Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby strawmansarah » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:09 pm

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/11-12/12/contents

According to the rule of law - and by abiding by due process - all Acts of Parliament can be challenged in court and their legitimacy/legality tested by judicial review.

It is because of the above I would like to ask HOW could the Treason Felony Act 1848 be challenged at a judicial review?

Sec 3 of the act states:
"If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life . . . . . ."

To apply a judicial review of this act would be prima facie evidence of Treason in accordance with S3 of the Act - because to SUCCESSFULLY challenge the legitimacy of the Act would "deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom" AND "compel her to change her measures or counsels"!

:thinks: :thinks: No law can be legitimate if it prevents itself from being challenged!!!!! :thinks: :thinks:

In fact, Sec 8 of the act states:
"In the case of every felony punishable under this Act, every principal in the second degree and every accessory before the fact shall be punishable in the same manner as the principal in the first degree is by this Act punishable; and every accessory after the fact to any such felony shall on conviction be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years."

So, by asking this question, I am (allegedly) committing treason? :shh:

Surely that can't be legal.....??? :puzz:

HOW, in accordance with LAW, could this Act be challenged?
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby pitano1 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:51 pm

i wonder if. :thinks:

she is a CITIZEN of the E.U,just like the rest of the slaves/persons.
maybe the european high court.?
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby musashi » Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:41 pm

pitano1 wrote:i wonder if. :thinks:

she is a CITIZEN of the E.U,just like the rest of the slaves/persons.
maybe the european high court.?


She has been described as a citizen by the traitor, Major. This traitor, by the way, is not covered by the Statute of Limitations Act as his treason was committed outside the country and, therefore, stands for all time. He may yet be arrested and charged.
To treat her as a citizen would mean that we accept that status given her. That would mean that we accepted that she is no longer our duly appointed sovereign, carries no delegated authority from us and that we are, ultimately, powerless to invest any authority in her - least of all our God-given rights. We would indeed be agreeing that we belong to the European superstate and that we have no constitution or common law jurisdiction.

It was an act of treason when the law came about that she had to pay taxes. As the supreme tax-gatherer in her office of sovereign, she is untaxable because the taxes go to her to run things on ours and her behalf. To suggest that she pay tax is to suggest that she is less than she is - an act of fraud at the least - that she is not supreme tax gatherer by virtue of her office of sovereign. An overt act of treason by parliament.

The Act of Parliament in the matter of treason is just that - legislation, a matter of state; and the state cannot keep matters of state out of the courts. If it could then we would surely and certainly be living in an outright despotism.
To challenge the Act as legislation is not an act of treason but a political normality. Any Act of Parliament can be judicially challenged and if a court finds the act to be unlawful then it may order its removal from the statute books. The state will, of course, appeal

Musashi.
ISLAM DELENDA EST
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby pitano1 » Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:07 pm

hi musashi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To treat her as a citizen would mean that we accept that status given her. That would mean that we accepted that she is no longer our duly appointed sovereign, carries no delegated authority from us and that we are, ultimately, powerless to invest any authority in her - least of all our God-given rights. We would indeed be agreeing that we belong to the European superstate and that we have no constitution or common law jurisdiction.`

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i see where you are coming from,but.
have a couple of questions.
if she signed away our/her sovereignty,what is she sovereign of.?
did she not break her oath by this action.?

does she dish out our `god`given rights.?
is she protecting us from a corrupt judiciary,and keeping the tossers in
westminster in line.?

is she a queen/sovereign or a sock puppet.?
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby musashi » Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:59 pm

pitano1 wrote:hi musashi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To treat her as a citizen would mean that we accept that status given her. That would mean that we accepted that she is no longer our duly appointed sovereign, carries no delegated authority from us and that we are, ultimately, powerless to invest any authority in her - least of all our God-given rights. We would indeed be agreeing that we belong to the European superstate and that we have no constitution or common law jurisdiction.`

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i see where you are coming from,but.
have a couple of questions.
if she signed away our/her sovereignty,what is she sovereign of.?
did she not break her oath by this action.?

does she dish out our `god`given rights.?
is she protecting us from a corrupt judiciary,and keeping the tossers in
westminster in line.?

is she a queen/sovereign or a sock puppet.?


She is still sovereign - of those of us who have not declared difidatio.
She broke her oath - which is why some of us have declared difidatio.
She does not give us our rights - she is supposed to protect and maintain them.
She is queen/sovereign and possibly a puppet.
She does not protect us from the criminals in parliament and elsewhere.

We know only what we can see - that she swore public oath and signed the contract which gave her the job. She is patently in breach of her oath and the contract. Hence we have difidatio.

The 1911 Parliament Act stole the Royal Assent from the sovereign. It was an act of high treason but the Statute of Limitations prevents a criminal charge being made even if Asquith were still alive. However, a crime has been committed, proceeds of the crime are still in the hands of the criminals and their inheritors, and the proceeds of a crime must be removed from the criminal as no-one may be seen to benefit from a crime. If a crime can be proven then the proceeds of the crime - even when no prosecution has taken place - must be returned to the owner. If we can register the complaint and get a judicial decision on it then the Royal Assent, as proceeds of crime, will need to be returned.

The 1911 Parliament Act is a matter of state and can be taken into court to test its legality. Failing the test would remove the Act, put it back in the hands of the sovereign and then, maybe, we could see where her loyalties and interests lie.

Musashi

The most powerful force we have in this land is the police. Their non political nature is the greatest weapon in the hands of tyrants and dictators. They will enforce any and every law whether legislated by Mother Theresa or Adolph Hitler. In every revolution, uprising, resistance movement you can mention, the police have always fought to the bitter end. The instant a new government, formerly an enemy bitterly fought against, takes control, they immediately obey them and enforce whatever law is given them. This is a serious problem and possibly the greatest one we have. We should bear in mind that just because Lawful rebellion has been enacted by the Lords we are not necessarily safe to rebel. The police, and others, have chosen sides - just like us - and their side is not ours.
ISLAM DELENDA EST
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby pitano1 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:15 pm

many thanks musashi.

for making things clearly understandable
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby strawmansarah » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:31 pm

musashi wrote:It was an act of treason when the law came about that she had to pay taxes.
I recall it being alleged that she VOLUNTEERED to pay taxes! :puzz:
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Legal challenge to the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848

Postby musashi » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:50 am

You could be right there, little one.
I do recall that the anti monarchy thing has been going many years and at one time the tax issue arose. It may be, I don't know, that she was advised to make a contribution voluntarily. Maybe it was to do with certain commercial enterprises, separate to her sovereignty business, that she made the contribution. Maybe there isn't even a law. Maybe I invented that. Maybe some Scottish socialist serial complainer just got too loud. Help!

Musashi
ISLAM DELENDA EST
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm


Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron