ktlight
21st May 2011, 10:54
" If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."
Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:-
http://mtrial.org
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/
There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned. There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second point.
At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.
The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.
All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any of "her majesty's" courts or judges.
Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury
trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.
No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.
source to continue
http://www.henrymakow.com/hill.html
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."
Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:-
http://mtrial.org
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/
There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned. There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second point.
At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.
The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.
All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any of "her majesty's" courts or judges.
Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury
trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.
No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.
source to continue
http://www.henrymakow.com/hill.html