Forwarded from Rob
👍4❤2
Forwarded from TREASON PUBLIC CHAT
Archibold’s Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases.pdf
34.8 MB
Forwarded from TREASON PUBLIC CHAT
Case WON:
Reading the case file WI05257F between David Ward & Warrington Council.
He was being charged with a parking fine and he proved that the fine was illegal and won the case. It turns out all taxes, fines, council tax etc etc are only legal if acording to their own law, you sign to agree these to be in place when we are appointed a new government (every 4 years). We are never asked to go in and sign to agree we will pay these taxes and continue these so called “laws” that the previous government have in place. There for they use the twelve presumptions of law. Unless you challenge it, it’s presumed you’ll pay and agree them.
David challenged it and didn’t agree it so won his case.
Funny how this isn’t in our curriculum that’s written by our government. How convenient.
Only those who read the law books directly see this to be the case.
Join:
https://t.me/+TEW1Jk979dwzYmU0
Reading the case file WI05257F between David Ward & Warrington Council.
He was being charged with a parking fine and he proved that the fine was illegal and won the case. It turns out all taxes, fines, council tax etc etc are only legal if acording to their own law, you sign to agree these to be in place when we are appointed a new government (every 4 years). We are never asked to go in and sign to agree we will pay these taxes and continue these so called “laws” that the previous government have in place. There for they use the twelve presumptions of law. Unless you challenge it, it’s presumed you’ll pay and agree them.
David challenged it and didn’t agree it so won his case.
Funny how this isn’t in our curriculum that’s written by our government. How convenient.
Only those who read the law books directly see this to be the case.
Join:
https://t.me/+TEW1Jk979dwzYmU0
👍22❤2
Forwarded from TREASON PUBLIC CHAT
So you think you have a Queen?
I present the evidence.
Picture 1.
https://t.me/c/1550653402/52
To understand a contract it's signed at the bottom. She signed at the top.
Picture 2
The stone of destiny which every King and Queen of Scotland MUST be crowned upon.
Picture 3
The stone which Elizabeth was crowned upon. Does it bear any resemblance to the stone of destiny? And even if the stone of destiny was beneath the throne she would have been crowned over it not on it!
And as someone with clearly better eyes than me just pointed out she is indeed being crowned by a man in a Jesuit robe!!
Picture 4.
The Crown of Saint Edward.
That is a Vatican crown which was placed upon her head!
Read the coronation oath carefully! It set out clearly she was to maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law? And she is wearing a Vatican crown! It certainly isn't the imperial crown!!!
In 1973 the not Queen was deposed by an act of treason and became "head of state" of the UNITED KINGDOM.
It's a corporation!!!
I rest my case!!
ALL of us have been had!
Sorry to point that out.
By. Marc Laurence
Join TREASON
https://t.me/+TEW1Jk979dwzYmU0
I present the evidence.
Picture 1.
https://t.me/c/1550653402/52
To understand a contract it's signed at the bottom. She signed at the top.
Picture 2
The stone of destiny which every King and Queen of Scotland MUST be crowned upon.
Picture 3
The stone which Elizabeth was crowned upon. Does it bear any resemblance to the stone of destiny? And even if the stone of destiny was beneath the throne she would have been crowned over it not on it!
And as someone with clearly better eyes than me just pointed out she is indeed being crowned by a man in a Jesuit robe!!
Picture 4.
The Crown of Saint Edward.
That is a Vatican crown which was placed upon her head!
Read the coronation oath carefully! It set out clearly she was to maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law? And she is wearing a Vatican crown! It certainly isn't the imperial crown!!!
In 1973 the not Queen was deposed by an act of treason and became "head of state" of the UNITED KINGDOM.
It's a corporation!!!
I rest my case!!
ALL of us have been had!
Sorry to point that out.
By. Marc Laurence
Join TREASON
https://t.me/+TEW1Jk979dwzYmU0
👍15❤4
Forwarded from TREASON PUBLIC CHAT
The Act of Settlement is Founded on Natural Law 🌱
👍6🙏2
Forwarded from TREASON PUBLIC CHAT
Is the class now getting whats happening !
CORPORATE TAKEOVER...
by illegal means
Ok there is nothing stopping we all from moving to establishing our own representative
parliament as the
SOVEREIGN PARLIAMENT
and THAT WILL HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW....
we canwait until the rightful monarch comes along
....Wrap your heads around it but DONT DELAY !!!
Ian x
Learn more here:
https://t.me/itsTreason
CORPORATE TAKEOVER...
by illegal means
Ok there is nothing stopping we all from moving to establishing our own representative
parliament as the
SOVEREIGN PARLIAMENT
and THAT WILL HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW....
we canwait until the rightful monarch comes along
....Wrap your heads around it but DONT DELAY !!!
Ian x
Learn more here:
https://t.me/itsTreason
👍15❤1
TRUSS CANT BE TRUSTED
EMAIL HER AND LET HER KNOW:
👇🏼
elizabeth.truss.mp@parliament.uk
https://t.me/itsTreason
EMAIL HER AND LET HER KNOW:
👇🏼
elizabeth.truss.mp@parliament.uk
https://t.me/itsTreason
Forwarded from TREASON PUBLIC CHAT
LEGITIMACY OF DPE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689
For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice (04/2005-06, 9 August 2005) refers to "parking fines". There can be no argument.
If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an "excess charge" or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.
Therefore, I wish for the Committee to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following.
As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."
https://t.me/itsTreason
For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice (04/2005-06, 9 August 2005) refers to "parking fines". There can be no argument.
If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an "excess charge" or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.
Therefore, I wish for the Committee to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following.
As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."
https://t.me/itsTreason
👍5❤1