The English Bill of Rights (1688) that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome #English #Constitution

Act of Settlement [1700], section 4: IV. The Laws and Statutes of the Realm confirmed. 'And whereas the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof' - legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3… 'and if any thing be done to the contrary, it shall be redressed and declared void.' 👇

1/ The English Bill of Rights didn’t say “until the next Parliament gets bored.” It said officers shall serve according to it in all time to come. It said heirs and posterities submit for ever. It said it shall be the law of this realm for ever. 2/ So a serious question for MPs, judges, barristers, solicitors, and the Crown: Which part of forever needs a translation? 3/ You call yourselves honourable and learned. Then explain how “for ever” became optional.

These pieces of legislation cannot ever be repealed or replaced because it would be treason if the british parliament attempted it🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 ⚖️Bill of Rights Act 1689: - "All promises of fines and forfeitures without due process are illegal and void"⚖️ ⚖️Bills of Exchange Act 1882: - "There is no recognisable legal means to respond to a demand for payment without a true bill which is based on a pre-existing commercial agreement"⚖️ ⚖️Liberty Of Subject 1354: - No man shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of the law.”⚖️ ⚖️Observance Of Due Process Of Law 1368: - Also known as: Reaffirmation of #MagnaCarta or #DueProcess #Confirmation - Key Provisions (Plain English Summary): The statute declares that: No man shall be taken, imprisoned, outlawed, exiled, deprived of lands or property, or put to death without first being brought to answer by due process of law. It continues: And if anything be done to the contrary, it shall be reversed and held for nothing. In other words: •No punishment without legal process •No dispossession without a proper hearing •Any action taken contrary to this is void and unlawful⚖️ ⚖️Magna Carta 1215 – Clause 39 “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”⚖️ In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Lord Justice Laws defines a constitutional statute as one that either conditions the legal relationship between citizen and state in a general manner, or, one that changes the scope of fundamental constitutional rights. He expressed the view that: "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not." ⚖️ Legal Status in 2025 ✅ All 4 Laws are still in force. 🧷 Recognised as constitutional statutes—not impliedly repealable. 📚 Cited by courts in Entick v Carrington (1765), R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Simms (1999), Thoburn v Sunderland (2002)⚖️ 📢 ⚖️Application in Modern Cases •Can be cited in challenges to unlawful enforcement, eviction without hearing, or secretive court processes •Forms the legal root of Article 6 ECHR: the right to a fair trial •Protects against any attempt to strip liberty, property, or rights without notice, hearing, and lawful process⚖️

"Self-defence therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society." - Sir William Blackstone 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Algernon Sidney: "That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed." Discourses Concerning Government, Section 11: oll.libertyfund.org/titles/s…

Today, the Lady Chief Justice publicly objects to the slightest criticism of the judiciary and retired judges propose returning to offences against the judiciary. Lord Denning had it right (on this one). I wish today's judges and politicians were as courageous on such things.

The original Petition of Right 1628 drafted by Sir Edward Coke and John Selden and enacted by an ENGLISH parliament. Still law! Protected by common law and the English Bill of Rights1688!

The Full English Show tonight 8pm live. rumble.com/v7dhq5w-statement… Statement of fact and argument of a Free Subject of the English Realm. I speak as a free subject of this realm, claiming the rights that the original law and contract itself declared to be mine. The common law of England has never admitted the Roman maxim of desuetude to do so would be a subversion of the Laws of England. Statutes and declared rights do not wither, lapse, or lose force through the mere passage of time, non-use, or contrary practice. Continuity is the very essence of the common law: what was law remains law until it is lawfully altered according to the forms that the law itself provides. This rejection of desuetude is the foundation upon which the ancient rights of the subject stand unbroken. Because desuetude has no place, the rights declared in the Act of 1689 remain of the same force and effect as the day they were enacted. That Act is titled “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.” It declares the rights therein set forth to be “the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be.” It commands that “all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.” And it enacts that the whole “shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever.” The Act of Settlement of 1701, titled “An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,” confirms and ratifies the same. It states that “the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the Throne of this Realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said Laws and all their Officers and Ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same.” The birthright of the people cannot be extinguished by the passage of years or by later instruction that pretends the opposite. Section III of the Bill of Rights provides that “no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law.” Magna Carta is such a charter. It declares that no free man shall be arrested, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, exiled, or otherwise destroyed, nor proceeded against, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, and that to no one will right or justice be sold, refused, or delayed. This is the observance of the law of the land that remains law. It forms part of the birthright of the people and stands protected forever. Section II of the Bill of Rights enacts that “no dispensation by non obstante of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect.” In a legal order that rejects desuetude, this clause confirms that the declared rights cannot be sidestepped by executive pretence or by any claim of obsolescence. What is void remains void. The Coronation Oath binds every King and Queen to govern the people of this kingdom according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on and the laws and customs of the same. The rights declared in 1689, the laws confirmed in 1701, and the ancient charters protected by Section III are among those statutes, laws, and customs. The Oath therefore requires their observance. The Crown must either assent or refuse; it cannot abstain. Yet the original texts forbid any assent that would set aside the rights that are to be firmly and strictly holden in all time to come and for ever. To pretend that Parliament could enact a law that went against these undoubted rights is to deny the original contract between the Crown and the people, as recognised in the constitutional settlement itself. Any monarch who assented to such a law would thereby perjure the Coronation Oath and forfeit the Crown, for the Oath requires government according to the statutes, laws, and customs that include these perpetual rights. Any judge who ruled to the contrary would perjure their own oath to do justice according to the law, and would fail to advise the King properly. Such counsellors and judges would become the very essence of those condemned in the preamble to the Bill of Rights: the “various* evil counsellors, judges and ministers” by whose assistance the late King James the Second did endeavour to subvert the laws and liberties of this kingdom. *The original word was “divers” which is archaic English and today means “various” or “several.” Taken together, these original texts produce a single, unbroken conclusion. The rights of the subject are not temporary privileges that may be redefined, suspended, or allowed to fall into disuse. They are ancient, indubitable, and perpetual. They are the birthright of the people. They bind the Crown, the officers, and the ministers in all time to come. Because the common law refuses the maxim of desuetude, no amount of later teaching, professional instruction, or state practice can lawfully erase them. Any claim that these rights have somehow become alterable or optional is a departure from the original settlement itself. I therefore claim and insist upon these rights as my birthright. They stand for ever. They are to be firmly and strictly holden and observed by all who govern or serve under the Crown. Any law, dispensation, or proceeding that stands outside these protections is void and of no effect by the original force of the texts themselves. The subjects of the realm stand upon the law as it was declared, strictly holden, and secured forever. By using the words and phrasing forever, all time to come and various sections forbidding change – the original contract expressed that desuetude shall not have any effect on these laws or rights. In fact, a Scottish court that acknowledged A.V. Dicey’s thoughts on this. The case is MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 (also reported as 1953 SLT 255). In the course of the case the Lord Advocate "conceded" that the Parliament of the United Kingdom “could not” repeal or alter certain “fundamental and essential” conditions of the Treaty/Acts of Union 1707. Every English child should be taught this in School. The UK Parliament cannot subvert, abrogate or repeal any English law. @SecretPeopleTSP @WhiteHouse @SecRubio @gabby_cabby

The People of England hold the Birthright of Law in their Constitution, hard won through generations of their ancestors.... The English Constitution following the Bill of Rights 1689 🏛️ Under the English constitution, the relationship works like this: The Crown: ✅ Chooses ministers ✅ Grants honours ✅ Commands the armed forces ✅ Treaties & foreign policy ❌ Cannot suspend laws ❌ Cannot tax without consent ❌ Cannot maintain a standing army Parliament: ✅ Makes laws ✅ Controls taxation ✅ Holds government to account ❌ Cannot act without Royal Assent ❌ Cannot change the constitution unilaterally ❌ Cannot remove the Crown's prerogative without consent The Judiciary: ✅ Interprets the law ✅ Protects individual rights ✅ Guards the constitution ❌ Cannot make law (only interpret) ❌ Cannot override Parliament's legislation The People: ✅ Elect Parliamentary Representatives ✅ Petition the Crown ✅ Bear arms (1689 right) ✅ Ultimate sovereignty ❌ Cannot govern directly (representative system) The Importance of THE PEOPLE: The Earl of Chatham's Vital Contribution 🎩 It is right to invoke William Pitt the Elder (Earl of Chatham). He was one of the most brilliant defenders of the balanced constitution and specifically warned against the dangers of Parliamentary absolutism which we appear to be sliding towards today. His Key Constitutional Arguments: Pitt argued passionately that: 1. The Crown Was NOT Subordinate to Parliament The Crown retained its independent prerogative powers The Crown was a co-equal branch of the constitution The Bill of Rights constrained the Crown but did not subordinate it The Crown's prerogative was part of the balanced system 2. Parliament Could Become a Tyrant Too Pitt specifically warned that: Parliament could become as tyrannical as any King if it claimed absolute power He understood exactly that transferring absolute power from King to Parliament just swaps one tyrant for another. 3. The People Were the Ultimate Check Pitt argued that: The people's consent was the foundation of the whole system If Parliament exceeded its legitimate authority The people had the right to resist This was not rebellion — it was constitutional self-defense #Piddington #EnglishConstitution @englishexit @SecretPeopleTSP @PiddingtonRoars

The convention parliament of 1688 did nothing more than make future Monarch's subject to the Law. The original contract is exclusively between the Monarch and Subject, and it is from this that his authority to govern originates. Those governing powers are delegated to those under oath to him; his servants, who have no power to exceed the powers authorised to the Monarch., nor do they hold all of the powers of the Monarch. All legislation requires the common consent of the realm via the Houses of Commons and Lords, without which it is illegitimate and of no effect. Only the Monarch has the authority to convert a Bill to law. We see today that this process has been subverted from what was originally intended with legislation being enacted arbitrarily and Assented to by what can only be described as by a Monarch ignorant of the terms of his role or, in defiance of his contractual obligations.