We the People correspondence

  • 0 Replies
  • 1009 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4102
  • +75/-0
We the People correspondence
« on: February 13, 2014, 10:32:26 PM »

Just received from HMRC, our response follows:
 My reference: CETO/06455/2014

 Dear Mr XXXXXX

 Thank you for both of your emails, firstly in reply to my email of 31 January 2014 and your reply to the [email protected] on 3 February 2014.

 I note the various points you have made in your email. But having reviewed the now extensive correspondence on this issue I am afraid that I am not persuaded that it would be useful to continue it. In the circumstances I must ask you to regard the correspondence as closed.

 Thank you once again for taking the trouble to write to us.

 Yours sincerely

 Kate Robinson

 HM Revenue & Customs

 Ministerial Correspondence Unit

 First Floor

 Howard House

 Nottingham

 NG2 1AB

 Fax: 03000 563 668
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

 Our response as of 12th Feb 2014. 4.05 pm:

 Dear Kate
 I'm sorry but this matter is far from closed and this was hardly a "substantive" response as promised in an earlier email.

 I can only assume that you have now learned the difference between Law and statute and you have come to realize that your statutory instruments do not, as you'd hoped, take precedent over Law.

 Your response, or rather the lack of it has been both clumsy and inept.

 I would be grateful therefore, if you could forward this email to your chief executive Lin Homer for her immediate attention.
 I will also do the same, just in case yours goes astray.

 Perhaps her office could offer a more substantive response and will understand the difference between Law and statutory instrument.

 Ours of 2nd Jan 2014
 To: [email protected]

 Dear Lin Homer
 You may be aware through contacts with other government departments that:
 On June 10th 2014 her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will be served notice of our intention to invoke article 61 Magna carta 1215.

 I'm sure as a lawyer you will realize the implications should the Queen fail to respond within the 40 day period as set out in the document.

 I'm sure you are also aware of the courses of action open to us the British people during our "lawful rebellion":

 Our lawful rebellion will include the following

 Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.

 Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.

 To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.

 Therefore any attempts to collect any form of taxes from the British people during this period of lawful rebellion are acts of treason and will be dealt with as such.

 We have until June 10th 2014 to prepare HMRC for the adjustments required.

 Please do not hesitate to contact me by return email should you require any further information

 Kind regards

 We, the people

 The Magna Carta 1215

 "government" has never had the authority to repeal, amend, alter or otherwise over rule the document given to the people under Royal seal and further: Parliament was not party to the original document and therefore they, under "common law" have no rights over it.
 It is however, interesting that all governments since 1297 have by "Acts" and "Statute" attempted to dilute, repeal, alter or amend the document to suit there own agendas.

 The right of lawful rebellion was granted in 1215 prior to the existence of parliament - subsequent versions do not contain the clause, therefore the monarch failed on these occasions to grant that right, however once a right is granted by a Monarch it cannot be un-granted without the express permission of all parties to the document, so, if it can not be shown that for subsequent versions the right has been agreed to not be warranted by the barons then it is still in effect.

 The role of parliament is, not to create nor, to repeal the rights of the people, the role is to define only within the framework of the original grant of rights

 This right of lawful rebellion was asserted in 1688 successfully so was NOT repealed by the subsequent versions of the Magna Carta

 To deny the common law rights of the people is itself an act of treason.

 Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse;

 Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.
 Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or statutory instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.
 To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.

 "Magna Carta is variously described as a covenant, contract or treaty. It is not an Act of Parliament. As we understand it, Magna Carta cannot be repealed by parliament. As a contract between sovereign and subjects, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach it still stands. It is a mutual, binding agreement of indefinite duration. Any breach merely has the effect of giving the offended party rights of redress."

“The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national state. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine (Magna Carta) that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success.”
Winston Churchill 1956:
 Clause 61 of Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in June 1215, permits the “Sovereign’s subjects to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition which four of their number are then obliged to take to the Monarch who is obliged to accept it. She then has 40 days to respond.” The “enforcement powers” granted by King John when he signed the Magna Carta were last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

 Lord Ashbourne, a Conservative hereditary peer ousted from the Lords under Tony Blair’s reforms, said: “These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed. Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.”




 Share.

Top Comments


75 people like this.


 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk