Part 1: The Royal Rejection of god by the queen and her men.

“No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.” Sir William Blackstone.

Recently, I’ve been considering the nature of my relation to god, particularly in regard to natural law and the truth or logos (as in the word of god). Last Saturday morning, I had a encounter with an elderly gentlemen who turned up at the door as a paid-up member of the cult of Jehovah (viz. a ‘Jehovah’s Witness’). I explained to him how I have never had any urge to belong to an organised religion, that, nevertheless, I had been christened and that I do believe, in a very practical sense, that Christ consciousness is the antidote to the evil that self-evidently dominates the world at this time.

One can stand in truth and light or one may choose the opposite, to lurk in the shadowy confines of state treachery, financial fraud, fake news and all that which stands in opposition to the truth.

To consciously stand under natural law and in the truth may be termed christ consciousness.

The fact that our world is contaminated by the lies and the frauds of those who speak them, as perpetrated by an inverted mainstream media, means it can be asserted that we are unavoidably bound by natural law to express the truth (the word of god – logos) in the face of myriad lies (the anti-christ: a state of being wherein one chooses to lie or cause harm to gain advantage over others).

It has long been my conviction that we are here to take action in the physical realms – ‘in this world but not of it’ – that this is a genuine spiritual journey through the material world and that anyone who is ignoring the facts of our enslavement or, in turn, uses any form of Kabbalistic Inversion to mislead or harm others (whether knowingly or otherwise) is, by way of his (in)actions, engaged in satanic practice. Thus, any action, whether it be in support of or straightforward compliance to the tyranny that exists all around us may be termed a manifestation of the anti-christ.

The foregoing is the gist of what I expressed to my doorstep visitor.

The witness’s response was to reach for his i-phone (I kid you not) and quote a couple of sections from the bible – one about Jesus’ authority over the world and the other, interestingly, on the temptation of Christ by the Devil. I feel compelled to say that I enjoyed my conversation with this old boy – his smile and the warmth in his blue eyes spoke of a connection that rose between us, no matter how fleetingly. It mattered not from whence each of us had reached our understandings, we were, in those moments – for want of a more appropriate expression – united in christ (consciousness). We had established a common ground  The encounter ended with us each musing over the distinct possibility that we are living in the ‘end times’: that it is the end of satan(ism). In that moment, we had individually and jointly, reached a level of trust: trust that the truth will out.

The queen and all her men.

By contrast to that which I trust in, I have a long held a deep mistrust of the British monarchy that has sat easily alongside my perception that their reign is fraudulent. For a number of well-founded reasons,  often instinctual, I have steered a course well-away from its tentacles.

Occasionally, however, I have come within its purview. The first example was when I, along with some 400 other junior-school pupils stood on New Hey Road, Oakes, near Huddersfield, to wave at the queen as she drove past en route to open Scammonden Dam and the M62 motorway, some 4 miles north-west of where we stood. It is fair to state I was non-plussed by the experience. Of course, this flag waving was not some natural childish upswell of support for the monarch: it had been organised by the school staff.

The next instance was when I joined the Scouts and swore an oath to God and the Queen:

The Scout Promise

 

“On my honour I promise that I will do my best—

To do my duty to God and the King* (or to God and my Country)

To help other people at all times and

To obey the Scout Law.”

 

*’queen’ in my instance.

 

To me, it was a promise that seemed (and still does) a good one to make, particularly for a young lad of a christian persuasion, as in my case. However, the inclusion of the queen jarred with me. I simply did not comprehend it. I had no sense of how or why this individual could be taken as a ‘ruler’ over others.

The royal wedding of 1981 was easily avoided by way of a cycling trip to Scarborough with 3 friends: the closest we came to it on the day was when we stopped off at a pub at the bottom of Sutton Bank for some refreshment and it was being broadcast on a television behind the bar.

Speaking of which, the obsequious nature of the media coverage of the sinister soap opera known a the monarchy has always been so nauseating to me that I would walk out of the room should it appear on the goggle box and I had no means of switching it off.

In 1997, the death of Diana released an outpouring of collectively-induced fake grieving that I also steered well-clear of. One strange outcome (or should that be ‘happy occurrence’?) of which was that all the roads were completely clear throughout the day on the  Sunday immediately following her demise,  which made my move, on that day, from Nottingham to Leicester a  hastle-free one.

On 30th March, 2002, one of the fake royals known ‘affectionately’  (as the sycophantic media would have it) as the ‘queen mother’ died. On 1st April, two days later, I was at a forgettable football game between Huddersfield Town and Oldham Athletic. However, to my great chagrin and disbelief, it was announced  that before the game kicked off there would be minute’s silence to mark her passing. Of the 14,343 spectators in the ground, I must have been just about the only who did not stand up when the moment came. It’s the unquestioning deference that I just don’t get, particularly when it happens  en-masse. Such collective doffing of one’s cap is an anachronism that may well be explained by the levels of media propaganda that the population is subjected to.

Naturally, I will be avoiding the latest wedding episode of the ‘royal’ Bread and Circus show, as scheduled for later this month.

In 2009, I renounced my citizenship of the UK, by way of Notice to the woman acting as the Queen, the nominal head of the ‘Crown’. In an accompanying missive, I took the opportunity to renounce my childhood allegiance to her as made in the scout ‘promise’ on the basis that she had failed in her moral obligations to the people to whom she had sworn an oath.

As far as I am concerned, even if the woman known as ‘Elizabeth Windsor’ did truly have a divine right to reign over us, she has forfeited that right by completely failing to fulfil the promise of her coronation oath to maintain God’s law for and on behalf of the people of these lands and, further, is entirely complicit in the act of treason by which the isles of Britain were assigned membership of the reich known as the European Union.

As the acclaimed William Blackstone observed:

“I PROCEED next to the duties, incumbent on the king by our constitution; in consideration of which duties his dignity and prerogative are established by the laws of the land: it being a maxim in the law, that protection and subjection are reciprocal.

 

[…] THE principal duty of the king is, to govern his people according to law. Nec regibus infinita aut libera potestas [kingly power is neither free nor unlimited], was the constitution of our German ancestors on the continent.*

 

And this is not only consonant to the principles of nature, of liberty, of reason, and of society, but has always been esteemed an express part of the common law of England, even when prerogative was at the highest.

 

“The king,” says Bracton, who wrote under Henry III, “ought not to be subject to man, but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the king. Let the king therefore render to the law, what the law has invested in him with regard to others; dominion, and power: for he is not truly king, where will and pleasure rules, and not the law.” source

 

And again:

 

“the king also has a superior, namely God, and also the law, by which he was made a king.”

• It is to be noted that the Molmutine laws, being of more ancient origin than said Germanic laws, are those upon which the common law of the British Isles were established. More can be read here regarding the subject.

 

 

 

In this context, we turn to the terms of the contract she thereby established with the people through the Oath of Coronation, the terms of which were presented to her thus:

“The archbishop or bishop shall say, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?

 

The king or queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do.

 

“Archbishop or bishop. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?

 

King or queen. I will.

 

“Archbishop of bishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and the protestant reformed religion established by the law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?

 

King or queen.  All this I promise to do.

 

“After this the king or queen, laying his or her hand upon the holy gospels, shall say, The things which I have here before promised I will perform and keep: so help me God. And then shall kiss the book.”

 

By swearing thus upon her oath, Elizabeth contractually agreed to the incontestable fact that god’s law, as delivered in and through the bible, stands as the supreme law of the lands known as Britain.

The question naturally arises: has she upheld the terms of her contract with the peoples of these lands?

Part 2: TGBMS: at the vanguard of the resistance to tyranny.

 

Of course, it naturally follows that the all-enveloping ‘Crown’ and ‘Her Majesty’s Courts’ are also up-to-their-necks in The Great British Mortgage Swindle. There is a scene in the documentary in which Remi (my former housemate and associate) and I are resisting a second criminal eviction (just 12 months after the theft of my home on 4th November, 2010) by Nottingham County Court bailiffs and the complicit Nottinghamshire Constabulary.

The warrant had, as a matter of fact, been settled by way of a cash payment, for which we had a signed receipt from the county court where the money was tendered. [see below]

The warrant upon which the queen’s men were reliant:

 

 

What the law states:

Under the County Court Act 1984 – Section 87 –

“Upon payment of the amount outstanding, the right to enforce a warrant of Possession is suspended.”

The receipt proving it was satisfied:

 

This crucial evidence was criminally ignored by those acting as constables each and every time it was presented to them.  At a certain point in the ensuing action (which lasted for 6 hours or so on that cold day of 07 November, 2011), Remi, seeing the vultures beginning to gather,  strides down the street, holding aloft his copy of the bible. Full of righteous indignation he declares,

He is expressing the truth. It is a striking moment.

Part 3: The Broken Promises of the UK’s Judges and Constables

Firstly, the scene above graphically illustrates the extreme lengths to which the Crown’s agents  (in the forms of the Court, the judge, Richard Inglis, its Bailiffs and Nottinghamshire police) will go in the violent enforcement of a satisfied, albeit void, warrant of possession.

Secondly, it demonstrates the individual and collective breaches of the oaths sworn by the judge and the attendant constables and, hence, the fraudulent actions of those acting in those roles.

In my own case against the Bradford and Bingley, Richard Inglis, the then ‘senior judge’ or, more accurately, overlord of Nottingham County Court, repeatedly failed to apply the statutory law of mortgages, in clear breach of his oath of office which states:

“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve

our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ ,

and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of

this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. “

For the court to ignore the facts of the matter, as reasonably presented to the judge and then conspire with the bank, the bailiffs, locksmiths and police to steal the house, without any evidence of a lawful contract or consideration, is as clear a breach of this oath as can be imagined.

To throw people out on to the street, essentially over a fake debt, with no regard whatsoever for the evictees’ well-being is, self-evidently, a psychopathic action that stands in breach of natural law. To reiterate: any action that causes harm to others is satanic.

It is a top-down system of psychopathic tyranny that infects every level of public life and it flows directly from the cruel deception that is the monarchy. The police are one cog in this tyranny and they have been played.

Each constable swears an oath of allegiance to the queen, in which he promises to serve and protect the people, without fear or favour. Yet, as was the case here, by taking the side of the Court and its officers, and ignoring the first-hand evidence of the receipt for the settlement of the warrant, the constables of Nottinghamshire, jointly and severally, were demonstrably in breach of their oath of office:

“I 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 offences 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.”

A constable from Nottinghamshire Police Force in breach of his oath:

Conclusion: “Kingly power is neither free nor unlimited.”

Swearing allegiance to a monarch who has, in turn, promised to uphold God’s law, necessarily means that the police too are beholden to natural law. This second eviction scene illustrates how the woman acting as ‘her majesty’  and the officers of ‘her Majesty’s Courts’  completely fail in their obligation to uphold natural law and the ancient laws of these lands (the common law). For Elizabeth, the woman, this breach is a direct inversion of her coronation oath, which included her promise, as nominal defender of the faith, to protect the God-given rights of the people:

“But, to obviate all doubts and difficulties concerning this matter, it is expressly declared by statute 12 & 13 W. III. c. 2. that

 

“the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof; and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws; and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same: and therefore all the laws and statutes of this realm, for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, are by his majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed accordingly.”

 

Source: Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE BOOK 1, CHAPTER 6 ‘Of the King’s Duties’

Given the queen’s oath is sworn on the bible, which necessarily means the monarchy is contractually obliged to uphold the law of god, then what about the law on usury?

Ancient customs/law banned usury. As does the bible. Further, what of the double fraud that take place in The Great British Mortgage Swindle – the charging of compound interest on credit/money that was created out of thin air?

The bible is perfectly clear on this issue

Let us not forget that each and every so-called bank is a Rothschild-licenced money-changer (or conjuror) which operates under the fraudulent aegis of the ‘Crown’. The bank deceptively claims that one is a borrower and then adds compound interest on top of the fake loan, which necessitates. and this is a major plank in the perpetuation of TGBMS, that a mortgagor not only has to pay off the original principal (the value of the fictitious ‘loan’) but also the unlawful interest on top of that which usually results in him paying around three times  the amount of the false debt.

That is why it is a monstrous swindle whose enforcement amounts to nothing less than tyranny.

The antidote to Kabbalistic Inversion: Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil.

It is often said that the devil is in the detail. Therefore, given the monarch’s self-evident breach of contract, the inversion of all pubic oaths taken by officers of the courts and the police and the nature of The Great British Mortgage Swindle, it is reasonable to state that we are living under the yoke of tyranny.

This tyranny operates from the ‘top’ down and, to any one with the requisite levels of critical thinking, it amounts to nothing less than a breach of natural law. One may term it god’s law or one may term it the common law but, whichever phrase one chooses,  it is clear we are being subjected to a system of control that is an inversion of the truth. This inversion is abhorrent to anyone who knows what is right, what is just and what the truth is.

In this sense, the monarchy and its minions represent the anti-christ, from which one may extrapolate that it is satanic.

The antidote is to reveal its nefarious workings and call it what it is.

The antidote is to stop complying with it.

The antidote lies within each and every one of us who, by way of our god-given intelligence, to stand in the truth and take natural law as the only law we need follow.

Therefore,  although my boyhood oath of allegiance to the queen was rightly rescinded on account of her abject failure to uphold her Royal compact with the people, that which I swore to god and natural law stands as good.

Thus, God is my right: Dieu et mon droit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The individuals who continue to uphold the tyranny and the accompanying falsehoods that operate to the detriment of the people have, by way of their actions, chosen to follow the path of the anti-christ. Elizabeth ‘Windsor’ can no longer claim that motto as evidence of her divine right to reign.

May god help her and all those who act under her name.

♥——————————–º———————————♥

Acknowledgements: to David R for his greatly appreciated support, Remi, Michael O’Bernicia, the BanksterBusters & those ancestors of renown from whom we each descend.

Please make a donation in support of this site, should you feel inclined to. No matter what size, it will be much appreciated.