Constitutional Crisis

Yesterday marked the day exactly a month before King Charles III is due to be officially crowned King. As yet there has been no official announcement as to the precise script of his Coronation Oath, although we shouldn’t have to be concerned, or wonder what he’s going to promise us if the proper format is adhered to. It should be exactly the same wording as set out in the Coronation Oath Act 1688. The problem is that George I used the wrong text; an error that has been perpetuated ever since, and which led Winston Churchill to recognise and put on record in 1953, that to amend the Coronation Oath Act 1688 for Queen Elizabeth II “would cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath for every Sovereign of this Country since George I” i.e. since 1714! Had the proper script as set out in the 1688 Act been followed for Queen Elizabeth II, whatever had gone before would in most probability have quietly slipped into history, and the vast majority would have been none the wiser. However, it seems that this no-brainer solution was overlooked, and the powers that were at the time chose the imbecilic option to double-down on using an unconstitutional wording!

Given that the Coronation Oath Act 1688 has not been legally amended, it could be argued (and rightly in my opinion), that any King/Queen who has not used the exact Coronation Oath wording wasn’t correctly sworn in, and therefore didn't properly accede to the throne.  Legally, none of them were Monarchs. Given that it is the constitutional duty of the Monarch to give Royal Assent to all Statutes of litigation in order to formally enact them, it could legitimately be argued that all Acts, supposedly passed since 1714 were never properly formalised because there was no legal Monarch to fulfil the due and proper process. Should King Charles III use the proper wording then presumably he can legitimately take up his reign.

The Monarch promises within the Coronation Oath to uphold our Constitution, which is set out in Magna Carta 1215. This means that he promises NOT to give Royal Assent to ANY Act that removes ANY of our inalienable rights as set out under Natural Law and Common Law. It also precludes any foreign power from have jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

Unconstitutional Alliance

A problem at present is that King Charles III has previously aligned himself with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and their “Great Reset”. He did this during the reign of his mother, "Queen Elizabeth II", which means that he had no right or power at that time to sign away the rights and freedoms of the men and women of the UK. I therefore consider anything he might have ill-advisedly signed at that time to be non-binding.  According to Magna Carta 1215 (our true Constitution), he has no right to sign us up to a globalist agenda as King either. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, and to consider that he allowed himself to be swayed to give support to the WEF through genuine concern for the environment, without full knowledge of the climate change hoax or New World Order agenda that the WEF is actively progressing. It has become clear that the “science” that supposedly supports the notion that human activity is responsible for climate change is bogus. However, having publicly aligned himself with the WEF in the past, he must now publicly declare where his allegiance lies by distancing himself from the WEF and by promising to perform his Monarchical duties in alignment with his Constitutional duty to defend the inalienable rights of the men and women of the UK. This is non-negotiable if he wishes to be our constitutional King. Should King Charles III choose not to distance himself from the WEF and/or not follow the true wording for his Oath as set out in the Coronation Oath Act 1688, then he cannot legitimately claim to be King.

Following his coronation, should he subsequently choose to ratify any Act that enables the passing of our Sovereignty to the WHO or any other non-UK entity either directly, eg via the CA+ Plandemic Treaty, and/or via the amended International Health Regulations (IHR) or indirectly, he would force us to hold him to account for treason. It becomes our duty to do so whether we support him as King or not.

globalist New World Order with policies that seek to restrict our inalienable rights though 15-minute cities etc. It also suggests that King Charles III may be more aligned to the globalist agenda than we’d like to think if William is following in his father's footsteps in this regard too.

The whole idea that we will own nothing and be happy, be hackable, controlled and manipulated is completely contra to our rights and freedoms that all Monarchs, present and future, are supposed to protect. Where has Prince William been for the last 3 years? Is he that out of touch with his future people that he doesn’t realise the depth of feeling against Ms Arden, or is he that arrogant that he doesn’t care? Has he already done a deal behind closed doors to support the New World Order? Where is his allegiance?

WHO and IHR globalisation

Andrew Bridgen MP has called for a Parliamentary debate on the IHR amendments and WHO CA+ “Pandemic Treaty”, although it took a public petition and 156k signatures to get it timetabled for the 17^th April.

Although the date for “debate” has already been set, I have received a number of private messages from people sending me the link to sign the petition, and others encouraging me to email my MP to attend. I emailed Robert Courts, my MP, a number of weeks ago with my concerns, and warned him that failing to speak out, and his support of such a Treaty would amount to treason. As a qualified Barrister he must surely be aware that treason is the only crime that still carries the death sentence by hanging. Despite a number of nudges on his FB page since, he has failed to respond – a clear derogation of his duty towards one of his constituents as MP too. He’s a weak Tory “Yes” boy, fit only to toe the line and do as he’s told by the Whips, and with all the spine of a fillet of fish. Claiming ignorance won’t wash as a defence if/when I charge him with treason should he fail to stand up and fulfil his duty. He is honour-bound to be aware and stick to the Oath he took as MP to defend the rights of his constituents and our Constitutional Law.

There is also a fundamental flaw in the wording of this petition. Loss of our inalienable rights is not debatable or votable as far as I'm concerned, and the suggestion that the people should have a referendum is total and utter stupidity. A referendum puts our freedoms at jeopardy when there is no need to. Too many people have demonstrated their total lack of common sense and ability to discern what is in their own best interests by taking the COVID jabs over the past couple of years to consider that the wider population has any concept of what they would actually be voting for and about. 

IHR amendments and CA+ Treaty

I have screenshotted evidence from the following IHR amendments document below

https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_7-en.pdf

The IHR amendment below indicates the intention to remove the wording that refers to the individual's human rights  and replaces it with wokism.

An undefined health "event" can be sufficient to invoke the initiation of the WHO take-over.

The WHO Director General (currently Tedros) may declare a World public emergency at his discretion even when a health event is not considered to be of international concern. He has already done this by overturning a majority vote on Monkey Pox by declaring it to be a pandemic despite the fact that the voting committee decided 9-6 that it wasn't. There is no such thing as a casting vote when the difference is already 3!

The WHO decides whether extensions to delays in implementing measures are acceptable, which is evidence that a sovereign nation gives way and stands under the WHO authority, ie all member States by definition lose their ability to full self-determination. 

Member States undertake to follow the WHO. Further evidence of loss of State sovereignty.

Should those of us who have bothered to educate ourselves, and who value our bodily autonomy, and who have well-founded scientifically evidenced fears for the safety of any WHO-mandated action such as administration of mRNA gene therapies, decide to speak out against any Pharma medication, lockdown, mask mandate or whatever else, then the State is obliged to censor us....

It is as clear as day, and there is no ambiguity that Governments all around the world intend to hand over their peoples' Sovereign rights to the foreign entity known as the World Health Organisation. There is nothing to debate and I don’t care what Parliament decides, which from current evidence would seem to be clearly in favour of such IHR amendments and the Plandemic Treaty. Otherwise, why continue our membership and contribution to the WHO? Why even attend any discussion on the IHR amendments if we don’t outright refuse the wording that removes our rights? As far as I’m concerned, only complete withdrawal from the WHO will safeguard our rights. However, when our UK Government tried to sign us up to the previous incarnation of this Treaty, and openly displays a webpage with details on how the intended Plandemic Treaty will be founded on the  amended IHR, and the timetable etc it would appear that the Government's unconstitutional commitment has already been decided.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9550/

It matters not whether the WHO are elected or not, although the WHO is not an elected body, which makes the whole idea even less attractive. If the IHR amendments are ratified and the CA+ Pandemic Treaty passed, our inalienable rights are set to be decided at the whim of the WHO/Director General should they/he decide to call another pandemic for whatever reason. It wouldn’t even need to be an infectious disease, although Avian Flu is starting to look the likely favourite for the next "event". The WHO would have the legally binding right to mandate whatever measures they see fit. The corruption displayed in recent years plus the fact that their allegiance to Pharma and vaccines has been bought and paid for by the likes of Bill Gates is no secret. The threatened loss of our bodily autonomy would be a flagrant disregard for our inalienable rights, and legally as it stands is already an assault upon us.

I have heard it said that Parliament would not consider the joining of such a Treaty a breach of our constitution because if the WHO tried to remove our sovereignty, Parliament could simply repeal the Act that joins us up! What sort of a joke is that?!! On that basis Parliament could sign us up to virtually anything! The whole point of such a WHO Treaty is that a centralised co-ordinator determines what happens everywhere, and that it is legally binding. If any country can simply withdraw willy-nilly because they don’t want to follow a dictat they don’t like then there is no point in such a Treaty in the first place, and the idea that it is legally binding is pie in the sky too. The fact is, the only intention is for the Treaty to be totally legally binding - meaning there is no way out.

Although Andrew Bridgen MP has called for a Parliamentary debate, his recent speeches to an almost empty House regarding the COVID jab injured victims has resulted in him being labelled by the Government as a conspiracy theorist, despite the fact that he quoted the Government’s own ONS figures within his excellent oration. Consequently, even he doubts that he will be given the floor time to state his reservations regarding the IHR amendments and the discredited WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty according to a recent tweet on Twitter.

In other words, the “debate” is likely to be a farce within which different MPs will use up the allocated time in Government self-praise and justification for actions taken, and to voice support for future WHO-led control. The “debate” will be used to vindicate the Government position that the jabs are “safe and effective“, contra to all the evidence, and that the democratic procedure has been followed, despite the fact that dissenters won’t have been given time to voice their concerns.

Should the IHR amendments be ratified without King Charles III refusing to give Royal Assent (if it’s required – an amendment may not be), or without standing up and declaring that the UK’s position as signatory of the amended IHR is unconstitutional and to demand that the UK withdraws from it and/or the WHO, then he will have derogated his duty to uphold our Constitution and to defend the alienable rights of we the people. That would amount to treason. Being “first amongst equals” means he agrees to take on this responsibility on behalf of us all. It also means that he is no more above the Common Law than any one of us, and should he fail in his duty, it is our duty to hold him to account.

Whilst many people consider that the UK’s system of Government needs replacing, I would contend that the system is excellent, but it is the malfeasance of nearly all in office that is the problem. Changing the system won’t alter a dickybird if the same traitors and corruption remains. The power currently lies with the people as the Constitution sets out, but as I will explain below, we have been deliberately kept from understanding our true position and enforcing it.

You can’t defend what you don’t know

It seems to me that we the people will be forced to stand up for ourselves if we are to maintain our inalienable rights. The problem is that the vast majority of the UK public have no idea what exactly our inalienable rights are. Most people have no idea what Natural Law is, or what Common Law as derived from Natural Law is either.

Last weekend when I was on my 48 hour water fast I watched a nearly 9hr video by Mark Passio that explains the language and basis for Natural Law. I watched it over 3 days, and I highly recommend that everybody spends just 9 hours over this Easter weekend getting up to speed. If you don’t know what Natural Law is and understand the language around it then you won’t have the knowledge or confidence to do the right thing.

IF we are to get through these challenging times and usher in a new and better future, then we must act. Knowing without action is not acceptable. It’s useless and achieves nothing. There is no half-way house on this; either you stand up for the truth as set out by Natural Law, or you’re a satanist that supports the enslavement of the masses. The choice is yours. It’s one or the other. King Charles has the same choice too of course, and as head of the Church of England I would hope he doesn’t choose satanism! When you watch Mark Passio’s video these statements will make perfect sense however harsh you think they sound now.

Essential study

I have modified the following linked page on Constitutional Law under the Resources section of my website. I have reordered it so that the videos and links regarding Natural Law and Common Law are now above the original blog, although it also contains useful information on our Constitution, and there is more information on the Constitution itself below the blog. Mark Passio’s video can be viewed via this page which opens in a new window, and then you all need to watch the series of videos on Common Law by Ruth Skolmli.

When you watch these videos, you will come to realise how language and procedures have been twisted over decades, if not hundreds of years to keep us ignorant and enslave us within their elitist system. The Communists worked out how to enslave the citizens too, but it’s just a variation on the same theme where the illusion of freedom is rather neglected! We are equally enslaved in reality, but not so conscious of our predicament, but ask any former USSR people who now live in the UK and they very much see that what is heading down the road, they ironically came here to escape.

The studying we must all undertake to educate ourselves is essential for the future of us all. We are all interdependent on each other to attain the knowledge and to put what we have learned into practice. There is no more time to waste. As Samuel Adams said, if you don’t want to stand up for yourselves you will condemn your children and grandchildren to the slavery.

The problem with many of the younger generations it seems to me is that the brainwashing to be more interested in other peoples’ reality than their own via social media has been far too successful. We have been ever more distracted from living our own lives over successive generations. “Anything for an easy life” isn’t living. We are meant to be here to experience all that life is for ourselves, not through others. It is challenging at times and maybe more difficult than having everything handed to us on a plate and following orders, but so much more rewarding when we overcome the challenges.

We are the lucky ones whose genes became reality. What a waste of our brief time here if we choose not to actually live.