstances haven’t changed?” She hasn’t dealt with them for a number of years except to pay up under whilst duress. They may wriggle and squirm around the truth but the result is clear. They will not admit that they are compounding treason obviously, but they are unwilling to commit high treason to attempt to enforce their thefts upon us either. They don’t really care about money its all fictional anyway, they wish to maintain the illusion as a control mechanism for fear and servility, yet it is they that are in fear of us NOT the other way around. I trust that this latest victory will inspire YOU to act according to your constitutional duty and rebel in a peaceful but powerful manner. Sandi is no longer supporting paedophilia, terrorism, war crimes, treason etc etc etc… she may still not be happy with the world but at least she is no longer assisting in her own demise and that of her loved ones.

The Second Example (harassment against a well known rebel by the police, whom was growing HEMP not cannabis), SUCCESSFUL PROCESS USED AGAINST CANNABIS CULTIVATION CHARGES. This Notice is in response to an alleged summons (unsigned & unstamped) which appears to have been created by a police constable after 30 + hemp plants were removed from Danielle’s garden last July. At first they offered her a caution which she could not accept except under duress of circumstances. They declined the offer of a caution after the policy enforcers had tested the plants and declared that they were cannabis (which they lied about). She does not accept their charges or consent to their alleged authority of course. It would be a criminal act to do so and a breach of her Oath of allegiance.

To: Sarah Britton (doing business as Yeovil Magistrates Court Manager). Yeovil Magistrates Court, Petters way, Yeovil, Somerset. BA20 15W From: Danielle Davidson xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx, Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 Your AS Ref number: 16/0000/00/35409V. Date Notice served: 27th January 2016 Sent by recorded post. NOTICE OF

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal

Dear Sarah Britton, I write to you after I recently received by post, an alleged Summons to attend Yeovil Magistrates Court on 16th February 2016 relating to charges brought against me for allegedly cultivating Cannabis.

It is to my understanding that there is NO law that stands true to this day (only unconstitutional rules) that prohibit the cultivation of Hemp or Cannabis for personal consumption. Even so, that fact is information surplus to requirements with regard to this matter, for the evidential fact that the crown has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY to bring charges of this nature or any other, against I, Danielle Davidson at this time has been included herein. Whereas I, Danielle Davidson stand entirely under the tenets of British constitutional law and, that I have entered into lawful rebellion according to my duty under said law.

I cannot according to my understanding in law consent to the arbitration service of Yeovil Magistrates Court, as it is against the Constitutional laws of the realm to do so at this time and, that I have withdrawn ANY/ALL presumed allegiance to the office of Sovereign (Crown) due to my individual duties under the law, those duties being stated within Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (see exhibit ‘C’, Article 61 of MC 1215 text), invoked by Royal Command according to the correct protocols of constitutional law on the 23rd day of March 2001 (See exhibit ‘B’, the barons’ petition).

Whereas it cannot be denied that the invocation of this most important Constitutional tenet did occur on the aforesaid date and, that it stands as the CURRENT LAW of the realm, please provide me evidence in ‘substance’ to counter this claim within 7 (Seven) days from your receipt of this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ and I shall comply with your demand to appear on the 16th February 2016. The Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 on the 24th March 2001, an article by Caroline Davis (see exhibit ‘A’) can also be viewed online under the title ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’. Magna Carta Society wrote: The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September (2009) that Magna Carta, sealed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day: Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”

Therefore, I Danielle Davidson does conditionally accept that Sarah Britton and Yeovil Magistrates Court has the lawful authority to demand that I adhere to the unsigned, unstamped (alleged) court summons, received and Dated 06/01/2016 and, that T/CC 4976 Morgan (“authorising officer”) therefore has the lawful authority to demand that I appear with regard to this matter, on proof being provided in substance, and within the reasonable time frame allotted, that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today and, that the ratification of the treaty of Nice has been revoked and, that the Crown (including Yeovil Magistrates Court Manager & said authorising Officer) does indeed, according to British Constitution law, have the lawful authority to make such demands on me at this time. Whilst the law provides me with ‘Lawful Excuse’ to distress the crown and its institutions, I CANNOT BY LAW consent to the alleged authority of T/CC 4976 Morgan or Sarah Britton since you both derive your alleged authority ultimately from the crown.

If I am thus forced to attend this alleged summons under duress and protest, then you may both be held personally liable for your part in this unlawful coercion, and for your part(s) in aiding and abetting a treasonous regime. Maxim in law: “Any act done by me against my will is not my act”. Failure to respond to this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ within the time frame allotted, and/or without providing evidence in ‘substance’ that clearly defines that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including any/all third parties), that Yeovil Magistrates Court has NO lawful claim or charges against I, Danielle Davidson whatsoever. Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. We are ALL responsible and culpable for our own actions or omissions under British Constitutional law. Please check the facts for yourself Sarah Britton. I must also by duty and law compel you to stand in open rebellion and to adhere to British Constitutional yourself. Sincerely, and without any intent to commit any crime or tort, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with all my inalienable constitutional rights reserved. Signed: Witnessed by: Signature. Printed name: Date: 1. 2. 3.

Enclosed evidence; Exhibit ‘A’ (Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of MC 1215 on the 24th March 2001); Exhibit ‘B’ (communications between the Committee of the Baron and Sir Robin Janvrin, Queens private secretary); Exhibit ‘C’ (Article 61 of MC 1215 text). (evidence the same as from page 14 – 25)

We received no reply to this Notice so we served the second as follows…..

To: Sarah Britton (doing business as Yeovil Magistrates Court Manager). Yeovil Magistrates Court, Petters way, Yeovil, Somerset. BA20 15W. From: Danielle Davidson xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Glastonbury. Somerset. BA6 xxx. Your AS Ref number: 16/0000/00/35409V. Date Notice served: 9th February 2016. Sent by recorded post

NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal Dear Sarah Britton, I further write to you after I recently received by post, an alleged Summons to attend Yeovil Magistrates Court on 16th February 2016 relating to charges brought against me for allegedly cultivating Cannabis. Whereas no reply has yet been forthcoming in response to the Notice of conditional Acceptance that I posted to you dated 27th January 2016 and, which was received by your office on the 28th February 2016 at 11.55 am. I offer you a further chance to respond according within Five (5) days from your receipt of this second Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure. Failure to respond to said notifications within the time frame allotted, and/or without providing evidence in ‘substance’ that clearly defines that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including any/all third parties),that Yeovil Magistrates Court has NO lawful claim or charges against I, Danielle Davidson whatsoever.

Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever, and with all my inalienable constitutional rights reserved. Signed: Witnessed by: Signature. Printed name: Date: 1. – 2. – 3.

Again no reply so the default Notice was served…….

To: Sarah Britton (doing business as Yeovil Magistrates Court Manager). Yeovil Magistrates Court, Petters Way, Yeovil, Somerset. BA2015W From: Danielle Davidson. xxxxxxx xxxxx, Glastonbury, Somerset. BA6 xxx. Date Notice served: 15th February 2016. Sent by recorded post

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle

Dear Sarah Britton, Since you have failed to respond to the two (2) previous Notices that have been served on you. It is now taken to mean that you and all interested parties agree entirely with the points of law that I previously stated and, that Yeovil Magistrates Court has no lawful claim against I, Danielle Davidson since you have provided your tacit consent to said previous Notices. Any hearing with regard to this matter MUST be heard within a properly established court de jure under constitutional law. The law forbids me to consent to ANY other jurisdiction. I may seek remedy for the torts that have been committed against me or, if any more demands are made against me by Avon and Somerset police or Yeovil Magistrates Court with regard to the cannabis charges laid against me.

You are now in dishonour Sarah Britton as you have a duty to respond to the very serious constitutional points that I refer to within said Notices. I understand that you are doing business as the court manager and thus you have the responsibility to manage the court proceedings according to law. Any further action taken by Sarah Britton against I, Danielle Davidson whilst my lawful points remain un-rebutted without substance, shall now be agreed to be deemed as harassment by any/all interested parties and a counter claim may ensue against you personally.

Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive whatsoever. with all my inalienable constitutional rights reserved and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Signed: Danielle Davidson. Witnessed by: Signature. Printed name: Date: 1.—————————————— 2.—————————————— 3.——————————————

I had also previously sent a ‘letter; to the local police inspector, just to clarify the position we are taking on this matter…..

To: Mark Nicholson (Doing business as Police Inspector Nicholson for Wells Constabulary). Wells Police Station, 18 Glastonbury Road, Wells, Somerset. BA5 1TL. From: David Robinson. C/o 31-33 Benedict Street. Glastonbury, Somerset. BA6 9NB. Sent by recorded post. Date: 20/ 11/ 2015

Dear Mark, Whereas you have been made fully aware of the lawful rebellion movement in Glastonbury that has been an ongoing occurrence for some eighteen months now, involving both the Glastonbury Parish Councillors and Wells Police Constabulary, yourself included, by the lobbying of both said parties about the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, and the evident facts with regard to the treasonous treaty of Nice and, along with the evident truth about the usurpation of the crown. There is little need to write to you further about whether or not the rebellion is lawful. This was agreed by the local constabulary in October 2014, when Constables under your inspection and direction agreed that we had seized the Glastonbury town hall (temporarily, under duress and protest) entirely lawfully, and left us to remain in the building until we saw fit to leave it. Mark, we are ordinary people attempting to have ONLY the evidential truth examined and acted upon by our public servants.

We are passionate about preserving the common laws of this realm which are fundamental in protecting the vulnerable and innocent. We are a peaceful yet very determined group of individuals of all ages and from different backgrounds, and we are growing in numbers. We are defending our right to distress the current regime under the protection of our ancient constitutional laws as you know. Some of us whom are serving Notices to put individuals on Notice of the treason that they are compounding, whilst also informing these individuals of the fact that they too must by law stand under the royal command to rebel against the crown at this time, are being harassed and coerced whilst they are ignoring the EVIDENTIAL TRUTH therefore, I turn my attention to you Mark. You Sir have a duty to keep the peace and to protect the community members against crime. Demanding money with menaces is extortion and a crime. Removing property from the house or garden of someone standing under the constitution in open rebellion, whilst being fully aware of the facts is a very serious matter. Harassment, theft, intimidation, treason etc….. by removing Danielle Davidson’s hemp plants from xxxx xxxx Glastonbury, the above claims may be brought against you Mark, as we have evidence that you have been notified of the facts. We are a very determined group intent on keeping the peace wherever possible. We are (and many are doing the same) collecting evidence not only for our defence, but also to bring claims against those especially in service to the sovereign, whom are ignoring the Royal Command to rebel in defence of the sovereignty of this nation.

This evidence is being collected for trials that will be taking place in the future. The people are waking up in their droves. We have had much success by using this royal command to stop ourselves from aiding and abetting this treason. HMRC recently agreed that Article 61 was grounds for a successful “appeal” against a fine for not filing a tax return, they responded by zeroing the account, we have evidential proof of this. Danielle Davidson successfully rebutted a 7 day committal order to prison for an alleged contempt of court 10 months ago issued by Yeovil County Court. She rebutted it successfully TWICE with the same lawful excuse. Ten months later they are again attempting to enforce a hearing on her with threats. She will again’ conditionally accept’ their summons/invite on proof that Article 61is no longer in effect today and, that they must provide evidence of the authority that they presume to have in which to enforce this demand on her. One of the group recently seized Yeovil Magistrates court successfully with the same rhetoric. The Magistrates abandoned the court after failing in threatening him with contempt of court. Frankly we know the law better than they do. My main purpose in writing to you is to bring to your attention a so called cannabis bust at xxxx xxxx Glastonbury. Danielle Davidson had 30 + Hemp plants for juicing etc. She bought the seeds from the Hemp Shop in the market place.

The ‘bust’ was recorded on video by us therefore we have the evidence of what occurred. After the plants were allegedly tested for THC content the results appear to have comeback as positive. Whereas there is a small amount of THC in hemp anyway it would be a case of how much THC content was present but, there is NO CASE TO ANSWER because there is NO LAW that forbids the growth of either hemp or cannabis! The so called “laws” on Cannabis prohibition are rules that do not comply with British constitutional law, therefore they do not apply to those who have taken an Oath to reject the crown and those unlawful rules. It seems that Avon and Somerset police may have made a mistake in this matter. They had NO authority at the time to arrest her or to remove the hemp plants. Is it also mandatory under the law for police constables whom are on duty, to have identification numbers on their uniforms whilst operating as a police constable. Why were some of the constables who attended Danielle’s address to remove her property (hemp) not identifiable? This maybe grounds for a complaint against the principal in charge of said constables. We also have evidence against certain police officers for compounding treason. The lawful rebellion group would prefer to have open discussion with the local police constabulary so that we can remedy this treason matter, yet we have attempted this previously and you have ignored our invitations. We require the police to stand by the truth and the people again, and for them to stop aiding and abetting the corporations and treason. When the people are empowered again by numbers, and its only a matter of time now, we shall not forget those who acted against us in these times. Yours Sincerely. David Robinson.

The end result was that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) wrote Danielle a short notice stating that due to lack of evidence they would not be taking the matter further. Danielle now has a claim against Avon and Somerset police constabulary for the theft of her vegetable matter and harassment. The process we use is very simple, we don’t complicate it by arguing other legal issues only whether or not they have authority, which they evidently do not. Well done to Danielle Davidson for having the faith in the evidenced truth and the courage to stand by it….yet again. She is fast becoming the most pioneering rebel on the planet with 4 different processes against water, council tax, an order to go to prison and now this cannabis charge. Only those who deny truth can deny that lawful rebellion works. Those people are the problem and also the enemy of the nation.

This is the Third example. Danielle Davidson – what happened with my arrest warrant for imprisonment, LR, full process against C Court and Wessex water. Lawful Rebellion Notice of Conditional Acceptance for court decision warrant of arrest, contempt of court, water bills. This is the letter that began this process. Danielle Davidson had ignored the first two summonses (which I don’t advise) and received this sentence for contempt of court.

From: Mr Markey HMRC & Tribunals Service Yeovil County Court The Law Courts Petters way Yeovil BA20 1SW URGENT CONTACT: COUNTY COURT YEOVIL Case number 3JA10324

WARRANT OF ARREST FOR Mrs Danielle Davidson FAILURE TO ATTEND COURT WHEN ORDERED TO DO SO. YOU HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO 7 DAYS IN HMP Eastwood park….FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

To prevent loss of liberty and the embarrassment of a Police officer/Enforcement officer arresting you, you are strongly advised to contact YEOVIL COUNTY COURT WITHIN THE NEXT 48 HOURS. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING ARRESTED.

Mr Markey County Court Agent Yeovil County Court Tel…

Danielle decided that she couldn’t consent to a 7 days in prison. She was advised to contact Mr Markey by phone to give her a little more time to draft the following Notice and serve it to begin the rebuttal process, which she did. After a brief telephone conversation she convinced Mr Markey that she needed a couple of weeks to convene a meeting with the so called “court” in Yeovil…..instead we wrote and served this up:

To: Mr. Markey (doing business as Court Enforcement Agent). Yeovil County Court The Law Courts Petters Way Yeovil BA20 1SW From: Danielle… Address….. Case reference number 3JA10324 Date Notice served: Sent by special delivery.

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Notice to agent is notice to principle, Notice to principle is notice to agent

Dear Mr Markey, I am writing to you after receiving a letter of arrest and imprisonment for seven days for contempt of court. Whereas I, Danielle Davidson do Not consent to the presumed jurisdiction of Yeovil County Court nor does your service have jurisdiction to lawfully carry out an arrest warrant for contempt of court whilst the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect and, that I Danielle Davidson (the living woman), stand fully behind the committee of the Barons whom invoked said article, which is the constitutional duty of ALL British subjects at this time. Not to do so would be ancillary to treason, therefore, enforcement of the detainment of Danielle Davidson would be an act of kidnap at common law. Any hearing must be conducted in a properly convened Court de Jure so that justice can be seen to be done. I demand remedy under due process of law where constitutional law is fully observed.

Please be aware that this is a ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’ it informs you and means what it says. The matter raised herein is of a very serious nature and requires your immediate and urgent response. Please also be aware that the fact that this ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’ is hand written does Not detract its validity under the common law. This document may be used as evidence in my defence.

Definition of a Notice: A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact has reason to know it, or has been given notification of it. A reply in full to this notice is required within Five (5) days from receipt of it. Failure to reply to this Notice in ‘substance’ (meaning to respond to the points raised) shall be deemed to mean that they/you are in full agreement with all the points of law raised herein and, that no further actions will be taken against I Danielle Davidson. Whereas you may be in ignorance of the evidential, thus provable fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional Law on the 23rd day of March 2001 and, which stands to this day as the political position of the British Isles and Commonwealth.

TAKE NOTICE THAT: This fact was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001 and can be seen online under the title of ‘peers petition Queen on Europe’ and, that we are all responsible ‘individually’ to comply with the law and that there is No defence in law by pleading ignorance. It is the common law duty of all British subjects to defend the Common Law and to stand under article 61 when it has been invoked. Therefore; 1. I conditionally accept that Yeovil County Court has the authority to carry out its threats against me and, that I have a lawful obligation to comply to its orders on proof being provided, in substance, and within the reasonable time allotted, that Yeovil County Court and ‘HM courts and tribunals service’, can lawfully make such demands whilst article 61 of Magna Carta is currently in effect; 2. That Yeovil County Court is functioning under the constraints of the British Constitution and that the Crown has any authority whatsoever in these treacherous times. I, Danielle Davidson do have ‘lawful excuse’ to reject, distress and rebel peacefully and entirely lawfully under the protection of Constitutional law. Anyone who would seek to deprive me of due process under constitutional law will be committing a very serious offence indeed.

Mr Markey, I urge you strongly to investigate the facts referred to herein. I do urge you to stand in defence of the British Constitution and under Article 61 yourself. Without malice, frivolity or ill will, with all my inalienable Rights reserved and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Any response is required to be made on penalty of perjury and on your personal commercial liability. Signature Printed name (Three signatory witnesses) dated: Witnessed by: 1. 2. 3.

[No response was forthcoming] After the time frame for the first response had expired the second Notice was served:

To: Mr Markey (DBA, Court enforcement officer). Yeovil County Court The law courts Petters way BA6 9PF.

From: Danielle……. Address….. Case ref number…. Date Notice served: Sent by recorded post. NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE Notice to principal is Notice to Agent Dear Mr Markey. Whereas I have received no reply to the ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’ posted to you on the 20th January 2015 and received by your office on the 21st January signed by “STEELE”. I am providing an opportunity for you to remedy the matter, please be aware of your duty of care to reply to my concerns as said in the previous Notice served. You are required to make a response on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury within Seven (7) days to remain from being in dishonour. If no reply is forthcoming then then it will be taken to mean by all interested parties that you agree there is no legal claim against me as stated in the previous Notice. Without vexation, frivolity nor ill will, with all my inalienable rights reserved. Signed… Danielle ……… Three Signatory witnesses and dated. 1. Signed. Dated. 2. 3.

(No reply was forthcoming and after the time frame had elapsed, the third Notice was served).

TO: Mr. Markey (Doing business as Court Enforcement Officer) Yeovil County Court The Law Courts Petters Way Yeovil BA20 1SW FROM: Danielle Davidson Address Date Notice served: 4th March 2015 Sent by recorded post

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Notice to agent is notice to principle

Dear Mr. Markey, Whereas no response has been forthcoming from two previous notices served on you and, that they have been received therefore accepted in law. It is now clear that No further demands nor arrest warrant shall be enforced against I, Danielle Davidson of the above address. Whereas you have tacitly accepted the claims of non jurisdiction that I made within said Notices this matter is therefore closed. Thank you. Without frivolity, vexation, or ill will and, with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. Signed Witness signatures 1. Date: 2. 3.

This is a simple process that anyone can do. It has been effective as the so called County Court enforcement officer is in dishonour and therefore would have NO claim in any proper court of law and, she (Danielle Davidson) would not accept anything else. Whilst the above process was being carried out Danielle also wrote to Wessex water who had brought the matter to Yeovil County Court. Lawful Notice to Water Company over charges.

To: Chris Hunt (Doing business as Wessex water billing services limited credit administrator). Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd Clevedon Walk Nailsea Bristol BS48 1WA From: Danielle Davidson Address:………. Customer ref: C24135874 Date Notice served: Sent by recorded post

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Notice to agent is notice to principle, Notice to principle is notice to agent

Dear Chris Hunt, I am writing you this Notice to put you on notice of the facts. I am standing under Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 according to our British constitution as invoked on 23rd March 2001, evidenced by the fact that it was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001 and, can be seen online under the title of ‘peers petition Queen on Europe.’ Whereas Margaret Thatcher, PM, privatised water services in 1989 and created the National Rivers Authority and at the same time as OFWAT was created, all public procurements in the UK are governed by the EU treaty, the ‘EU procurement directives and UK procurement regulations’, which is an act of treason at common law, allowing foreign jurisdiction the regulatory powers over British services. Also the signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain’s independent decision making powers further, by extended majority voting in certain areas of policy making was a further act of treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

Whereas I, Danielle Davidson, a law abiding constitutional subject is standing under the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, I conditionally accept that I can pay your demands according to the rule of law on proof being provided that it is lawful to do so. To accept the privatisation of public services would be to accept a treasonous administration to my understanding, which would be a criminal offence according to common law. I implore you to check the facts alluded to above and to abide by the British Constitution Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 yourself. A reply to this lawful notice is required to be made in substance within 10 days on receipt of of this ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’. I have put the alleged court on Notice of the same and I am waiting for a response. A failure to respond to this notice in substance and within the reasonable time frame allotted, will be taken to mean by all parties (including third party interlopers) that you agree wholeheartedly to the facts alluded to within this document and, that no further claims against I Danielle Davidson would be lawful and, that all claims against me are thus null and void.

TAKE NOTICE: We are individually liable for our actions and omissions under constitutional law. Ignorance is no defence in law. Any reply must be made upon your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

Without vexation, frivolity or ill will, with all my nature inalienable common law rights reserved and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Kind Regards Signed: Danielle….. 3 witness signatures

RESPONSE from Wessex water (FROM A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATOR).

Dear Miss Danielle ………. Thank you for your letter received on the 3rd February 2015. Under section 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991, any person who uses the water services at a property is liable for all charges accumulated during their time in the property. You are using the services provided, and are liable for the balance outstanding. Please contact me by 19 February 2015 to set up a payment arrangement for your ongoing charges and arrears for (address).

Failure to contact me by 19th February 2015 will result in debt recovery action continuing. If you have any questions about this letter (yadda yadda yadda) Yours Sincerely Alex Carter Credit Administrator.

Notice of default and opportunity to cure was then served on the agent for water board in reply to the second Notice.

TO: Alex Carter (doing business as Credit Administrator) Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd, Clevedon Walk, Nailsea, Bristol, BS48 1WA FROM: Danielle Davidson Address:…….. Ref No. Date Notice served: Sent by recorded Post

NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Notice to agent is notice to principle

Dear Alex Carter, Thank you for your letter dated 6th February 2015, which acknowledges the receipt of my ‘letter’ (Notice of conditional acceptance) received on the 3rd Feb 2015. The first Notice sent to you was addressed to Wessex water employee Chris Hunt. I must advise you to read said previous Notice and to respond to it in full. I hereby give you a further seven (7) days to respond to the ‘Notice of Conditional acceptance’, in full and with proof of only lawful claims to monies, properties of I, Danielle Davidson. I am disappointed by your reply dated 5th Feb 2015 wherein you failed to respond to the two (2) serious, lawful points raised therein. Section 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991 Is an Act of Parliament which has no authority over I, Danielle Davidson at this time or since Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 was invoked. Therefore the law forbids me to abide by it. Please add the answer to this question on reply. Along with the two previous questions as yet unanswered: Are you Alex Carter standing under the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 in Lawful Rebellion? I f you are not I cannot aid you in any way.

I am putting you Alex Carter on Notice of the the above article being in effect today and, that you also have a duty by law to stand in defence of the British Constitution. Any debt recovery action taken against I Danielle Davidson whilst my serious questions as to the lawfulness of your demand are unanswered, will constitute unlawful coercion to act against British Constitutional law and, would thus be harassment with intent to extort monies under false pretences. This would cause me a tort, of which you and Wessex Water would be be held liable for. If you fail to respond to any of these three (3) questions that require answering, or address any letter to me with the title Miss then I may ignore any further correspondence from you and/or Wessex Water with no dishonour on my part. By failing to respond to reasonable and lawful questions you are in dishonour, please cure the matter.

Without frivolity, ill will or vexation with all my natural inalienable common law rights reserved. Signed: Danielle…. 3 Witness signatures.

-Footnote- (Anyone standing under article 61 would suffice as a signatory witness but also, anyone in agreement with your Notice also if that is too hard to find). The response was yet again by a different administrator….oh they think they are so clever…fools!

From: Samantha Heeney Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd Clevedon Walk Nailsea Bristol BS48 1WA 19th Feb 2015 Miss Danielle……… Address…… Customer reference ….. Premises supplied……. Balance £1,229.94. County Court Claim: 3JA10324.

Dear Miss Davidson Thank you for your letter received on the 18th February 2015. The water industry Act 1991 sets out the statutory mechanism for payment of water and sewage charges. This applies to all occupiers of the property receiving water and sewage services. The Magna Carter is not relevant to the payment of water charges and does not overrule the 1991 act.

You have asked us to address the issue raised in your previous letter of 1 February 2014. (NOTE: they cannot even get the year correct!). I can confirm that the privatisation of the water industry and the signing of the single European Act 1986 are not relevant to the payment of water charges and do not provide you with any exemption from payment. You have a balance outstanding of £i,229.94 which is broken down in the following way. You have a balance outstanding of £737.21 which covers the period 27 October 2012 to 20 November 2014 and is for your on-going consumption. I can accept a minimum of £64.72 a month. You have a balance outstanding of £492.73 which covers the period 1 November 2011 to 26 October 2012 and is subject to County Court claim 3JA10324. I can accept a minimum of £20.53 a month. I have extended the hold on your account until 5 March 2015 to allow you time to contact and arrange payment. Failure to contact by this date will result in debt recovery action being taken. If you have any questions about this letter, please call me on 01225 524327 Monday to Friday 8.30am – 6.00pm or email customerservices@wessexwater.co.uk

Yours sincerely Signature (copy, not a wet signature) Samantha Heeney Credit Administrator.

We then served the third as follows…. Notice of Default (third notice) to Wessex Water Billing Services TO: Samantha Heeney (doing business as Wessex Water Billing Services Credit Administrator) Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd. Clevedon Walk Nailsea Bristol BS48 1WA

From: Danielle …. Address: …….. Date Notice Served: Sent By Recorded Post

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal Samantha Heeney, Thank you for your timely reply to my ‘Notice of Default and opportunity to Cure,’ received by you on 18th February 2015. As previously stated the ‘Water Industry Act 1991’ is an Act of Parliament created by quislings and does Not comply with the rule of law in Britain and, whereas that being the evidential truth in law, I Danielle Davidson cannot at this time abide by said Act and remain within the boundaries of constitutional law. Are you, Samantha Heeney, attempting to coerce me into breaching constitutional law? Furthermore, I am not an occupier but a dweller of the property and a constitutional subject of the realm of Britain. You also wrongly addressed your letter to ‘Miss’ Danielle Davidson. I do not accept this title as it implies the legal fiction of which I revoke entirely. Considering the fact that you cannot even spell Magna Carta correctly I will presume that you have not looked into the fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect today and, that once invoked it does indeed overrule the said 1991 Act.

Your statement therefore is tantamount to Sedition at Common law and I strongly advise you to check the facts for yourself as ignorance is no defence in law. Again you are wrong to suggest that the privatisation of the Water Industry and the treasonous signing of the ‘Single European Act 1986’ are not relevant to the payment of Water charges! To do so is to aid and abet high treason at common law and I will NOT DO SO. Passing on each of my lawful Notices to a different admin to respond does NOT make you any less liable for your unlawful coercive demands. I now possess evidence of collusion against all three administrators whom have dealt with this matter. I hereby demand that you CEASE in this coercion and pass my Notices onto the head of your department.

If you continue this harassment you may invoke a counter claim against you personally, whereby you will be cross examined as a hostile witness in a properly convened Court de Jure. Ignore British constitutional law at your peril Samantha. Any further coercive demands made against I, Danielle Davidson by Wessex Billing Services Ltd, will be harassment that will be considered to be a tort. Samantha Heeney I stand by constitutional law for the sake of our rights and our children’s. I would implore you to look at the facts and to do the same. We cannot allow further corruption to go on. Fee schedule: (UPDATE We don’t bother with fee schedules these days, its pointless until we have courts of law). For any letter sent to I Danielle Davidson with coercive demands for payment shall incur a penalty fee of £200.00 (two hundred G.B pounds) per letter.

Any further response made by myself to unlawful demands shall be charged at £150.00 (one hundred and fifty G.B pounds) per hour or part thereof. The above charges will be invoked by ANY individual making further unlawful demands. Wessex Water Billing Services limited are in dishonour whereas you/they have failed to respond to the points of law in truth within previous notices served. Any further letters received may be ignored by me with NO dishonour on my part. Any reply to this ‘Notice of default’ must be made on penalty of perjury and on the individuals personal commercial liability. Without ill will, vexation or frivolity and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. With no admission of liability whatsoever and with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With prejudice. Signed Witnessed by; 1. : Date… 2. 3.

-Footnote- (She will also demand a properly convened court for any counter claim of harassment and breach of fee schedule….I would be happy to act with power of attorney in that matter…bring it on Wessex water!) The next letter was received as follows;

To: Miss Danielle Davidson Address Dear Miss Davidson, Customer Number: Property Address: Balance: £1,229.94 County Court Claim: 3JA10324 : £492.73

Thank you for your letter dated xxxx xxxx xxxx. I am sorry you are unhappy with the response letters you have received. As previously discussed, the legal points raised in your letter are irrelevant and do not excuse you from paying your water charges. We will only respond to new enquiries and will not repeat ourselves. Please contact me by 24 March 2015 to set up a minimum payment arrangement of £89.00 a month. This should cover your ongoing charges and clear your arrears over 24 months. If you are unable to afford this, we have schemes to help customers who have arrears or are unable to pay their bill in full. All we need is a financial statement prepared by a free debt advice agency. (Unsigned).

Time to bring out the big guns…….

TO: Alex Carter Wessex Water Billing Services Ltd. Address From: Danielle Davidson ADDRESS Date notice served: Sent by recorded post

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OF MISPRISION OF TREASON

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent

To Alex Carter (doing business as Credit Administrator for Wessex Water Billing Services Limited). Please read the following ‘notice’ thoroughly and carefully. It is a NOTICE, a LAWFUL DOCUMENT and EVIDENCE. It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION. Please be aware that failure to act on this LAWFUL NOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act, which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/any British sovereign man/woman within or without the realm of the English Isles and Commonwealth and, is an OFFENCE under the ‘misprision of treason Act 1795,’ SECTION 1 (Misprision of treason). Whereby;…it is an offence at common law for any person(s) who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace. Also please be aware that the penalty for committing ‘misprision of treason’ in this day is life imprisonment and total asset stripping,and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not malice,menace, frivolity, vexation nor ill will.

Whereas you persist to harass me despite being notified of the facts and that you have made UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself/legal person, and that you are continuing to coerce me to comply with unlawful statutes (Industries Act 1991) by threat of enforcement and, that you are acting for a ‘corporation’ who has at this time no lawful claim against I Danielle Davidson, a sovereign woman standing in lawful rebellion and, that the crown is committing high treason against the sovereign peoples of the English Isles and Commonwealth at this time therefore I cannot lawfully nor morally support financially or in any other way a treasonous regime of governance or any private entity not also standing under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DO SO ! Therefore… It is to my understanding that you must now by the common laws of this realm and, with the evidence herein supplied, CEASE in all actions against I, Danielle Davidson, I have lawful excuse to deny payment for a stolen water and sewage ‘service’ or to deal with anyone/entity not also standing under said article. With light to the evidence reported to you personally Alex Carter,herein this notice, this evidence by LAW must now be reported by YOU to the police to stay within the bounds of constitutional law, failure to do so would contravene the Treason 1795 Act and would bean Act of ‘misprision of treason at common law’.

I will be forced to report any further unlawful demands to the police. THEREFORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that:

1) A long range deception to overthrow the sovereignty of the English Isles, by controlling its currency and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalized by the Geopolitical centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically,through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion. Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled ‘Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’ (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as ‘European Economic Community’. The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

2) Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.

3) The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-Frenchpro-federal European lobbying body posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. The documentation evidencing these events are present on the discs FCO 10 30/48 which can be viewed online.

4) The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.

5) The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy,Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

6) Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970-72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents have been released after the thirty year rule.

7) The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are all born free to do whatever we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm,injury or loss to another’s life,liberty or property or their rights to life, liberty or property.

8) England, within the United Kingdom (corporation) of Great Britain is a common law jurisdiction and British parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender land or transfer, even temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war.

9) No man (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common law of Great Britain that forms the British constitution (Magna Carta 1215, The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/89, the Coronation Oath Act 1689 and the Act of Union succession and settlement 1701-1707).

10) The Declaration of Rights 1688 is an un-rebutted claim of Right by the people and therefore beyond the reach of parliament and still stands to this day. The Declaration includes the clause: 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. This is mirrored in the Bill of Rights 1689 which still stands as legislation.

11) Treason in statute law was redefined by the Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include; a)compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his/her spouse or eldest son; b) levying war against the sovereign in his/her realm, which includes, any insurrection against the authority of the sovereign or of the government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder; c) giving aid or comfort to the sovereigns enemies in wartime.

12) Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

13) Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes the subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

14) The evidence presented in the ‘Shoehorned into the E.U.’ files shows that the Heath Government of 1972was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.

15) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British parliament,was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.

16) The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain’s independent decision making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

17) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original EEC Berlin document 1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, was an Act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.

18) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 increased the European Unions powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

19) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government repealed the Treason legislation in section 36 of the ‘Crime and Disorder Act 1998.’ abolishing the death penalty. This included the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law still stands as common law has primacy.

20) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further Acts of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

21) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word ‘sovereignty’ from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

22) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008surrendered further control of policy including that relating to immigration and borders. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Brown administration.

23) The previous Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is evidence to prove that this is an Act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.

24) The current Prime Minister Theresa May, by misleading the people into accepting the jurisdiction of the Lisbon Treaty (Article 50) to exit The European Union whilst Article 61 is in effect is an Act of High Treason by the May Administration. 25) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by professional accountants of their books in the last 15 + years. One year of non-publication is a criminal offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U’ s own court of auditors for the past 15 + years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance of British taxpayer’s funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.

26) The six European Treaties since 1972 are all unlawful and should be struck completely from the statute books.

The evidence submitted herein is to my understanding precise and factual and is in no way whatsoever intended to deceive, mislead, cause mischief or as an act of frivolity, vexation or ill will. Whereas this document is required to be responded to in its entirety within 28 days on your receipt of this ‘Notice of understanding of Misprision of treason’ please respond as to your lawful standing in light of this evidence presented on your full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.. Our constitutional law demands that we ALL take up lawful rebellion in support of the barons petition of the 7th of February 2001 and, to continue to distress those that refuse (as to the terms and conditions laid down under Article 61 Magna Carta1215), which was Invoked by the barons’ committee on the 23rd March 2001 and reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davis on the 24th March 2001, under the title ‘Peers Petition Queen on Europe’. The invocation of Article 61 still stands to this day as the lawful position of the British Isles and commonwealth.

FEE SCHEDULE. Whereas you are continuing to harass I, Danielle Davidson I now include charges for ANY unlawful harassment due to your continued unlawful demands which causes me a tort. For ANY unlawful demands sent to me via email, letter or by any other means of communication whilst ignoring the rule of law,you shall incur and accept the charges of £300.00 (Three hundred GB pounds) per each demand made. For ANY visits to my home made by ANY representatives of Wessex water or by any third party representatives involved in this matter i.e, bailiffs, whilst ignoring the rule of law, you shall incur and accept charges of £12,000.00 (Twelve thousand GB pounds) per incident. The above fee schedule is a non negotiable instrument. Any breach of fee schedule will invoke a demand for payment against the directors of Wessex water billing services limited, and will constitute a criminal offence at common law that shall be reported to the relevant authorities.

I now AFFIRM that all of the information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and first hand experience and that I am of lawful age and mentally competent to serve this ‘Notice of misprision of treason’. I hereby affix my own name to all of the affirmations and claims made herein this document with explicit reservations to all my natural, unalienable sovereign Rights and habeas Corpus, and to my specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract nor obligation which I have not knowingly, willingly,voluntarily and without misrepresentation, duress or coercion entered into, and that any hearing with regard to this matter(s) is to be heard under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land in open forum, as this matter is of course in the public interest and, that this is in accordance with my constitutional rights. Without Malice,vexation, frivolity or ill will, with all my natural unalienable common law rights intact, and on full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Signed: Witnessed by: Witness 1). Witness 2). Witness 3).

EVIDENCE. Copy of the Daily Telegraph report ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’ 24th March 2001. Exhibit A. Copy of the letters between the barons Committee and the office of Sovereign in 2001. Exhibit B. The entire text of Article 61 ‘Enforcement clause’. Exhibit C. Maxim: ”Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.” (Evidence as of from page 14 – 25) Update 28/11/2015. Danielle also repeated this process to another agent of the alleged County Court in Yeovil who acquiesced (yet again) to the three notices… She then received a notice from a ‘Process server’ stating that he would be personally serving her with the order to attend Yeovil County Court on the 8th Dec 2015. That he would be at her address between 9-10 am on the 16th November 2015….he didn’t show up. We served a notice on him a couple of days before he was due.

He would have been served a further Notice (of treason) by us awaiting his arrival with video camera at the ready to collect evidence of his criminality and for Danielle’s defence if he had. Here is the Notice that we served on him before he was due; To: Paul Arnold (Doing business as a Process Server for Yeovil County Court). 1 Orchard Close, East Brent, Somerset. TA9 4JL.

From: Danielle Davidson. , Glastonbury, Somerset, BA6 Sent by recorded post. Date:13/11/2015

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE AND OBLIGATION

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Dear Paul Arnold,

This is a Notice, a lawful instrument, it informs you as it puts you on Notice of the facts, it means what it says. This Notice requires you to do due diligence with regard to the constitutional matter(s) herein evidenced, and to react according to the rule of law (British Constitutional law) with regard to this matter. This Notice may be used in evidence. Whereas you did state within the letter that was received from you dated 7 November 2015 Re: BRISTOL WESSEX BILLING SERVICES LTD. “ I have been directed to serve you with a Suspended Committal Order for Disobedience”.

Please provide evidence of the authority from which you take your direction. It is to my understanding that Yeovil County Court is acting ‘ultra vires’ and in a ‘quisling’ capacity at this time. That being the case, this means that you would be an accessory to the facts. A criminal complaint may be made against you for harassment if you proceed against me without first responding IN FULL to this Notice. Sir, it is to my understanding that you have a duty of care to respond to the points of law raised herein. You certainly do have an OBLIGATION under the law to act according to the law.

You MUST respond to this Notice on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. Please respond to this Notice within Ten (10) days after receiving it. Please reply in substance with regard to all / any evidence that proves that Yeovil County Court has the lawful authority to make ANY demands on I, Danielle Davidson at this time. If you can provide evidence in ‘substance’ that proves that the Crown, thus Yeovil County Court has jurisdiction over I, Danielle Davidson whilst Article 61 of M.C. 1215 is in effect, or that said Article has since been revoked, then I shall comply with the invite / order to appear at Yeovil County Court for questioning at 11.am on the 8th December 2015.

I conditionally accept the invite / summons on these terms. If however you cannot provide said evidence and within the reasonable time frame allotted, that proves without any doubt that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today because the treaty of Nice has been repealed, then it shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that there is NO OBLIGATION BY LAW for I, Danielle Davidson to comply with ANY alleged County Court order to appear on said date, or any other date, or to comply with any other unauthorized order whilst the Crown is deemed to have no authority from which Yeovil County Court can derive jurisdiction /authority from.

I, Danielle Davidson has removed all presumption that I represent the legal fiction ‘Miss’ DANIELLE DAVIDSON by sending an Oath of Allegiance to one of the committee of the barons whom invoked Article 61. Any correspondence received by me with the title ‘MISS may be ignored with no dishonour on my part, as I do not, nor cannot, represent said title (by law and under sworn Oath) – (see exhibit E). I, Danielle Davidson stand fully under British Constitutional law in defence of the Sovereignty of the nation as to my / your duty under the law, and I apply the law to this situation to seek remedy and to prevent myself from aiding and abetting crime. I also have a duty to “compel” you Paul Arnold to stand with the barons’ committee’s invocation of said Article. Whilst said Article remains in effect it is clearly evidential that it is the duty of ALL British and Commonwealth subjects to rebel against the Crown at this time and since Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect, which was invoked according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional law on the 23rd March 2001 (See exhibit B & Exhibit D).

It is to my understanding that I have complied with the law in the correct and proper manner according to the rule of law at all times (see exhibit C), and that I have done so honourably and by ‘Royal Command’ with ‘lawful Excuse’ to reject Yeovil County Court’s service and / or orders and, that I cannot BY LAW accept the jurisdiction of Yeovil County Court if the Crown is still in a state of usurpation by the invocation of said Article. I, Danielle Davidson has put Yeovil County Court on Notice of the evidential facts already whilst previously communicating with Mr Markey (court enforcement agent). The first Notice was served to conditionally accept a seven (7) day committal to prison for an alleged ‘contempt of court’ order. The first Notice of conditional acceptance was dated 20th January 2015 (See exhibit A for all three (3) Notices previously served).

I, Danielle Davidson did serve said Notices in order to remedy this matter lawfully and peacefully, which Yeovil County Court did receive (recorded delivery slips and evidence to prove they were received has been retained as evidence) and Mr Markey representing Yeovil County Court did accept and agree to said Notices by acquiescence, thus also my standing in law, therefore it has already been agreed that Yeovil County Court had/have no lawful authority to make or enforce any orders against me whatsoever. Yeovil County Court has proven this to be the case by their none performance in proceeding with the committal to prison order issued some 10 months ago, and by NOT responding to said Notices served at the time in any way whatsoever, they / you are now in dishonour. I, Danielle Davidson evidently has ‘lawful excuse’ to “distress and distrain” the present regime until present constitutional wrongs have been redressed.

Proceeding against I, Danielle Davidson may make you Paul Arnold personally liable for any torts committed and / or any crimes that may take place by your actions or omissions. I consider your letter dated 7th November to be harassment and intimidation as I have acted entirely according to the law of this land, in a peaceful and honourable manner, and by using only THE EVIDENTIAL TRUTH in law to previously seek remedy to this matter. I hereby revoke any implied right of access to my home address. I may also reject any papers that you may attempt to serve on me unless or until jurisdiction from which you claim to have authority to act against me, is first proven to be legitimate. Without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With prejudice, under duress and protest. Maxim: “Actus meinvito factus, non est meus actus.“ – An act done by me against my will, is not my act. Signature. Date: Witness 3.

Summary of evidence included: Exhibit A. (Three (3) previously served Notices on Yeovil County Court). Exhibit B. (Daily Telegraph report on Article 61’s invocation). Exhibit C. (Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 text). Exhibit D. (Letters between Barons Committee and Sir Robin Janvrin) Exhibit E. (Copy of Oath of Allegiance). (evidence as from page 14 – 25)

We then served Notice on the alleged district judge who made the order for Danielle to attend their so called court.

To: Mr Bromilow (Doing business as Judge Bromilow for Yeovil County Court). C/o The Court Manager, County Court Yeovil, The Law courts, Potters Way, Yeovil, Somerset, BA20 ISW.

From: Danielle Davidson. X XXXX XXXX, Glastonbury, Somerset, BA6 XXX. Sent by recorded post. Claim Number 3JA10324 Date:20/11/2015

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent To The Court Manager, I, Danielle Davidson do instruct you to pass on this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ to the alleged ‘Judge Bromilow’ with regard to a matter concerning a ‘Suspended Committal order for disobedience’. Dear Mr Bromilow, Whereas I, Danielle Davidson stand fully under British Constitutional law in defence of the Sovereignty of our nation at this time (see exhibit D), which is to my (un-rebutted) understanding the lawful truth and duty of ALL British and Commonwealth subjects to do, and evidently so since Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect on the 23rd March 2001 (see exhibit C) and, that I have complied with the law in the best way in which I know how, that being in a peaceful and honourable manner, by putting the alleged officials of ‘Yeovil County Court’ on Notice of the evidential facts, in an attempt to remedy this matter, and to inform them of their own duty to the common law.

It has already been agreed by said ‘Court’ that there is NO lawful claim against I, Danielle Davidson. The evidence of this is proven within two (2) individual processes of Notices previously served on said Court, one set to Mr Markey and another set to Kathryn Steele. Both ‘Agents’ of said Court acquiesced to the Notices served and no further action has been taken. (copies of these Notices, ALL served recorded delivery and are thus evidenced to have been received, have been included herein as evidence – Exhibits A & B). By pledging an Oath of allegiance to one of the Committee of the barons whom invoked said Article, which I, Danielle Davidson has dutifully done (copy of Oath omitted – provided on request), to my understanding, makes it my sworn duty to distress the crown and any of its institutions until redress has been achieved, and this I must do according to a ‘Royal Command’.

I, Danielle Davidson has to my understanding ‘lawful excuse’ to “distress and distrain” the present regime until present constitutional wrongs have been remedied (see exhibit E). Proceeding against I, Danielle Davidson In full knowledge of the evidence supplied, may make you personally liable for any torts committed and/or any criminality that may take place due to your actions or omissions. Whereas it is evidential fact that the crown has absolutely NO authority over I, Danielle Davidson at this time, I conditionally accept the ‘alleged’ ‘“Suspended committal order for disobedience” or any summons/invite/order, on proof being provided in substance, and within Ten (10) days after receipt of this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today and, that the treaty of Nice has since been repealed. I also have a duty to “compel” you sir, to stand under the constitutional laws of this land at this time, and I do so by herein providing the verifiable facts to the best of my knowledge and first hand experience, and by putting you sir on Notice of said facts.

If no response if forthcoming or, if the points of constitutional law herein are ignored or no proof (in substance) rebutting my claims and understanding of the law is forthcoming, then it shall be taken to mean by all parties (including ANY interested third party interlopers), that Yeovil County Court nor any of its alleged officials, has the authority to demand that I, Danielle Davidson attend ANY hearing or to obey ANY orders whatsoever. It shall also be agreed (by acquiescence) that All the demands/orders made on me to attend Yeovil County Court thus far, have been made without the authority of the crown thus unlawfully (ultra vires) and, that they have each caused I, Danielle Davidson a tort. Any reply to this Notice is to me made on Oath or Attestation and on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. May I also remind you sir, that an official of the judicial system in Britain is constitutionally bound to ‘know the law and to observe it well’. I have also granted a colleague power of attorney over my lawful affairs. His name is David Robinson. He is a layman as to the law (not professionally qualified) though I have entrusted him to assist me in this matter (see exhibit F). His address is: The King Arthur, 31-33 Benedict Street. Glastonbury, Somerset. BA6 9NB With no admission of liability whatsoever and with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With prejudice and under duress and protest. Maxim: “Actus me invito factus, non estmeus actus.“ – An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

Danielle Davidson… Signature Date: Witnesses; 1. 2. 3.

Evidence included: Exhibit A & B. (two (2) sets of lawful documents previously served); Exhibit C. (Daily telegraph report on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215); Exhibit D. (letters between Sir Robin Janvrin and the committee of the barons). Exhibit E (Article 61 text); Exhibit F (Power of attorney document). (evidence as from page 14 – 25) The reply was made from yet another individual …they must think that by using different people to do their dirty work, somehow they are protected?…fact is they are all providing evidence for their collusion in the crimes.

From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service The County Court at Yeovil The Law Courts Petters Way Yeovil Somerset BA20 1SW. 27 November 2015. To: Miss Danielle Davidson X XXXX XXXX, Glastonbury, Somerset, BA6 XXX.

Dear Miss Davidson. Re: Case Number: 3JA10324 Bristol Wessex Billing Services Ltd V Miss Danielle Davidson.

Your letter dated 20 November 2015 was referred to the District Judge who said; “The Defendant can not use a Power of Attorney in this way. She has to attend and answer the questions herself” Yours sincerely. Mrs K Cundle County Court Section. (No signature of any kind).

The response we drafted is as follows;

To: Richard Bromilow (Doing business as Judge Bromilow for Yeovil County Court). C/o Mrs K Cundle (doing business as an Agent for HM Courts & Tribunals Service). County Court Yeovil, The Law courts, Petters Way, Yeovil, Somerset, BA20 ISW. From: Danielle Davidson. X XXXX XXXX, Glastonbury, Somerset, BA6 XXX. Sent by recorded post. Claim Number 3JA10324 Date: 01/12/2015

NOTICEOF DEFAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Dear Mrs K Cundle, I Danielle Davidson do instruct you to pass on this ‘Notice of Default & Opportunity to Cure’ on to Richard Bromilow with regard to a matter concerning a “Suspended Committal order for disobedience”. Dear Richard Bromilow, I received a letter from Mrs K Cundle dated 27 November 2015. The response to the Conditional Acceptance Notice that I had previously served, dated 20th November 2015 contained a wholly unsatisfactory and disappointing reply. Whereas the points of Constitutional law contained therein said Notice have been ignored entirely, and no reply to them has as yet been forthcoming. I hereby provide you with a further Five (5) days to respond in substance, and in full, to said Notice previously served. The comment that was stated that you did make; “The defendant can not use a Power of Attorney in this way. She has to attend and answer the questions herself”. Shall be disregarded with the contempt that it deserves.

I shall allocate power of attorney as I see fit ONLY within a properly convened court de jure as to my inalienable constitutional rights under Magna Carta 1215 Article 39: “ No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land ”. I DO NOT nor CANNOT LAWFULLY consent to the Services of HM Courts & Tribunal Services nor The County Court at Yeovil at this time.

Whereas you sir, have thus far failed to respond to the points of law that I seek clarification on, allow me to reiterate them for your immediate perusal: 1). Do you Richard Bromilow and/or HM Courts &Tribunals Service have ANY LAWFUL authority whatsoever since Article 61 of Magna Carta was invoked? 2). Are you Richard Bromilow standing under the invocation of the said Article in support of the barons’ committee, and in defence of the sovereignty of the Nation? If no adequate reply to these VERY IMPORTANT questions is forthcoming and, within the time frame allotted. It shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that, “HM Courts & Tribunals Service” and “The County Court at Yeovil” has NO lawful claim nor authority to demand that I, Danielle Davidson attend ANY hearing ‘ordered’ by said Court. Unless or until jurisdiction HAS BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST first. Sir, may I remind you that you are at this time in dishonour?

It is to my understanding that you have a duty of care and a duty under the laws of Britain to abide by the law, as do I. It appears that you Richard Bromilow are attempting to coerce I, Danielle Davidson into breaching a sincerely sworn Oath of Allegiance to the committee of the barons and, to breach the Constitutional law of the land (Article 61) by your continued “order”to attend Yeovil County Court on the 8th December 2015. This may incur a counter claim against you personally if force is used by any third party to enforce this alleged “order”. I shall hold you personally liable if by your order I am forced to attend said hearing before jurisdiction has been proven. Kidnap is a very serious offence. But not as serious as ‘Compounding Treason’ at common law. Any reply MUST be made on the individuals full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. With no admission of liability whatsoever, and with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With prejudice and under duress and protest. Danielle Davidson… Date: Witnesses Signatures. Printed 1. 2. 3.

No response was ever forthcoming and no attempt has ever been made to force her to court or prison, Its now 2 years we dealt with this matter.

Danielle still refuses to pay for a stolen public service (water) and they have all but given up trying. They did attempt more threats via the Northampton Business Centre after this process was over but, they got the same process and handed it back to Yeovil C Court…….The admission is in their silence. If Article 61 was not in effect and it was safe to denounce the constitution publicly (which would be sedition) then we may of at least had a proper reply from the alleged District judge (Bromilow). This proves that they are more afraid of us than we are of them. You MUST be assertive with the truth to let them know that you’re serious.

“All that that it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing” Edmund Burke.