[ xcomputerdavex ] - truth within - lawful: September 2022

Friday, September 30, 2022

Thursday, September 29, 2022

ACTOR, ACTORS EVERYWHERE #FAKESTREAM MEDIA

THE HPV CAUSED CATASTROPHIC HARM TO WOMEN, BUT THE COVID SHOT IS EVEN MORE DANGEROUS

WHO OR WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CROWN?

The CROWN of LONDON is an 800 year old corporation that controls finance and philosophy for an entity called the CROWN.

This entity is the creator and controller of the Bank of ENGLAND and the US FEDERAL RESERVE, they control the world Bank the IMF and associated cartels.

The crown identity is kept most secret!!

The crown has never been the King or Queen of ENGLAND since the establishment of this corporate body the crown is  the directorate of the corporation. 

The island of BRITAIN is a financial oligarchy run by the crown which refers to the “City of London” NOT the Queen.  The City )Located in the heart of Greater London) is a sovereign state.

It became a sovereign state in 1694 when King William 3rd of Orange privatised and turned the bank of ENGLAND over to bankers.

The City houses the bank of ENGLAND, Lloyds of LONDON, the London stock exchange, ALL BRITISH Banks and 70 US Banks as well as Fleet street`s NEWSPAPER and PUBLISHING Manopolies.

The City is not subject to British Law, it has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag and its own police force, separate from the metropolitan.

The City of London has its own Lord Mayor; there is a council or 12 members who rule the corporation under the Lord Mayor.  The Lord Mayor and his 12 member council serve as proxies or representatives of the crown.

When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at the Temple Bar where she requests permission to enter this private sovereign state.

She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the mayor, her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniform.  The queen bows to the mayor only in the City, outside of the City of London he bows to her, the City of London is the ONLY part of Britain over which parliament has NO authority. 

In one respect at least the corporation acts as the superior body; it emposes on the house of Commons a figure called the REMEMBERANCER…… The remembrancer is an official lobbyist who sits behind the speaker`s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the Cit`s rights and privileges are protected.

The British Empire was an extension of bankers financial interests all the colonies were “CROWN” colonies.  They belong to the City and were not subject to British Law.

All the crown colonies were established on a corporate model with financial ties to the City of London – NOT the Nation of England or Britain.  The island of Britain is a crown colony, the City of London is NOT.

The directorate of the crown whoever they are, have no loyalty to any nation- they were and are devoted entirely to their philosophy which seeks absolute power over an earthly realm, for more than 250 years the servants of the crown brought untold wealth back from the colonies to the British isles… for the crown/ CITY

The population of the United Kingdom (English Scottish, Ireland, Welsh peoples) received very little wealth even though they provided the tax base and cannon fodder.  The people were invaluable assets of the crown, but they knew not what they served…… and still don’t.  (none are more hopelessly slaved than those who believe they are FREE) 

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes “ENGLAND, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the NEEDS of the CROWN” 

If one wants to know the genuine motives for particular actions in history they are told to “Follow the Money” but that is only half of it, - one must also follow the philosophy – the religious beliefs of those in control…. 

For purpose of clarity let the crown always refer to a stealthy circle of power brokers who all believe in the Masonic philosophy……. The brotherhood of man ruled by philosopher kings (for adepts) in league with the GOD of masonry. 

Ordinary members of masonic lodges are these “adepts” and their goals what the people of the Western Civilisations are the directors of the crown, useless fools!!  The secretive cabal is represented by the dominant political economic and cultural institutions across the world, Western society has been subverted, democracy is a form of social control, and the mass media and education are forms of indoctrination

This government is an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY

This government is an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY...boris cant up gas/electric bills...boris cant put duty on fuel...Truss represents such unlawful assembly it all in 6 hours of vids ....and ...

I dont give a crap what uniform it wears ....(email to Lindsey Hoyle speaker on behalf of an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY WITH ZILCH AUTHORITY )High treason is being committed since 1973 also (In 1992, John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty knowingly and wilfully stripping Her Majesty of her sovereignty and rendering  her and her subjects mere “citizens” of Europe.

His act was ultra vires and one of outright high treason.

No law can result from treasonous acts, much less unlawful assemblies.  It is struck down by our common law.  Every statute, EU treaty, diktat and influence since 1972 is consequently null and void.  Britain has therefore never been part of the EU and our British law stands as it was before the 1972 Act.

In consequence, those who affirm and uphold EU law, diktat or influence are openly treasonous and liable to prosecution.)

The attention is now drawn to the Treason Act 1795 and no "repeal "of that act can result from the act of an unlawful assembly  YES THAT IS 650 MPs and a house of Lords.

This means there is a duty in law to terminate any party that supports such Treason Ref Treason Act 1795 final line : shall suffer pains of death: All cabinet ministers and PMs since 1973 High Treason.  All bankers are seditious, All Judges are seditious and are foreign agents. Police, Nationally are unknowingly, or knowingly  by being corporate private companies acting in treason.

Any party implementing any directions from an unlawful assembly since 1973  are complicit in high treason against the people.  We,the people are now free to hold lawful court where at least TWO statements shall be taken as evidence in accordance with the EXPRESS TERMS of The Treason Act 1795  of the allegation of HIGH TREASON, and if found guilty shall "suffer pains of death"

A Letter, Notice and Request - Administrative Courts are UNLAWFUL

To: From

Date:

Notice and Request

Claim Number:

Dear sir, Madam,
We write regarding the above Court case number and wish to point out the following:

You may understand or should be aware of that All Administrative Courts are UNLAWFUL “Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful”. The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that “To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason”.
Furthermore, it clearly states under Halsbury’s Administrative Law 2011 Halsbury’s 4th Edition of Law 2011 (Laws of England) confirms that administrative law is (defined as nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary and that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject there is NO judicial authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them.

Lord Diplock stated … (its recorded in HALSBURYS Laws of England) “All administrative courts are illegal and can never be legislated into existence”, performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take. 

A breach of that Oath is perjury.  Perjury act 1911 section 5                                                                                            False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath.

If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made—
(a)in a statutory declaration; or                                                                                                              (b)in an abstract, account, balance sheet, book, certificate, declaration, entry, estimate, inventory, notice, report, return, or other document which he is authorised or required to make, attest, or verify, by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force; or                                                                                                                                                              (c)in any oral declaration or oral answer which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Moreover, ‘Administrative Law’ forms no part of ‘the laws and usages of the realm’ – Which Judges swear to the Sovereign to uphold via Promissory Oath that binds them to a specific course of conduct – otherwise they cannot be said to perform their judicial duties impartially.
This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250: 

“There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.” OR THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF 1688 ACTIONABLE ACTIONS OF A HUMAN BEING OR CORPORATE PERSONA 
CASE LAW OF – R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 507, [1934] All ER Rep 207 at 210.                                                 In delivering the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal Swift J, said:- “If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it.
TAKE NOTICE that A person appearing in the writ / claim or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, for example, WDH  or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party. See 4 BI.Comm.134.
TAKE NOTICE the Supreme Court have ruled that:
1. “jurisdiction you have to have someone at some point in time before judgment raise their hand and testify under oath and subject to cross examination or its nonsense”
2. “Subject matter jurisdiction” is having the facts in front of the court to make a judgment”
3. “A judgment rendered has to show witness testimony”
4. “Statements of counsel in brief or argument are not sufficient for summary judgments”
5. “Actual facts” not mere allegations of complaint are determinative of jurisdiction”
6. Final judgments “no answer defaults are not deemed to be final judgments, examination of record must show witness testifying to facts”
7. “No witness, No facts, no jurisdiction, it’s the law”
8. “No competent witness no case”

Our constitutional documents have been breached for example:
Act of Settlement (1700) No regal Government since 1973
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/data.pdf
Coronation Oath Act 1868 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/data.pdf
The Promissory Oaths Act 1868
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/.../31-32/72/body/data.pdf
Treason Act 1795 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/36/7/data.pdf
Bill of Rights 1689
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/.../WillandMa.../1/2/data.pdf

 TAKE NOTICE that on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
  There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."
  This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).
  62.  "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."
  63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ." This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.
https://publications.parliament.uk/.../748/748we10.htm

Furthermore, Archbold Criminal Evidence and Pleadings 6th Edition: Disobeying a Statute 1-6 
(7) Disobedience to statutes
Where a statute has declared any act or omission to be treason, felont, misprision of treasonor misdemeanour, an indictment lies in respect of suh an act or omission. Even though a statute does not use express terms describing the nature of the offence. If it prohibits a matter of public grievence to the liberties and securities of the subject, or commands a matter of public convenience (such as repairing of highways or the like), all acts or omissions contrary to the prohibition or command of the statute are mis-demeanours at common law, punishable on indictment by unlimited fine, unless such method of procedure manifestly appears to be excluded by the statute: 2 Hawk. C. 25, s4; R. v. Wright (1758) 1 Burr. 543; R. v Hall [1891] 1Q.B. 747; R. v Lennox- Wright [1973] Crim. L. R.  529, CCC (H.H. Judge Lawson Q.C.). In R. v Horseferry Road JJ,, ex p. Independent Broadcasting Authority [1987] Q.B. 54. DC. It was held that the doctrine of contempt of statute” was no more than a rule of construction. 

TAKE NOTICE that in 1973 the UK entered into the EU without any full referendum on FULL MEMERSHIP, (so all acted in treason without consent from the sovereign people or Monarch). Therefore, every piece of Legislation created and passed by all non-regal parliaments since 1973 are indeed null and void.

Furthermore, in Donnelly v Dechristoforo, 1974, SCT. 41709 ¶ 56, U.S. 637 (1974) McNally v. U.S. 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Hol 816 F.2d. 304, 397 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit…  

I give you 7 days to rebut all of the above TAKE NOTICE that failure to respond will create legal accord and tacit acquiescence that all herein be true and you will cease and desist your false claim forthwith.

By: ……………………………….
Name: 
Beneficiary

What laws have they broken?

1. Coronation Oath act 1688

2. Bill of Rights 1689

3. Act of Settlement 1700

4. Treason Act 1351, 1702, and 1851

A superior statute is done by kings/queens for all time for example, the Bill of Rights was brought about by William and Mary of orange back in 1688 and the bill of rights still stands today because only a Monarch can change this…

In the case of HHJ Watkins it was said that “Judges who breach their oaths are not Judges at all. The law is designed to work that way Judges who breach their oaths are not judges immune from prosecution” the article goes on to say “it is the duty of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to ensure judicial independence and to discipline the Judiciary, yet they deliberately fail to do so, a gross dereliction of duty constituting the offence of misconduct/breach of duty/corruption in public office”.

It continues to say “All those with a responsibility for the courts, Judges and Justice system have a legal duty in S. 3 of the Constitutional Reforms Act 2005 to maintain the continued independence of the Judiciary” and the one law conferred in the Promissory Oath Act 1868 designed to protect the public from tyranny and abuse of powers by Judicial office holders is affronted by the two office holders (Raab and Burnett) who are paid by the tax payer to ensure that Judges behave in a constitutional proper way.”

All “Judges who knowingly act outside of their jurisdiction are afforded no protection by Judicial immunity (See Sirros v Moore 1974 QB).

In this case against HHJ Watkins the particulars of claim stated “The Defendant abused his position as a public officer falsifying a virtual hearing that does not exist on the official public records at Bristol Civil Justice Centre or the Ministry of Justice records. These facts have been kindly confirmed by the Ministry of Justice when they completed a Subject Access Request”

The case goes on to say “the Defendant created a virtual link via Microsoft Teams to hold a 12 minute virtual hearing without my consent, ex-parte and without my presence. He defrauded me. “

See https://intelligenceuk.com/index.php/2022/06/21/judgment-against-a-judge-hhj-watkins-is-ruled-against/

Learn these superior statutes and beat any case period because these are here for all time…

In Archbolds Criminal Evidence and Pleadings it clearly states that to ignore superior statutes is indeed a criminal offence…

Everything since 1973 is void all non-regal governments and all legislation brought in by there alleged governments…