Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System http://www.henrymakow.com/hill.html May 20, 2011 " If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days." by Debra Siddons (henrymakow.com) For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH) Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:- http://mtrial.org http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/ There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned. There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract, requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second point. At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited. The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times, which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes. All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any of "her majesty's" courts or judges. Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth. No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority. That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case. If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days. The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the Laws of God. These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully. To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined. Whilst E2 is committing treason, explained in full detail in the Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God. Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but didn't know. We know now. For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand for the British Accreditation Registry. It doesn't matter whether it is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head of the BAR. So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all know a peaceful way to bring the system down. If enough people ACT and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this insanity and injustice. All that is required now is for YOU to spread the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can begin immediately. Or you can watch the last remnants of your freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order". For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit: http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm#crimes By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second precedent set during this landmark case. While the official reason for this trial was to address this trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice", the real reason for this trial was so the authorities could punish John Anthony Hill for making the "7/7 Ripple Effect" which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy theory. The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of people who see it." That's how powerful the truth really is. This was the first time this information was shown at an official proceeding and the results were impressive. At least 83% of the jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing. For those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the outset of the first trial of the supposed "7/7 helpers" (who were also found not guilty). John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks. He went on to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001. She reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind Jane Standley's left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had foreknowledge of the event. As a result of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" being shown to the jurors by the prosecution and John Anthony Hill's testimony about 9/11, the truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine is now officially on record. And the "Not Guilty" verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of that official record. This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren't just nice sounding words, but a reality. This could be heaven on earth instead of the hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up around us. Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke --------- Comments for "Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System" Tim said (May 24, 2011): Henry ,thank you for the most enlightening website ,it presents some most amazing pieces of information that makes one pause for thought. What does surprise me is the responses from the the legal beagles ,mainly the one Titled JD .I am not surprised at his attack after all one has to protect one's bread and butter which I consider making money off another's misfortune.JD obviously didn't even watch the videos presented which present compelling evidence to suggest that the power in this world comes from a very high place . Mr JD may i be so bold as to say that obviously you didn't get your dinners in the right fashion and that perhaps your knowledge of the system you purportedly support is severely lacking. May I suggest a history lesson or two or three on the history of the Bar association ,this perhaps may enlighten you to the club that you are purportedly apart of. Debra said (May 23, 2011): To Michael - [below] You said, "Please note that the living woman Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten actually has no jurisdiction or sovereignty over anything." - end of quote. Not true, and is a lie. Understood you prefer to fight mystical concepts ( Corporation ) instead of people directly, hence a reason you repeat the first and last name ( Debra Siddons ) four times in a relatively short comment. If enough people joined together to fight E2, the Illuminati would topple like a frail stack of cards. I am for Laws serving God, and made that clear in the article. The 'Con'stitution serves politicians. Michael said (May 23, 2011): Thank You for the article “Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System” However before publishing information from Debra Siddons, please make sure she knows what she is talking about. I quote : “There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points”. Please note that the living woman Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten actually has no jurisdiction or sovereignty over anything. Only the corporation sole “ELIZABETH THE SECOND, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND HER OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES QUEEN, HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH” has jurisdiction and sovereignty over the property in that corporation sole. In addition, each of these titles is a separate corporation sole, with separate holdings, properties, etc You may see them at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II If the corporation sole “ELIZABETH THE SECOND, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND HER OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES QUEEN, HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH” does not require a certain stone in a certain ceremony, then there is nothing that anyone can do about it. The corporation sole makes the rules by which it operates, no one else. The fact that Debra Siddons and the people involved in this litigation know nothing concerning trust law indicates that their lawsuit is frivolous and without merit. The Crown Temple has every right to prohibit commerce in its properties and no third party interloper has any standing to dictate procedure to a corporation sole. Additionally, the alleged constitution that Debra Siddons is so fond of is actually a contract between states. No living beings are a part of it. That is why you get tossed out of “court” when you mention it. WW said (May 22, 2011): This brings to head another hairy issue, in that with this accreditation comes a grant of royal title, that of Esquire. All members of the BAR are entitled to the use of Esquire after their name, whether they chose to disclose this or not. This brings every said lawyer in conflict with the US Constitution as far as eligibility for public office in the United States. Royal title is in conflict with eligibility for holding office in the federal government: Article I, Section 9 - No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. The War of 1812 was actually fought ove the original 13th Amendment which put teeth into Secrion 9 above--a whole other story... Debra Replies said (May 22, 2011): To Mike - You are incorrect when you say JAH's Lawful Defence does not apply, at all, to America. This is explained further with clarity and specificity in my comment posted to lawyer, J.D.. To J.D. - Not uncommon for insane lawyers to think they are normal and others are crazy. U.S. Lawyers have sworn allegiance to the Supreme Court of a given State, and subsequently to the British Accreditation Registry which oversees the whole judicial circus. Each time you've been admitted to the B.A.R. you swore an oath of allegiance to the Crown Court, never questioning what the B.A.R. stood for, even after thirty-two years. The B.A.R. has been right in front of your face all along. B.A.R. = BRITISH. You've said I'm a danger. I am a danger to lawyers, judges, the Crown, anyone else supporting a criminal "legal" system. No-one is, or ever was, permitted to make-up any rules/laws to rule people. IT IS Wrong. Period. "Issues" are to be decided by a jury (community ), never / ever by a judge using made-up rules. American judges having sworn the Judicial Oath before God, which is, to serve only God; thus an oath not Lawful and null and void if not serving God. Associations with the B.A.R. effectively allows for both Exhibits 1 and 2, ordering God's Laws in the Courts. It's quite simple; either you maintain the oath you took, or you must step down and allow the people to practice their God-given rights. I don't have to prove The Law. It is there and as a lawyer, B.A.R. member, you swore on a Bible. Which is exactly the point. You are ordered to keep that oath "you" took, then swore to maintain. The Bible does not command one must know God to follow The Law. Yet it is The Law. Odd you are not aware of the oath you took, and apparently in numerous States, on Biblical Law. Clearly you are threatened. God's Law is for humans. The Lawful Defence explains in detail, needing to be read over and over till it sinks in, because the extent of a Rothschild brainwashing is obviously very extensive. I understand you are threatened. Criminals usually are when caught red-handed. To those claiming "too religious", nothing is more religious than the Coronation Ceremony itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORMN48SdQJE&feature=player_embedded Rino said (May 21, 2011): In reference to Landmark Case, isn't it interesting? I have noticed on most websites that when someone speaks the truth, there is always and attorney keeping a watching eye on what is being written to the point that when the truth comes out to awaken people about facts, these attorneys jump in (as they do in any court scenario) and they either attack what has been presented or attack the one who is presenting the information, as delusional or frivolous. However we know as fact that every lawyer speaks in a 'foreign tongue' (code) usually with marbles in their mouth and will most certainly attempt to profit from people's misery, a legal mercenary for hire. Everything an attorney or lawyer in court scenario presents is always hearsay, they never have first hand personal knowledge of any fact and for the most part present 'joint the dots' evidence. I would never want to take on this profession of being a lawyer, why? Because it is one of only two professions that Christ condemns. When an attorney speaks out as something being rubbish or delusional then it is time to pay attention to what he doesn't what you to pay attention to. The other critical point to make is that in order to 'apply the substantive Law' you need lawful money, i.e silver or gold coin to pay any debt. While we use 'legal tender', currency, as money we deal in fictions only and trumped up charges, this, is the reality. The Law cannot be applied when we use legal tender so now the attorneys deal in procedures only and make attempts to contract with any 'victim' by agreement of his or her default responses or conduct using construed/implied conduct that is taken under 'judicial notice' that a victim must have agreed with the prosecution because they either 'argued' or failed to respond to a 'charge' and therefore must be 'agreeing' to be guilty by their conduct. Christ tells us how we can win these legal/fictional cases, 'agree with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him', in other words, they key is to come to an agreement in the private and then bring that into the court for ratification and not for re-deterimation. Information that you present here Henry in relation to this case is very important so that people can protect themselves from these vultures in the legal system who operate as Satan do, they accuse the angels night and day with trumped up charges! Thank you for this very revealing piece of writing. Rod said (May 21, 2011): Boys, J.D., a tad touchy on the subject aren't we? Obviously you are on the attack here as your livelihood could/would or may be, jeopardized. Your over-the-top discrediting, ridiculing, and bashing is all too common-place when truth is presented and the curtain gets drawn back just a little. Maybe, just maybe, even you have been kept in the dark as you proceeded up the "legal" pyramid to get you to your lofty perch. Why don't you seek to remove the pole from your own eye before attacking someone who is looking for freedom for all. You may represent what we have been brainwashed to accept as "legal" but that doesn't make it "lawful". To answer your question as to "where" the Bible says about law(s) it is in (KJV) Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." So now you have heard it. God's "command" to His people Israel (12 tribes, of which 2 are jews, and the other 10, that include the british commonwealth nations and the USA). Your sidetracking about taxes confirms to me that your issue is about money. Isn't that just what your "legal" is all about. Certainly not justice for all. And that is what exposing this imposter queen is all about. Mike said (May 21, 2011): I feel that the article is badly in need of clarifying because Debra kind of butchered her explanation of the situation and has offered a poor reflection of a very important topic. Perhaps its even worth putting some of the following directly at the end of the article, instead of as a comment, so people actually understand the situation. The comment is: "I've been following the trial of Muad'Dib/JAH for some time and know the situation clearly. Whilst I do agree that this is potentially a landmark case, which could be used to seriously disrupt the UK/Commonwealth courts (and thus much more), the jurisdictional argument used by JAH was NEVER designed to be used in America. He explained that many times, so Debra is stretching things. To clarify the situation for everyone, as it shows/proves on JAH's website, Elizabeth made with the British people where she promised to "maintain the Laws of God" to the utmost of her power (http://jahtruth.net/signed-o.jpg). If you watch the BBC footage of the coronation, it is made extremely clear during her coronation that the "Laws of God" are written in the Bible, not parliament (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwzOHVx8LV8 watch the first 1minute 20seconds of the video--note well 1:10 into it). Elizabeth is handed a Bible and told that in it is the Royal Laws of God, which is what she swore to uphold. This is done so that there is no doubt what the "Laws of God" are. At this point, it doesn't matter whatsoever if someone is christian, atheist, or satanist. No one's personal beliefs change the FACT that Elizabeth swore to uphold the Biblical Law. The evidence JAH collected shows video, audio, and paperwork proof of her making this contract, and what the terms of that contract were. Other people's personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with this. In the Biblical Law which Elizabeth swore to uphold, Deuteronomy 4:2 says: "Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it" So, Elizabeth made a legally binding contract which says she promises not to make new laws. This means that the very first time she gave "royal assent" to pass new legislation in the UK, she was in breech of contract, as that would add more laws, when she swore NOT to do that. Since the contract Elizabeth made is what entitles her to the "crown", and the authority of that position, when she broke that contract, she lost her crown and therefore her power to legally and lawfully bring criminal cases against people. This is extremely simple contract Law and JAH kept it very simple so as not to confuse people. You have a contract with very clearly identified terms, and Elizabeth broke it. Since that contract is what gave her authority over the courts, she's broken the contract, she has no authority, and thus she had no jurisdiction over JAH. THAT was the case, pure and simple, and because its so bullet-proof obvious, the court couldn't argue against it. What "Paul" said makes sense in the US although it will never take down the awful system, which is what needs to be done. "JD"'s ego-based rant and talking about the Bible like he knows what it says when he doesn't, isn't helping anything. Debra has confused the matters and wrongly extended its scope. I hope the explanation above clears things up." Paul said (May 21, 2011): Speaking as someone based in the United States, I don't know whether challenging the jurisdiction of a court based on QEII's coronation oath, or lack thereof, or on whether the B.A.R. is really the "British Accreditation Registry", etc, is going to meet w/ much success. Most courts and magistrates here would look upon claims of this nature as being more akin to "kooky" conspiracy theories and litigants must always bear in mind that the #1 purpose of going to court is simply TO PUT ON A GOOD SHOW. Litigation, and the administrative maneuvering that invariably precedes litigation, is nothing if not show business. However, speaking from personal experience, I can attest that a rationally argued counterclaim, challenging the jurisdiction of a tribunal, will almost always end in success. Again, I don't know what people in British Commonwealth countries, or in Roman civil law jurisdictions (i.e., the rest of the planet) do, but in the United States it's quite clear and obvious: the sovereignty is vested in the People, and the People -- owing to the fact that in America we have no "King" -- are therefore the holders and rules of court. When you file legal paperwork with a court in America, don't go in there claiming that you're a "U.S.citizen" or a "Sovereign State Citizen" or a "resident of such-and-such state or county".. All these "statuses" are simply corporate, legal fictions and all this does is give the administrative tribunal jurisdiction over your person. Instead, simply make the claim that you're one of the People of the "jurisdiction" in which you're appearing and reason rationally therefore. I was recently in traffic court on a quasi-serious misdemeanor charge. I raised about four or five distinct, cogently-reasoned out challenges to the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal in which I was appearing, and I filed my paperwork before appearing. Paraphrasing my experience at the arraignment hearing (which, for traffic court, is a room full of hundreds of people in major city I live in), the magistrate was basically yelling and screaming at everyone who was there in line before me, then when I appeared before the magistrate, she simply smiled and ask: "Mr. XXXX, what is it that you would like me to do for you today?" and I replied, "Well your Honor, I would very appreciate it if the court would dismiss these charges".. to which she answered (paraphrasing): "Your wish is granted.. these charges are dismissed".. As I was leaving the room, I heard her (again) yelling and screaming at the next person in line behind me. The key is HONOR: You must HONOR their process before you can expect them to honor yours. You must (in the language of the New Testament) "give to receive".. Nor is it necessarily "easy".. You do have to have your wits about you. I didn't just cut-and-paste random patriot mythology I slopped off the Internet: rather, I spent several weekends in a row, all weekend, in the law library doing real legal research putting together real legal briefs to submit to a real court. But it is effective, it did work. Challenges to jurisdiction, if cogently and rationally argued, almost always do. The late Bill Cooper has a series of lectures out on YouTube where he talks about the importance of challenging jurisdiction. To paraphrase Cooper: if you don't challenge jurisdiction, you're almost guaranteed to lose.. if you do challenge jurisdiction, it's almost impossible not to win. The present-day Master of this subject is Bill Thornton down in Orange County, Calif. I invite your readers to explore his Web site and audio lectures at: http://1215.org/. His Web site is a bit rough around the edges (in terms of presentation and navigation), but it's packed w/ some of the best legal information you'll find anywhere. J.D. said (May 21, 2011): I've never read such delusional, unabashed lunacy in fifty-six years of life. This woman is simply loony. She imagines that lawyers aren't really admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of a given US state, but they are registered with the B.A.R., the British Accredation Registry. I guess that thirty-two years ago, they just forgot to give me my UK registry card at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And that each time that I've been admitted to the bar of another court, my British papers must have gotten mixed up. When I passed the Illinois Bar Exam, they must have erased my memories of questions concerning English law by mind control. I should wear an aluminum foil cap if I take another bar exam. When I got admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court, they must have just forgotten to collect my British Registry dues. She's a danger to herself to any fool, desperate for some way out of a pickle, who'd take this seriously. She doesn't know a damn thing about the law. Conflict or not, it was the US Supreme Court which decided the issue of whether the initial imposition of the income tax, including upon federal judges, impermissibly and unconstitutionally reduced the salary of federal judges during their tenure in office as textually prohibited in the Constitution. The justices admitted the inherent conflict but expressed the doctrine that when it was necessary that someone decide the issue and no one without such a conflict existed, that jurisdiction would vest notwithstanding a conflict of interest because of necessity, and held that the tax was not unconstitutional. Federal judges pay income taxes as a result of that decision by interested federal judges on the Supreme Court. Yes, every judge has jurisdiction to determine his or her own jurisdiction. In fact, in our federal courts, which are all courts of limited jurisdiction, the question is present in every case, must be proven, and is determined in every case. That's a pretty basic principle familiar to any first year law student. I'm telling you that this lady is nuts. She asserts that the Law of God is what is announced in the first five books of the Bible. But she never proves that, or even tries to prove it. It's a pretty controversial statement to a believer, let alone what an atheist or deist (like Washington or Jefferson or Lincoln) or agnostic would make of it. Maybe some sect of Judaism believes that, but I've never met a person who'd agree. God's law, to a Christian, means more than that. This lady is an arrogant, errant fool. She claims that God's law says that all human law is without legitimacy. Where is it that the first five books of the Bible say that??? Not a passage I've ever heard. St. Paul says quite the opposite, and Christ had no problems suggesting that taxes be paid. The lady is bonkers. Shame on you for giving her a platform. JD -- J. D. Obenberger and Associates Attorneys and Counselors at Law 3700 Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Henry Makow is the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your feedback and ideas at henry@savethemales.ca ================================ The TRUTH about the British Monarchy; the "Golden Jubilee" (50 year reign) of the queen who never was and The GOSPEL of The Kingdom. http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm#crimes The word British is Hebrew and it means "Covenant Man" or the "People of The Covenant", as it does also in the Welsh language. Elizabeth Mountbatten, also known by the aliases Elizabeth Windsor and Elizabeth the Second, who has never officially been crowned, because she was crowned sitting upon a fake Stone of Destiny, is, like all of her predecessors, from the royal line of king David of Israel and the British Throne is the Throne of David that is to be inherited by Christ, during the Second-Coming, very soon according to Nostradamus. Nostradamus Quatrain 10,72 L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois Du ciel viendra un grand Roi d'effrayeur Rescuciter le grand Roi d'Angoulmois. Avant apres Mars regner par bon heur. The year 1999 seven (sept) month (July or Sept-ember) From heaven will come a great King of Terror/Alarm/Warning (Prophet - Elijah - see the Old Testament Book of Malachi chapter 4) He will bring back to life the Great King of Israel (Christ) Before (warning) after war (Armageddon) reigns in good (God's) time - (the Seventh i.e. the Sabbath Millennium - the third millennium A.D.). The British people, who are Israelites, under The Covenant, have been betrayed; impoverished and oppressed by the monarchy through-out its long and evil existence, because the people themselves have not kept The Covenant, that they swore at Sinai to keep for ever. Under that Covenant the monarch is prohibited from using their position for personal material gain of any kind and from making up their own laws and taxes and economic policies; either themselves or their politicians. To prove this FACT, I will quote you the relevant clauses of The Covenant (contract):- Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the "I AM" thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me; 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the "I AM" thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger (a Gentile) over thee, which [is] not thy brother. 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery - employees under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the "I AM" hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites (The Torah - the first five Books in The Bible): 17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the "I AM" his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them: 17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment (Covenant), [to] the right hand (right-wing politics), or [to] the left (left-wing politics): to the end that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel. How then is it possible that Elizabeth Mountbatten, who is also known by the aliases "Windsor" and "QE 2", is the richest woman on Earth, whilst hundreds of thousands of British people are homeless, with millions living in relative poverty and she has political parties of both left and right, in her illegal democracy? It is because the TRUTH about the British people's true identity has been purposely hidden from them, by the monarchy, so that the people would not read The Covenant; relate it to themselves and demand that the monarchy gives back the wealth it has defrauded the people out of, by using its own illegal laws and taxes. Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you. Elizabeth Mountbatten swore on and kissed the Sovereign's Holy Bible that contains The Law and verses just quoted, at her fraudulent coronation, "to faithfully serve God and the people for the rest of her life". Faithfully serving God means obeying Him and His Law, and, the first time she gave "Royal Assent" to any piece of legislation, she broke that solemn Coronation Oath and so was no longer the sovereign, with immediate effect, even if she had been crowned on the real Coronation Stone and had ever really been the sovereign, which she never was and is not. The British monarchy knows full well that it is descended from David and that the Stone of Destiny is Jacob's Pillar and the Throne of David because they have ample evidence in their possession*. Why else then would they have hidden the TRUTH from the people, except in order to rip them off under their own laws. It cannot possibly be that they are ashamed of the fact that they are descended from David or that the British peoples are Israel, God's Chosen people. The monarchy does not want the people to learn and keep The Covenant and God's Laws, or they would teach The Covenant in school. They want people to obey their laws, under which they can keep the people in poverty and slaves to them and their friends. Employee is only a modern polite word for slave. For those who might claim that they are Christians and that The Laws no longer apply, I will quote you Christ's own words on this subject:- Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till all (the prophecies) be fulfilled. The next sick joke is that the monarch claims to be "Defender of The Faith", whilst doing the opposite of everything that Jesus said. Thousands of British people are homeless; some reduced to living in cardboard-boxes and shop-doorways; whilst the queen, who is head of the christian church and also the richest woman on Planet Earth; not only knows about it, but sees it and allows it to continue. Christ says that ALL rich people will burn in Hell-Fire (Luke 16:19-31; Matthew 19:24). How then is it possible; if the Church of England serves Christ; for the richest woman on Earth to be the head / leader of the Faith that says rich people are evil and will burn in Hell-Fire, and that he/she who would be the leader must be the servant of all (Matthew 20:25-28; 23:11-12)? It is totally illogical!!! The church and monarchy obviously do not serve Christ; they serve mammon (Satan and his materialism). "Know a tree by the fruit it bears - Matthew 7:16-21, by their fruits will you know whether they be good or evil." If just Elizabeth Mountbatten's wealth was redistributed back to the people, not counting all the others who have flourished under her and her predecessors' laws, there would be something like £15,000 for every man; woman and child in Britain. An average family of four would be roughly £60,000 better off. If we include all the other parasites as well, that figure would be at least doubled. How many people having thousands of pounds would be out stealing, or living in cardboard boxes? God prohibited the British and all who love Him from serving lords (baalim) and told the people there is only one Lord and to serve only Him. Judges 2:11 And the children of Israel (the British) did evil in the sight of the "I AM", and served lords (baalim): 2:12 And they forsook the "I AM" God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt (slavery under man-made laws), and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that [were] round about them, and bowed themselves unto them (including lords), and provoked the "I AM" to anger. There are at least 1200 members of the British "House of Lords", including the heads of the churches, who help to govern over and keep the British people down and poor. Need I say more? God is punishing the British monarchy and little by little bringing it down and showing its and its politicians' evil in the eyes of the people and overturning it for the last time, as God prophesied through Ezekiel:- Ezekiel 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it (the Throne of David): and it shall be no [more], [overturned] UNTIL he come whose Right it is; and I will give it [him - Shiloh/Christ (Genesis 49 v 10)]. When Christ sits upon the Stone of Destiny, as prophesied through Ezekiel and is inaugurated as the King of all of the British people and of kings, the British Davidic monarchy will be finished; The Covenant reinstated and the wealth redistributed. Amen - JAH. * The fourth and final overturn began on Christ-mas Day in 1950 when God inspired and Christ assisted four Scottish Nationalists to remove the real Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Coronation Stone from Westminster Abbey for Him and replace it with the fake (Stone of Scone). King George 6th knew of this prophecy in Ezekiel 21:27 concerning the British Throne - the Stone of Destiny - and the fourth and final overturn and was vexed and afraid that the loss (of the Coronation Stone in 1950) portended the end of his dynasty, as Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. states in his book "The Taking of the Stone of Destiny", Lochar 1991, page 139, "Forty years on" line 8:- "Privately we learned that he (George 6th) had a superstitious fear that the loss portended the end of his dynasty." George 6th must have known, as must his daughter Elizabeth, that the stone that was left at Arbroath Abbey on 11th April 1951 was a Scottish sandstone fake and that she was cursed by God and never really crowned. She must also have known the prophecy, as did her great, great grandmother Queen Victoria, who said that if Christ came to take the Throne, she would immediately step down and give it to its rightful owner, and everyone of them knew it down to George 6th. It is unthinkable that George 6th would not also have taught this to his children - that Christ would come one day and rightfully claim the British Throne, in fulfillment of prophecy. Elizabeth 2 who is descended from the royal line of David from the tribe of Judah, was then fraudulently crowned on that fake stone in 1953, so in actual fact was never officially crowned queen of Britain in the eyes of God; as God Himself prevented her from being, by having the Stone taken from her. To save or open the Lawful Challenge document in Microsoft Word compatible processing software click: Challenge.doc. REGINA/THE QUEEN V JAH LAWFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST JURISDICTION & SOVEREIGNTY 1. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s Fraudulent Coronation. The person who purports to be the queen has never, in fact, rightfully or Lawfully been crowned as the Sovereign. This knowledge stems from the fact that the Coronation Stone / The Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned upon is a fake. The real Coronation Stone; made from Bethel porphyry, weighing more than 4cwt. (458lbs.) according to the BBC telex in the film “The Coronation Stone”, (Covenant Recordings), and Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. in three of his books: “No Stone Unturned” (pages 36, 44), “A Touch of Treason” (page 50) and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny” (pages 27, 35); was removed from Westminster Abbey at 04:00 hrs on the 25th of December in 1950, by his group of four Scottish Nationalist students, which included and was led by Ian Robertson Hamilton himself. The other three were Alan Stuart, Gavin Vernon and Kay Matheson, as stated in his books. Further details at: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm . The real Coronation Stone (“National Treasure No. 1”), was taken to Scotland where, in Glasgow, it was handed over to Bertie Gray to repair it, and was later hidden by industrialist and philanthropist John Rollo in his factory, under his office-floor, according to Ian R. Hamilton’s books – “No Stone Unturned” and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny”, and the factory-manager, when I visited him. A fake stone copy had previously been made in 1920 by stone-mason, Bertie Gray, for a prior plan to repatriate the Coronation Stone, and it was made of Scottish sandstone from a quarry near Scone in Perthshire, weighing 3cwt. (336lbs.). The conspirators had used it to practice with, before going to London to Westminster Abbey to remove the real Coronation Stone from the abbey. It was that fake stone copy which was placed on the High Altar Stone at Arbroath Abbey, at Midday on the 11th April of 1951, wrapped in a Scottish Saltyre (St. Andrew’s Flag – Dark blue with white diagonal cross on it) and found by the authorities, then transported to England, where it was used for the “queen’s” coronation, according to Bertie Gray’s children in a Daily Record Newspaper article. Link to Daily Record article The stone upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned weighs exactly 3cwt (336lbs.) as attested to by Historic Scotland in their official booklet titled “The Stone of Destiny”, “Symbol of Nationhood”, obtainable from Edinburgh Castle, published by Historic Scotland, (ISBN 1 900168 44 8), who have had the stone that she was crowned on in their care, in Edinburgh Castle, since it was returned to Scotland by John Major’s Conservative government in 1996. As previously stated, the genuine Coronation Stone weighs more than 4 cwt. (458lbs.), but the one that Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg was crowned on, that has been on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996, weighs 336lbs, not 458lbs., and thus cannot be the genuine Coronation Stone, for that and other reasons, that I will go into in great and minute detail later, during the hearing on 9th May 2011. Therefore, never having been Lawfully crowned, she has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge’s “authority” comes from her. Further, and without prejudice to the above... 2. Some of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s other Crimes. Sample Crimes/Points of Law:- 1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendant can prove beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called “crown” is attacking the Defendant with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against God and Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendant. 2. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God’s Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave “Royal-Assent” to ANY “Act of Parliament”, or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not. Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I COMMAND you. 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always. 12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. A Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law). http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/ 3. Allowing the forming of political parties and demon-crazy (democracy) to divide, weaken, conquer and ruin the people (Deuteronomy 5:32, 17:20; Matthew 12:25). Deuteronomy 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 17:20 That his (the Sovereign’s) heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left… Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 4. Removal of the death-penalty that is prescribed as the deterrent for capital crimes in The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; e.g. Sodomy (Deuteronomy 23:17; Leviticus 20:13); Pedophilia; Rape; Murder; Adultery; etc., thus encouraging these crimes, that are now legion. Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Leviticus 20:13 If a man lie also with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Etc., etc., etc. 5. Actually encouraging and promoting sodomy, by legalizing it, then further enacting un-Lawful anti-discrimination legislation, promoting it in schools, and giving knighthoods to high-profile sodomites in the music, film and fashion industries, instead of having them Lawfully executed as a deterrent to others. Music - Elton John Film - Ian McKellen of Stonewall; John Gielgud Fashion – Norman Hartnell knighted 1977 and Hardy Amies knighted 1989. 6. Enriching herself in defiance of God’s Law that she swore to uphold, at the expense of her subjects, driving them into debt-slavery (Egypt), poverty and homelessness (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Including the collecting of graven-images and expensive jewellery (her famous art and Fabergé collections, etc.) Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, WHOM THE LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE (see Psalm 2): [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them: 17:20 That his heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the right hand, or to the left… 7. Legalising, facilitating and engaging in usury/interest, that has caused the ruin, bankruptcy and debt-slavery of the entire nation. http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury/interest to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: 8. Ignoring the “Year of Release,” where all debts are forgiven/cancelled every seven years, and the “Year of Jubilee” every fifty years, where all property is redistributed back to its owner and the wealth shared out, so that there will be no poor amongst the people. Deuteronomy 15:1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. 15:2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release. 15:4 Save when (to the end that) there be no poor among you; … Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. 9. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg has also broken God’s Law by allowing the EU, which is not the British people’s racial brother, but is a stranger, to rule over you / us, in contravention of Deuteronomy 17:15. Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me; 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest NOT set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother. Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth. 7:7 The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people: 7:8 But because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the Oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth Covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His Commandments to a thousand generations; 7:10 And repayeth them that hate (or disobey) Him to their face, to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth (or disobeyeth) Him, He will repay him to his face. 7:11 Thou shalt therefore KEEP the Commandments, and the Statutes, and the Judgments, which I command thee this day, to DO them. 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these Judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee The Covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers: 7:13 And He will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: He will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which He sware unto thy fathers to give thee. 7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. 7:15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee. 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that [will be] a snare unto thee. 7:17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations [are] more than I; how can I dispossess them? 7:18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: [but] shalt well remember what the Lord thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt (and pharaoh ruled the whole known world at that time); 7:19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the Lord thy God brought thee out: so shall the Lord thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid. 7:20 Moreover the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. 7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the Lord thy God [is] among you, a mighty God and terrible. 7:22 And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. 7:23 But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed. 7:24 And He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them. 7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it] unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is] an abomination to the Lord thy God. 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: [but] thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it [is] a cursed thing. 8:1 All the Commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers. 8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, [and] to test thee, to know what [was] in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His Commandments (Law), or not. God warned His people, YOU, the British-Israel people ( http://jahtruth.net/britca.htm ), in the Revelation/Apocalypse to John, to come out of the Mother of Harlots’, abominable (Rev. 17:5) Babylonian ( http://jahtruth.net/robab.htm ) Market System:- Revelation/Apocalypse 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT of her, MY people, that ye take not part in her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (punishment). 10. She has allowed Witchcraft and condoned it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284449/100-UK-servicemen-class-pagans-MoD-reveals.html - and Satanism - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm - in her/the realm and in her/the armed forces. Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a WITCH, 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a WIZARD, or a necromancer (medium). 18:12 For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. 18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God (Matt. 5:48). Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven IS perfect. Deuteronomy 32:15 But the Beloved waxed fat, and rebelled: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [with fatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. 32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with strange [gods], with abominations provoked they Him to anger. 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Revelation/Apocalypse 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my (adopted) son. 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and SORCERERS, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and brimstone: which is the second death. She has given an O.B.E. to Joanne "Jo" Rowling (J. K. Rowling), who promotes witchcraft, thus herself condoning the promotion of witchcraft, and the poisoning of the minds of the nation and its children. The other and major part of witchcraft/sorcery, that she has also allowed, and probably actually invested in, is the chemical and pharmaceutical industry that is slowly poisoning the nation through chemical-fertilizers, pesticides, chemtrails, vaccines, etc., and other pharmaceutical products/medicines/poisons (witches’ brews / potions) in order to maximize their profits, because they do not make any money from healthy people. That is why there are more sick people every year and a correspondingly higher NHS budget, rather than less sick people and a correspondingly shrinking NHS budget. The NHS, doctors and pharmacists are therefore obviously harming the population, not healing it. http://www.rense.com/general34/quotes.htm http://jahtruth.net/heal.htm Note well that it states in Revelation/Apocalypse 21:8 “ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and Brimstone . . .” and the word Parliament means “Speaking Lies” from the French words Parler which means to speak, and mentir which means to tell lies. Also the word Politics, poly meaning many; tics are blood-sucking parasites; thus politics means many blood-sucking parasites. 11. Each and every single one of the above crimes carries the death-penalty, with public execution; under The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; for not doing so, along with all those who likewise reject The Law of God — Deuteronomy 17:8-13, 27:26; Malachi chapter 4. Deuteronomy 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; 17:9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee The Sentence of Judgment: 17:10 And thou shalt do according to The Sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 17:11 According to The Sentence of The Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline to do The Sentence which they shall show thee, and turn not away from it to the right hand, nor to the left. 17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thus thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 17:13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously (in thinking they are a law unto themselves). 27:26 Cursed be he (like Elizabeth) that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to DO them. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (in the Greek Original – pleroo = to fully preach it). 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till ALL (the Prophecies) be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees (politicians), ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven. James 2:10 He who breaks the least of these Commandments and teaches others to do so is guilty of all. The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone famously stated, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.” All of The Law references quoted are copied from the Sovereign’s Bible (Exhibit 2) upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1) was sworn (all emphasis mine), containing God’s Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. It is a special large print and specially bound edition of the king James Authorised Version (1611) of the Holy Bible, that she placed her right hand upon, swore the Coronation Oath upon and then kissed, before she signed the Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1). 12. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg is therefore not only massively in breach of contract, but also massively in breach of The Law, and thus is not only NOT the Lawful Sovereign, never has been, and thus has NO jurisdiction to prosecute me, but is also a criminal, guilty of capital crimes, that carry the death-penalty, according to The Law she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. That Perfect Royal Law of Liberty was given by God to the British-Israel peoples to protect the British-Israel peoples from exploitation, oppression, poverty and harm, and which God has warned the British-Israel peoples to return to, with dire consequences for failure to do so. Her obscene wealth and that of her relatives, cronies and accomplices must be seized and shared out amongst the poor and homeless. Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch (nothing). 4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the Lord of hosts. 4:4 Remember ye (and return to) The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgments. 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the Lord: 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (see verse 1). 13. The person who purports to be queen was, in fact, as proven above, never rightfully nor Lawfully the Sovereign/Crown. Therefore the Crown/Prosecution/Regina has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge’s authority comes from her. 14. In addition, without prejudice to the above, based on God’s Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1) the “queen” is in breach of contract. She has amongst other things accumulated a large amount of personal wealth and done many other things that are expressly forbidden, some of which are listed above, and so she has breached her contract with God and the British-Israel people. Therefore, even if, which is not admitted, the “queen” was genuinely crowned, the breach of contract disqualifies her from sitting and renders null and void proceedings instituted in her name. It is therefore of the utmost importance that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg and the Sovereign’s Bible, that is kept in Lambeth Palace*, be present in court on May 9th for my challenge to her jurisdiction and sovereignty to be heard, and for me to face my false-accuser, examine her and have her arrested. * Class-Mark Ref. No.: E185 1953 [**] Signed: _______________________ Date: 31/03/2011