Constitutional facts

There are some parts of the constitution, which are with us forever no-matter how inconvenient for government it may be. For example Magna Carta 1215 is not subject to change by parliament because it is not parliamentary law, it is a binding contract between the King and his subjects and can only be amended or repealed when the King meets with his subjects and agree to any changes. Like all contracts it is legally enforceable in any of the ordinary courts in the land.

The Declaration of Rights 1688/9 is likewise a contract between the King and the subjects and it is not within the reach of parliament to alter or repeal. The 1689 Bill of Rights is a parliamentary bill but, unlike every other bill passed by parliament, it is not subject to amendment or repeal by parliament. The reasons are two fold (1) the Bill of Rights incorporates the Declaration of Rights which is beyond the reach of parliament by virtue of the fact it is a contract between the King and the subject, and (2) the people who passed the Declaration into law were sent to Westminster not as Members of Parliament, but as the people’s representatives of thebill of rights people at a convention. Having accepted the Declaration, William Prince of Orange was offered the Crown. Having accepted it and now being King of England he called a parliament but instead of holding an election he appointed the representatives of the people as his parliament. They passed the Declaration into law as the Bill of Rights 1689, with two codicils, any amendments have to be made before 23 September 1689 or they are void and not lawful. This bill was for all time.

The Act of Parliamen which made the Declaration of Rights an Act was he Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689:

“…And for the avoiding of all Disputes and Questions concerning the Being and Authority of the late Parliament assembled at Westminster the thirteenth day of February one thousand six hundred eighty [X2eight] Wee doe most humbly beseech your Majestyes that it may be enacted And bee it enacted by the King and Queenes most excellent Majestyes by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in this present Parlyament assembled and by authoritie of the same That all and singular the Acts made and enacted in the said Parlyament were and are Laws and Statutes of this Kingdome and as such ought to be reputed taken and obeyed by all the People of this Kingdome…”. not just Crown officials.

This consttutional statute is unusual in that it applies to “all the People of this Kingdome…”.

This is useful for challenging not state oppressors, such as private parkng contractors and former Crown bodies that have been privatised.

The 1689 Bill of Rights cannot be repealed nor can it be amended except by a Constitutional Convention. The Bill of Rights, was created by those who represented the opinion of the people, as to how the English wished to be governed. The will of the people is supreme over the Sovereign and parliament.

This is proved by the fac that the Sovereign is elected at the Coronation. (From then 5.00 minute mark in this video):


Habeas Corpus can be traced back to the legal codes of Alfred the Great and as such it has been the law of England from times of greatest antiquity and has become the custom and practice of England and is itself beyond the reach of parliament, because of its very antiquity. So parliament cannot do anything it feels like.

Members of Parliament are fully subject to the criminal law within the Palace of Westminster and this includes the Chamber of the Commons. It is inconceivable that if, during a debate, a member stabbed to death another member that he should be able to claim parliamentary privilege. He would be subject to arrest and trial in Her Majesty’s ordinary courts. Members of Parliament, in the normal course of their work, are entitled to claim parliamentary privilege anywhere within the Palace of Westminster. If this were not the case it would severely restrict their ability to do the job we pay them to do. The normal course of their work is to carry out their duties in conformity with the criminal law. To use the dispatch box to conspire to commit Sedition or Treason is not in the ‘normal’ course of their work and it is contrary to the criminal law. Lord Brown Wilkinson observed in Pepper v Hart: “It is for the courts to decide if a privilege exists”. Politicians have no privilege which allows them to commit Sedition or Treason in the Palace of Westminster. The rule of law requires that the law applies to every subject alike, if we make exceptions and grant immunities from the criminal law we do not have the rule of law.

Most of the Treason Acts have not been repealed. The only important Treason Act to be repealed was the 1795 Treason Act by Tony Blair’s Government. This was an illegal action and ultra vires. It was an act of treason on the part of Tony Blair and his government. The 1795 Treason Act made it an offence of treason to restrain the Queen.

Blackburn v. The Attorney General 1971 was a legal challenge against the government. We do know that governments cannot be challenged in the courts. However individual Ministers can be challenged. If allegations against such Ministers are laid before the police then the police service has a clear duty to uphold the criminal law and to place those who transgress it before the courts. In the words of their police oath; ‘… without favour, fear, malice, or ill will’. As the holder of the office of constable they are not permitted to grant a dispensation from a criminal enquiry because the crime occurred on the floor of either Houses of Parliament.

Stephen J. was the acknowledged 19th century master of the principles of the criminal law; he used unambiguous language when he said. “I know of no proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be withdrawn from the ordinary course of criminal justice”. To conspire to commit treason at the despatch box is still under the ordinary rule of law a major crime against the state and is a suitable matter to be heard in the ordinary courts

Patterson J. in Stockdale v Hansard said that he noted the absence of any argument that parliament could vest with impunity a breach of the law by any one. Lord Brown Wilkinson explained “so far as the courts are concerned the courts will not allow any challenge to be made to what is said and done within the walls of parliament in the performance of its legislative functions and protection of its established privileges”.

It is not a legislative function of the House of Commons to destroy the House of Lords! To do so is for the House of Commons to interfere with the cognisance of the House of Lords to conduct its own business without interference from the House of Commons; this is an act of Treason against the constitutional arrangements of parliament, contrary to Common or Higher Law. Neither is it the normal function of parliament to sign any treaty which transfers powers into the hands of a foreign power such as the EU. This was specifically made illegal and an Act of High Treason by the 1351 Act of Praemunire, the 1351 Act of Provisors, the 1392 Act of Praemunire, the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1689 Bill of Rights. The acts of Praemunire and Provisors were repealed in 1948 and 1967. These acts were brought in because King Edward III considered that to dispose of any English asset to a foreign owner or for his subjects to be drawn out of his Kingdom, or for foreign laws to be imposed in his Kingdom was an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England. These were actions of High Treason against the King. The politicians who were responsible for selling off our assets to foreigners have fallen foul of those very Acts.

the above is not the opinion of a group of solicitors but legal pronouncements and precedents based on Constitution Law and set by wise and learned judges over several hundred years. These judgements have kept this country safe from tyrannical leaders and attempts by foreign governments to dominate us. It would be extremely prudent of you to consider that to ignore this advice will make you and your allies liable to an accusation of misprision of treason.

The evidence of the crimes at common law of sedition and treason by the Heath Administration, are contained within the following documents entitled FCO 10 / 3048:


About Author

David Robinson
Hi, I started out on the path of freedom as a freeman on the land. I soon evolved into standing as a sovereign man in lawful rebellion after I could see no ultimate remedy via the freeman on the land movement. I entered into lawful early in 2010. I set about removing all presumptions that the crown had any authority over my sovereign being by de-registering my 7.5 tonne truck that I had been living in for the past 10 years. To cut a very long story short, I was arrested and forced to appear. That was the last time I was ever arrested or have been in front of any alleged authorities in their so called courts. Despite the fact that I never returned to their hearing nor did I pay a penny of the fines that they imposed on my legal fiction in my absence, and that was nearly three years ago. I have since seized a public building and we (the Glastonbury rebel group) have put all the councils and police on Notice of Article 61 MC 1215. The reason that I mention that is because I am not hiding from them. They wont arrest me for alleged driving offences and disobedience. This proves that they are more scared of us than we need be of them. I since had to give up the truck, In order to keep my case open as I have demanded remedy in a properly convened court de jure, and have been in a stalemate situation with the so called authorities for the past three years I gave up my entitlements, when I say gave up I put them all on Notice of the facts and they decided to ignore the law and stop my entitlements anyway. They were going to take the fine monies from my disability living allowance, I wasn't going to allow that to happen. I have a fee schedule in play which will remedy the financial looses I have incurred for the past three years once we have restored the rule of law and restored the proper courts of law again. All this remedy requires is around 3-5% of the population to be successful, with all the corruption going on you would think that would be an easy number to raise into will happen as it has to happen to ensure our freedom and safety, and that of future generations also. David.

Nothing on this website is to be construed as legal advice.