Notice of Intended PCP For Mass Murder By Government Policy
Posted on 25th August 2021 by The Bernician
Notice of Intended PCP For Mass Murder By Government Policy
The following Notice of Intended Private Criminal
Prosecution for mass murder by UK Government policy is an amended version of
the notice served upon the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and
Social Care last week, which will also be served by email and registered post.
https://www.thebernician.net/notice-of-intended-pcp-for-mass-murder-by-government-policy/
NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT POLICY
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO),
“Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly
discovered coronavirus”. However, the genome sequence for SARS-COV-2, released
in January 2020, proved that the test to identify its presence was created in
the absence of virus samples1. We therefore contend that no virus isolate of SARS COV 2
exists, and that a disease called Covid 19 has not caused excess deaths in the
UK.
Our assertion is supported by public documents confirming
that no pure isolate of the virus exists2. Furthermore, publicly available
death data proves that the so called “first wave of COVID”, and excess deaths
in England, only occurred ONCE the pandemic was announced and lockdowns
commenced on 23/03/2020, and that a “virus” which was not a HCID, may have been
in circulation as early as October 2019.3
On 3rd March 2020, the UK Government scientific advisor
echoed the Prime Minister, when he said: “Let me be absolutely clear that for
the overwhelming majority of people who contract the “virus”, this will be a
mild disease from which they will speedily and fully recover as we’ve already
seen”. In line with this, on 13/03/2020, the threat from the virus was
officially downgraded from a HCID to a NOID by the Advisory Committee on
Dangerous Pathogens [ACDP].4.
However, this decision to downgrade from HCID to NOID was
highly controversial because of the WHO’s declaration of a worldwide High
Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID] two days previously on 11/03/2020, upon
the advice of Neil Ferguson of Imperial College. In other words, the
downgrading is an implicit contradiction of Ferguson’s triggering of a
worldwide health emergency.
Remarkably, following the private announcement of the
downgrading on 13th March 2020, and the subsequent public announcement of the
downgrading on 19/03/2020, there appears to have been a premeditated decision
to use this unproven ‘pandemic’ as justification to impose measures and
medication which went on to kill people. This was in turn used to justify the
lockdown measures, which themselves were one of the driving forces of the
deaths they claimed to be trying to avoid. This premeditation to cause deaths of course
amounts to mass murder by government policy.
There is support for this argument when we look at
government policy decisions, which simply put, make no sense. On 17/03/2020, 4
days after the private downgrading mentioned above, the NHS wrote to all
hospitals asking them to free-up the maximum possible number of beds by
urgently discharging any patients they could.1
Many of these patients were discharged to care homes, some
of which were given ultimatums forcing them to take more patients than they
were equipped to provide care for. In addition, the NHS cancelled all
‘non-urgent’ treatments.
Why was this policy invented at all given scientific advice
on 03/03/2020, and why was it not reversed, given the downgrading on 13/03/2020
by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens?
It is our contention that the excess deaths in the first
wave occurred AS A RESULT of the relentless implementation of this policy,
which was coupled with the inappropriate use of respiratory depressing
medications such as Midazolam during the same period. This is how the excess
deaths occurred. They were NOT because of a novel virus, isolation of which,
according to long held standards, has never occurred.
Our extrapolated data on community Midazolam prescribing
supports the above allegation, along with the data on how and where deaths
during this time period occurred.
Following the letter of 17/03/2020 from the NHS, bed
occupancy in England reduced from the usual 90% to an average of 63% in the
spring quarter of 2020. In addition, there was no influx of ‘large numbers of
inpatients requiring respiratory support’. Accident and emergency (A&E)
departments saw a huge decrease in attendances and overall admitted patient
care decreased significantly during the same period.
Of those patients who were admitted to hospital and
residents who were discharged to care homes, the outcomes can only be described
as devastating. We assert that those outcomes were engineered. When we look at
mortality, figures show that hospital and care home death ratios increased
during the “first wave” lockdown period2.
The excess death ratio in private homes also exceeded that
of hospitals in the first wave and has remained in excess every week since the
announcement that a “new virus” was circulating. This is not in line with where
deaths would occur if there were indeed a novel virus killing thousands of
people. The fact is that hospitals WOULD be overwhelmed, and the majority of
deaths would occur therein. The data is clear, this is NOT the case.
Shockingly,
91% of “with COVID” deaths during the first lockdown were of people with any
sort of disability3. It is impossible for a ‘virus’ to
discriminate in such a manner, and therefore we contend these deaths must have
been as a result of very nefarious policies. These policies were blanket DNRs
and mandatory prescribed medications, two factors which have contributed to
most other “non disability” deaths during the first lockdown period.
Data proves that up to 13/05/2020, deaths in care homes
from all causes were 159% higher than at the start of “the COVID-19 outbreak”4.
In April 2020, the ratio of excess deaths in English care homes was almost
three times that of the prior five years’ average. It is not a mere coincidence
that during the same month, prescribing of Midazolam increased by more than
100%5. There is a clear correlation between policy, prescribing of Midazolam
and deaths, which simply cannot be overlooked.
Further,
more during the period 2 March to 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes
in England died, supposedly “with COVID-19”, including 18,168 people aged 65
and over. This represented almost 40% of all deaths involving “COVID-19” in
England during this period 6
In addition to the above, during the first lockdown there
was an unbelievable policy change in care homes7. The change restricted access
for residents’ families. This removed crucial oversight of treatment along with
safeguards. Also, support services such as SALT, chiropody, physiotherapy and
in house GP visits, were removed.
Simply
put, care homes were turned into death camps and their inmates were targeted
for elimination. Staffing levels dropped due to a policy of self-isolation for
anything akin to a sniffle, and this further pressured care homes who then had
a ratio of staff to patients that was unworkable.
We contend this was not an accident, and instead was done
by design. Only a fool, or perhaps a madman, would implement such policies and
not realise the inevitable consequences. Only a fool or a madman would say they
were necessary after the down grading of Covid 19 from an HCID to a NOID on
13/03/2020.
As we have already stated, we assert that the above were
premeditated policies, to cause excess deaths in care homes (as well as in the
community generally). It is without
doubt that family surveillance in care homes, at a time when staff limits were
stretched, could have stopped avoidable deaths. Furthermore, had support
services been available, we very much doubt that the over prescribing of
respiratory depressing medication would have been either necessary, or allowed
to transpire.
Bizarrely, in addition to the above, all official
inspections were suspended during the first lockdown, leading to less and less
oversight. Very worryingly, the use of blanket DNRs,8 (now acknowledged as a
fact by Matt Hancock), as well as do not admit to hospital orders, were
imposed, and undoubtedly led to countless avoidable deaths.
Lockdown restrictions eased at the start of June 2020 and
up to the start of the second national lockdown, there was NEGATIVE excess
deaths in care homes (a ratio of 0.96 versus expected levels). This fall in
deaths occurred in the absence of any ‘vaccines’ or alternative treatment for
so called Covid 19.
We therefore contend that the initial wave of deaths during
the first lockdown were driven by policy decisions by this government and
Midazolam prescribing. These deaths were in fact accelerated deaths, rather than excess
deaths, and these accelerated deaths were created for political and policy
gain, to feed a narrative of a deadly pandemic which simply did not, and still
does not, exist.
Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor, has labelled lockdowns
“the single biggest public health mistake in history”9. 95% of hospital COVID-labelled deaths occurred DURING
lockdown. How is this possible if lockdowns save lives?
We contend that lockdowns kill, but moreover that they are
designed to do so. However, lockdowns alone do not provide the significant
number of deaths needed
to create the illusion of a pandemic. This is the primary reason we have
looked at Midazolam prescribing during this period.
It is a well-known fact that Midazolam is a respiratory
depressing drug1. It creates the very respiratory symptoms of so called
“COVID-19”. Used in copious amounts in conjunction with lockdowns, Midazolam
led to premature deaths. The data we have extrapolated on community Midazolam
prescribing supports this, along with the pertinent observations above, about
where and how accelerated deaths occurred.
Given our assertions that government policy and Midazolam
prescribing have caused accelerated deaths, and our assertion that this was
designed and premeditated by certain individuals within and advising this
government, we have some questions that we wish to put to you.
Our allegations described above are of the most serious
kind. In the absence of satisfactory answers from you to our questions and
given the supporting evidence we are presenting with this notice, we wish to
make clear that we will assume you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, that
what we have asserted about a government premeditated policy of mass murder is
false.
Let us be clear, this is your chance to answer the
questions posed and give proof that our allegations and assertions are wrong.
If you can do that by bringing evidence to the contrary of ours, we will accept
that we have perhaps misinterpreted our evidence, albeit in good faith.
However, you will need to produce sufficient material
evidence to rebut our allegations, and in the absence of the same, we will
pursue a Private Criminal Prosecution based on the statements made herein.
Of the 50,335 deaths which occurred in March to June 2020
involving COVID-19 in England and Wales, 45,859 (91.1%) had at least one
pre-existing condition, while 4,476 (8.9%) had none. It is for those people and
their families that we so urgently seek a just outcome in this the most serious
type of criminal proceedings imaginable.
Questions About Allegedly Murderous UK Government Policy
How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were used
in England between March and May 2020?
Of 1mg in 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules used between
March and May 2020, where were they prescribed, and in what proportion, i.e.
what went into the community, and what went into hospitals?
What was the UK stock of 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride
ampules held for the months October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January
2020 and February 2020?
How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left
in the UK in October 2020?
What was the UK stock of 10mg 2ml Midazolam in the months
October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020?
How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left
in the UK in October 2020?
Who ordered the 22,000 extra packs in May 2020? Was it the
DHSC, and if so, which minister signed off the order? If it was not the DHSC
please specify who it was?
What was the cost of the order of the 22,000 packs?
Moving on to the Health and Social Care Committee. Oral
evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17/04/2020, ordered by
the House of Commons to be published on 17/04/2020, what does Dr Luke Evans
mean when he says, “a good death”?
Does he mean euthanasia, which this term commonly refers
to?
Assuming he does mean this, why did Dr Luke Evans openly
discuss government policy of causing “a good death” by administering fatal dose
of drugs like Midazolam and Morphine, via hypodermic syringes, when to do so is
tantamount to an implicit confession of mass murder by policy?
Euthanasia
and assisted suicide are both illegal under English Law. Assisted suicide is
illegal under the terms of the Suicide Act (1961) and punishable by up to 14
years’ imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances, euthanasia is regarded as
either manslaughter or murder.
Are Dr Luke Evans’ remarks a result of the Confidential
Pandemic Influenza (CPI) briefing paper dated 08/09/2017, which states, and we
quote: “There is significant discussion in the paper about ceasing or changing
care to patients in the HRG categories; however a decision may more
appropriately be taken to treat patients in the listed HRG groups rather than
influenza patients, dependent upon likelihood of survival……… Total excess death
rate would be in excess of 7,806 per week of the peak of the pandemic if all
these services were stopped. So, in the peak six weeks of a pandemic
(recognising the typical profile of increasing and decreasing case numbers
either side of the peak weeks), 46,836 excess deaths could be expected. On the
one hand, this is likely to be an underestimate as it only considers the top 14
HRG codes and it does not consider additional deaths occurring particularly in
the elderly and frail across primary care where HRGs are not coded.”
Give the CPI and Dr Luke Evans’ remarks, is there a culture
within government, Public Health England and indeed the NHS to enact the
supposedly defunct Liverpool Care Pathway, to end lives at the behest of the
treating doctor, which of course is illegal as described above?
If the answer is “no”, can you please explain why the NHS
drew up the CPI and included within it plans to withdraw hospital care from
people in nursing homes in the event of a pandemic, which also included refusal
to treat those in their 70s and instead offer “support” to use so-called “end
of life pathways”.
The CPI states that the Health Secretary (at the time)
could authorize medics to prioritize some patients over others and even stop
providing critical care altogether. Was such a decision taken by the Health
Secretary at the time, (Matt Hancock), in relation to care home, hospital and
community residents over a certain age?
Government ministers have repeatedly insisted that care
homes were not abandoned by the NHS during the coronavirus crisis, despite more
than 42,000 residents in England and Wales dying during the “pandemic”. Given
this, what is your proof that this was not because of decisions made by the
DHSC, and/or PHE and NHS chiefs, which then resulted in thousands of needless
deaths?
Care homes were asked by NHS managers and GPs to place
DNR’s on all residents at the height of the “pandemic” to keep hospital beds
free – in breach of guideline 3. Blanket DNR’s were also imposed on people with
learning disabilities “who were not near the end of their lives”, showing a
concerning disregard for disabled people. Who made the decision to ask care
homes to do this, and were these decisions taken because of the CPI?
In making his remarks at the Health and Social Care
Committee, Oral evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17 April
2020, why did Dr Evans and indeed all those present, completely ignore the
declassification of COVID-19 from an HCID to a NOID on 13/03/2020, meaning that
such nefarious measures as those mentioned in the CPI were never necessary?
Moving on, we attach a selection of graphs regarding the
prescribing of 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules for various years and
months. Can you please explain why the enormous increase in Midazolam
prescriptions for 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules coincide with
implementation of the UK Government’s COVID-19 Battle-plan in March 2020?
How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules, were
held in the UK in January 2020, and what wholesalers held them? How does the
DHSC, PHE and the NHS keep track of what stock it has of 10mg 2ml Midazolam
hydrochloride ampules, and indeed all other Midazolam products?
We attach a final graph comparing all-cause mortality but
distinguishing between NON “COVID-19” deaths and deaths “with COVID-19” for the
period March 2020 to April 2021, compared to Midazolam prescribing for the same
period. Can you please explain why there is such a tight correlation between
the “COVID-19” deaths in April 2020, and the prescribing of Midazolam 10mg 2ml
Midazolam hydrochloride ampules?
As Midazolam is not a treatment for “COVID-19”, and the
prescribing in April is, in the main, into the community, and NOT hospitals,
can you please answer if it is in fact the case that 10mg 2ml Midazolam
hydrochloride ampules were prescribed and used to end the lives of people in
care that had a chance of surviving, and those deaths were then labelled as
“COVID-19”?
For the avoidance of doubt, the appropriate answers to the
above questions must be delivered without prevarication, obstruction, or
unnecessary delays, whilst we reserve the right to lay this information in a
criminal court without further notice, for the purposes of preventing any more
harm being done to the People by UK Government policy.
References
1 Eurosurveillance | Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus
(2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
2 FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the
world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever –
Fluoride Free Peel
3 ‘Plausible’ evidence that Covid may have been circulating
in Italy in October 2019 (telegraph.co.uk)
4 High consequence infectious diseases (HCID) – GOV.UK
(www.gov.uk)
5 20200317-NHS-COVID-letter-FINAL.pdf (england.nhs.uk)
6 Excess mortality in England, week ending 03 July 2020
(phe.org.uk)
6 out of 10 people who have died from COVID-19 are disabled
| The Health Foundation
7 Care homes have seen the biggest increase in deaths since
the start of the outbreak | The Health Foundation
8 Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled
during height of the pandemic | Daily
Mail Online
9 Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled
during height of the pandemic | Daily
Mail Online
10www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorenglandandwales/deathsoccurringupto12june2020andregisteredupto20june2020provisional/relateddata
11 Care homes: Visiting restrictions during the covid-19
pandemic (parliament.uk)
12 Third of UK hospital Covid patients had ‘do not
resuscitate’ order in first wave | Coronavirus | The Guardian
13 Lockdowns are ‘the single biggest public health mistake
in history’, says top scientist (telegraph.co.uk)
14 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7457966/
15 Unrevised (parliament.uk)
16
Pandemic-Influenza-Briefing-Paper-NHS-Surge-and-Triage.pdf(Shared)- Adobe
Document Cloud
17 Care home residents put on ‘do not resuscitate’ orders
without consent (telegraph.co.uk)
Read More in Critical Thinking
Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged Mass Murder, PCP, UK
Government Policy.
From
Brutus to Magna Carta 2020 | The British Common Law Timeline
Posted
on 5th August 2021 by The Bernician
For
the purposes of resolving the confusion which abounds on this critical subject,
here lies the British Common Law Timeline, from Brutus to Magna Carta 2020.
1103
BC – According to the Historical Triads, Morgan and Waddell, Britain was
founded by Brutus and the Trojans, as a free and sovereign nation, in which all
men and women were considered equal to the king.
This
ancient assertion was corroborated by Lord Chief Justice Coke, in Preface to
Vol. iii. of Reports, when he affirmed that the Original Laws of this land were
composed of such elements as Brutus first selected from the Ancient Greek and
Trojan Institutions.
Under
Trojan Law, the king [known as the Sovereign Paramount] was responsible for the
protection of the people, the punishment of criminals and the settling of
disputes. However, the Sovereign Paramount assumed the role of military
dictator during times of national conflict or foreign invasion.
When
the Trojans arrived, the island was already partially inhabited by their
kindred, the Kymry in the west, the Loegrians in the east and the Brythons in
the north, who were known as the Giants in traditional folklore.
After
being elected as their leader, Brutus named the island Britain [Prydain in the
common tongue], when it was divided into three sovereign domains – Cambria in
the west, Loegria in the east and Alban in the north.
The
island had previously been known as Albion, during which time the Giants
established the tin industry in Cornwall, which remained a sovereign and
independent part of the new nation of Britain.
The
Trojans and their kindred not only spoke the same language, they also practiced
the same nature worshiping Druidic religion, out of which arose courts of
Common Law, which were also presided over by the Druids.
1075
– 400 BC – By the time Brutus died in 1075 BC, Britain had already established
itself as an advanced metal-working, stone-building, sea-faring nation, with a
large population that was significantly bolstered by the migration of their
kindred from the mainland of what later became known as Europe.
However,
despite the building of sixty universities, the expansion of the national roads
network and the nation becoming the primary exporter of tin to the civilised
world, Britain was riven by internecine disputes and civil wars, over whom
would act as Sovereign Paramount, for the better part of the next seven
centuries.
The
inevitable rise of tyrannous kings led to the secession of many clans, which
formed their own petty kingdoms and made claims to land and resources, which
were in perpetual states of dispute between the warring kingdoms.
Until
a petty king of Cornwall conquered his enemies to become the uncontested king
of Britain and established long lasting peace by instituting a codified system
of Common Law, which united all the previously warring petty kingdoms under a
system of equitable triads.
400
BC – This system of Common Law was established in writing by King Dyfnal
Moelmud [Donald the Bald], originally known as the Molmutine Laws, which were
applied across Britain for the next two millennia.
These
laws set in stone the power of the people to nullify miscarriages of justice,
unjust laws and tyrannical regimes, by way of what became known as the Grand
Jury 1500 years later, but was originally known as a Convention.
Britain’s
sixty universities, as well as the courts of justice, were presided over by
Druids, who extolled the virtue of vicarious atonement and the immortality of
the soul, centuries before the birth of Christianity.
55
– 54 BC – After centuries of peace and prosperity in Britain under the
Molmutine Laws, Julius Caesar tried and failed twice to invade what he and
other contemporaries described as a highly civilised nation of people, where
the nobility of Rome sent their children to be educated in the Druidic
universities.
Nevertheless,
with almost the entire Roman army at his disposal. Caesar twice explained to
the Senate that it was the fearlessness of the “war-like Britons”, as well as
their indomitable charioteers, which set fear a flame within his legions and
inevitably resulted in two inglorious retreats from British shores.
36
AD – The first Apostolic Christian Church was founded near where Glastonbury
now stands, after the British crown granted several hides of land to Joseph of
Arimathea and the Apostles of Christ, as documented by the Doomsday book, more
than a thousand years later.
43
AD – Claudius led another attempt to conquer Britain in 43 AD, for the purposes
of which he hired the Angles, Saxons and Jutes as mercenaries.
However,
this was the Pagan Roman Emperor’s attempt to crush Christianity at its source,
which lasted more than four decades and resulted in Roman occupation of the
south and east of the country, whilst the north and west of Britain largely
remained under British control.
In
fact, no matter how many resources Rome threw at the west and north of Britain,
where the Cambrians, the Silures, the Picts and the Strathclyde Britons had
lived harmoniously under the Common Law since 400 BC, the lands and peoples
could not be conquered by Rome.
This
stalemate led to numerous treaties which preserved the Common Law, with the
agreement of the Roman Senate, in return for taxes upon the people, which were
almost never paid.
86
AD – According to Morgan, the Romans were expelled from Britain [save for
trading outposts and the odd strategic military base], within which the Druidic
religion was seamlessly merging with Christianity, even though the former was
still lawfully practiced, as per the freedom of religion guaranteed by the
Common Law.
156
AD – Lucius, king of Britain, declared that the country was a Christian nation,
despite maintaining the ancient freedom of religion within its many kingdoms,
as per the Molmutine Laws, which were in accordance will all of the central
Christian precepts, most notably, treat others how you would have them treat
you.
420
AD – Near the end of the fourth century of British Apostolic Christianity, the
Angles, Saxons and Jutes begin to invade and settle in the south and east of
Britain, bringing with them their Pagan religion, patriarchal tyranny and
lawlessness, which prevailed for the better part of the next five centuries.
562
AD – During the reign of British king, Arthur II, who subdued and conquered the
foreign invaders, a comet struck and devastated Britain, which was uninhabitable
for the next fifteen years.
577
AD – The Angles, Saxons and Jutes returned to Britain before the Britons,
guaranteeing centuries of religious and civil wars. Nevertheless, British
dominion over the north and west were quickly re-established, along with the
Common Law.
580
AD – After invading the recovering lands in the north of Britain, the Scots of
Ireland founded the Gaelic kingdom of Dai Riata, which comprised of much of
what it now known as Argyll in Scotland and Antrim in Northern Ireland, causing
centuries of wars with the surviving indigenous Picts and Strathclyde Britons.
927
AD – England was founded by Æthelstan
under the British Common Law, after Alfred the Great incorporated it into
Anglo-Saxon Law around 886 AD, after being petitioned by his Aldermen to do so.
However, the new kingdom remained sovereign for only 139 years.
1066
– England was conquered by the Normans, who imposed the feudal system, usury
and taxation upon the English, rendering them serfs in their own homeland.
However, the Cambrians [now the Welsh], the Scots and the Strathclyde Britons
in Alba [now Scotland] remained free and sovereign under the original British
Common Law.
1100
– William the Bastard’s son, Henry I, issued the first Charter of Liberties in
1100, thereby securing the rights of the barons and the king, whilst the people
remained serfs who were subject to the occupiers’ unaccountable tyranny.
1166
– The Assize of Clarendon in 1266 transferred jurisdiction from the barons’
feudal courts, where justice was impossible to obtain for the people, to the
Royal Court, which ordered a form of Grand Jury to be formed once a year in
each feudal district, to hear all the indictments of alleged criminals, with
the sworn intention of upholding the king’s peace.
1215
– After almost 150 years of unrestrained royal tyranny, king John’s barons –
the freemen, or more accurately, the inheritors of the lands stolen during the
conquest – forced the king at knife-point to seal Magna Carta 1215.
None
of the articles acknowledged any rights, freedoms and protections for the
serfs, who remained in feudal bondage. However, article 61 acknowledged the
right to seek justice from judges who presided over alleged wrongdoings, as
well as purporting to make rebellion against the monarch lawful, in the event
the articles of the charter were breached.
1216
– The Boy King Henry III’s Great Charter of Liberties in 1216 [Magna Carta
Libertatum] adopted 42 of the articles of Magna Carta 1215, with the notable
exception of Article 61, which no monarch would voluntarily agree to because it
purported to give freemen the right to rebel against the king lawfully. The new
charter effectively repealed 22 articles and replaced the 1215 version.
1217
– The Great Charter of Liberties was reissued in 1217, following the end of the
First Barons War and the Treaty of Lambeth. This included an addition which
became known as the Charter of the Forest.
1225
– When King Henry reached the age of majority, he was asked to reaffirm the
previous charters and he issued new versions. This time, the definitive version
of Magna Carta was issued with 37 of the original articles. This was the first
time the charter became English Law. The new Great Charter of Liberties
included a statement that the king sealed it of his own free will.
1227
– King Henry declared that all future charters had to be sealed voluntarily by
the monarch and called into question the validity of all the previous charters,
most obviously Magna Carta 1215, which John sealed at knife-point.
1237
– Both of Henry’s charters were finally confirmed and granted in perpetuity, in
return for a tax burden on the people, which the barons collected for the king.
1297
– Magna Carta and the Charter of Liberties of 1225 were re-issued by Edward I,
who set about imposing English domination upon the Catholic Scots, who were
still living under their laws and an ancient unbroken royal lineage. Magna
Carta 1297 was nevertheless committed to the statute book.
1320
– Robert the Bruce made the Declaration of Arbroath, affirming the Scots’
ancient lineage and their passionate dedication to freedom and independence
from English rule, following decades of Red Coat genocides by royal decree and
the merciless crushing of the Wallace Rebellion, led by a direct descendant of
the Strathclyde Britons, William Wallace.
1331-69
– Edward III enacted the Six Statutes, for the purposes of clarifying the
previous charters. The third statute of 1354 redefined clause 29 of Magna Carta
1297, so that justice was guaranteed for all men and not just freemen, as per
the ancient customs, rights and liberties acknowledged by Magna Carta 1215,
otherwise known as the Common Law.
1628
– Lord Coke’s Petition of Right was reluctantly sealed by Charles I, after he
imposed martial law upon the people by royal decree, along with arbitrary taxes
without consent and other harsh and cruel punishments.
1688
– Following centuries of religious, civil and foreign wars and the beheading of
Charles I at the end of the English Civil Wars, James II was deposed for
tyrannous crimes against the people and the Declaration of Rights was sealed by
the new king, William of Orange, along with the Coronation Oath.
1689
– The Declaration of Rights was transposed into the Bill of Rights 1689, the
articles of which guaranteed the Common Law rights of every English subject,
including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, jury trials and the right for
Protestants to bear arms.
1701
– The Act of Settlement placed limits on the power of foreigners in government
and on the power of the monarch in respect of Parliament, as well as settling
the succession of the thrown on the Protestant line.
1706
– The Acts of Union 1706 and 1707 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain,
in breach of the Declaration of Arbroath. However, it also meant that all
subjects in both countries enjoyed the rights, protections and benefits
guaranteed by the British Common Law, whilst retaining separate and distinct
legal systems.
1801
– English occupied Ireland was unlawfully incorporated into the United Kingdom
of Great Britain, by way of the Act of Union 1801.
1972
– 2019 – Successive UK Parliaments voted [incrementally] to cede British
sovereignty to the European Union [formerly the Common Market], in various
treaties and statutes, without the consent or knowledge of the British people,
which is tantamount to High Treason. The first and predominant of those
statutes was the European Communities Act 1972.
2020
– A treacherous Parliament attempted to usurp British sovereignty by way of
section 38 of the EU Withdrawal (Agreement) Act 2020, whilst the Coronavirus
Act 2020 treasonously purported to suspend the birthrights of the British
people, as guaranteed by the Common Law, which gave rise to Magna Carta 2020 –
Declaration of Rights, the purpose of which is to restore sovereignty, freedom
and the Common Law.
Read
More in Historical
https://jediknightsquad.blogspot.com/2021/08/you-have-been-conned.html
No comments:
Post a Comment