It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.K.: Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System - Queen not valid monarch

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
exopolitics.blogs.com...

Link to the article above.

I don't have the legal expertise to say whether this is right or wrong, but if we assume for the moment that this is correct, we have an unlawful monarch (based on the "stone" she swore an oath on) but more interestingly, an oath to uphold "Gods Law" ( i.e. The Bible) rather than "Mans Law" which is apparently prohibited by the bible.

If true, this raises a plethora of questions regarding the legality of criminal proceedings against people, BUT also raises the very interesting point of western law being its own kind of sharia law, with "Mans Law" being illegal according to the oath sworn by the monarch.

It's a massive can of worms, and I really can't see this going further, but it would also apply to the oaths taken by police officers (at least in the UK), judges and magistrates, simply because we have acts of parliament which are enforced as if they are law when they are not (eg PACE).
The question of the legality of acts of parliament when they contradict the basis of the legal system (common law) is one that has been discussed in depth, especially when a member of the public appeals to a police officer to stand by the oath they took:
"I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offenses against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

As you can see from above, the key point is "according to law" but for many years, acts of parliament have superceded common law.

Having said all that, if anyone commits an offense, good luck trying this defense, because I really don't think it will work, and here's one reason why:
The magistrates courts have for years been fining people illegally. The papers served on people (for non payment of council tax for instance) have not been issued following the correct lawful procedures, and on that basis alone are illegal. Each case is supposed to be individually considered by a magistrate, but they never are. Instead, they are handled in batches, rubber stamped by a clerk and given to debt collection agencies which falsely claim they are officers of the court, and in many cases are not signed at all, which means that you don't have to comply with them (but they still make false claims about their authority).

There are many other examples, but I'm out of time, so I'll leave it there.
In closing, all I will say is that people need to educate themselves about how much of our legal system is acted upon under false pretences.




posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

The attached is another example of fantasy law.
Fantasy law is worthless in practice, because the authorities will take no notice of it.
This one is founded on the idea that breaking an oath is against God's law.
Nobody in the modern world will care about that.
So the only possible response to anyone in danger of being taken in by this nonsense is "Don't be silly".



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Yeah... You should just drop monarchy into the bin, where it rightfully belongs to.


Come on - just because mom was a queen, the next heir is a prince and therefore destined to "rule" the country?
Its nothing more than tabloid-food, panem et circenses without the panem. And its expensive.

I have met members of the former aristocracy - and none of them had some sort of higher (divine) power than joe shmoe round the corner.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Hi op. nice thread. SnF.




As you can see from above, the key point is "according to law" but for many years, acts of parliament have superceded common law.


I don't think the acts superseed common law, they cannot.




while I continue to hold the said office I will TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."


It's down to the lack of knowledge of law given to those that enforce it. Police do uphold common law in the name of the queen, but they also enforce policys for the crown corporation.

Everything has been corporated. An act is a legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed. Most do not know how this consent is given, it's suggested that the democratic voting sytem is what gives consent, as the majority have spoken. This is false. How can someone else give consent for you?

The secret to how this is done lies in trust law.

The statuatary acts are rules of the corporation. Ie, uk govt. when our parents register us at birth, much more is done in our name behind the scenes that we are aware of. I made this thread to try to highlight this....

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Also check this out...


Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett continues to expose the Illegitimacy of the incumbent British Monarchy in an interview with Dr. Jim Fetzer. The proposed changes to the Laws of Succession is an attempt by the Mafia to maintain their stronghold. Queen Victoria had a legitimate firstborn son who lived as the British Exilarch in Portugal. His descendants have a Legitimate and Superior Claim to the Throne of the United Kingdom.


www.theworldoftruth.net...
edit on 20-6-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by budski
 

The attached is another example of fantasy law.
Fantasy law is worthless in practice, because the authorities will take no notice of it.
This one is founded on the idea that breaking an oath is against God's law.
Nobody in the modern world will care about that.
So the only possible response to anyone in danger of being taken in by this nonsense is "Don't be silly".



Just because it's what you call "fantasy law" means it has no relevance?

Right there is the problem - people accept these things because they are told that they must, and those very same people are the ones bleating about "change" but have neither the courage to educate themselves, nor the will to do anything about it.
This is exactly the reason why the status quo continues, because TPTB know that the people they allegedly "serve" will never challenge them as long as they have got a few quid to go out at the weekend, a HD tv and other so called "freedoms".

Magistrates and debt collectors (as opposed to court appointed bailiffs) have been challenged successfully many times: just because you don't hear about it, doesn't make it untrue.
Which begs the question of WHY it is never reported - and the answer to that would be so that they can keep the system running the way they want, knowing that people will just shrug and get on with their lives, because that's how they have been conditioned to act.


edit on 20/6/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
What I find hard to understand is if the Queen is the head of the Church of England, how can she go round killing foxes and game for pleasure. Watch a horse get whipped and bet on the poor beast running for it's life for money.
Thing's most of us find extremely immoral and thoroughly unpleasant. What' makes her so nice? Why do people worship the royal family, when God said it is him that should be worshiped? Please enlighten me, because I really don't understand.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Yup, I knew about that issue. Maybe that pack of Germans (House of Windsor/Hanover/Saxe-Coburg) will be sent packing back to Germany. Under German Law, "once a German, always a German."

As for the Stone, it will reappear at the proper time... It belongs, not just to England, Scotland or Ireland, but to all of true Israel.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by happinness
What I find hard to understand is if the Queen is the head of the Church of England, how can she go round killing foxes and game for pleasure. Watch a horse get whipped and bet on the poor beast running for it's life for money.
Thing's most of us find extremely immoral and thoroughly unpleasant. What' makes her so nice? Why do people worship the royal family, when God said it is him that should be worshiped? Please enlighten me, because I really don't understand.


I think "worship" is the wrong word - the ones that typically get thrown around are "respect" for "tradition" and variations thereof.

I find it highly amusing that the EDL and other silly groups bang on about being English, and then say we have to have respect for a german and a greek. In fact the royals still follow the german tradition of "celebrating" christmas on what in the UK is christmas eve.

The immorality goes much further than hunting etc
Research into how much the royals interfere in UK law to protect their own interests, particularly charles whose interference in the private estate that is the duchy of cornwall is legendary - and not in a good way.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Thank you Busdsky ... I know it is much more deep rooted than that. I cannot understand why little old ladies and the general public at large will still camp out over night in all weather just to get a glimps of these parasites, when they rob us blind from our taxes to keep them in this life of luxury. Surly if the royals cared about their subjects then they would not ignore poverty in this country or the commonwealth. Why if the Queen is really the head of state that she can let cameron and his government treat people like dirt. It seems to me the worse you get treated the more subservient you get. Why can't people see it or are they just thick? True with EDL ... what is wrong with these people? or is it just me?



hx



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

Interesting find, and I never heard about this one, but as you can see the article(you linked us to) was dated May of 2011, and they haven't seemed to have acted on it yet, so they probably won't.

By the way, I saw an image of the queen when she was younger, and she was very pretty, for her to have turned into the sour looking queen that she looks like today, the job seems to have done her no favors.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by budski
 

Interesting find, and I never heard about this one, but as you can see the article(you linked us to) was dated May of 2011, and they haven't seemed to have acted on it yet, so they probably won't.




Well, this is the point I've made a couple of times - if more people not only knew about it, but acted on it, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

I won't be holding my breath though.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I don't have the legal expertise to say whether this is right or wrong,


I don’t have much legal expertise either, but I can tell you it’s wrong.


Originally posted by budski
but if we assume for the moment that this is correct ...


It is not, it’s wrong.

Like the previous poster (DISRAELI) said, this is fantasy law. Some rudimentary reserach will reveal this is the case.

Regards



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join