Why can't commentators on law agree and 'come together'!

I have recently been contacted by one or two noticing that there are many in the freedom movement speaking on matters of law that are saying differing things which, in turn, is creating confusion. I would agree entirely. This has coincided with some suggestions that we all ‘get together’ and somehow find some common solutions and clarity.

The problem is that ‘finding the common ground’ in these different narratives will not be the exercise or result because there are fundamental contradictions and I am concerned that something like this would become a public spat. What I feel should happen is that people (individuals receiving the information) need to become a bit more discerning, engage in the material, do the reading and find the contradictions for themselves.

I have laid out my position clearly for months (years actually) and the material is all on a combination of the two websites…

www.CommonLawConstitution.org
www.LawAndAlchemy.org

...the former being mainly about the mechanics of Constitutional Law itself; the latter being about the ultimately more important underlying esoteric information about Natural Law.

I have presented this in all forms, short bullet point, medium and long forms. There are resources, academic references and quotation pages, short comments, long articles and even essays and dissertations. There are memes and links to videos. I have laid this out as teaching material.

Having put the information out there (and continuing to do so) I do not wish to provoke or pick arguments but simply wish to present the material clearly both on the websites and in my talks and courses - details of which you will see on these websites. It is up to people themselves to come to an understanding by noticing any contradictions and logical fallacies that may exist and to decide for themselves where the truth sits.

Once again, I am presenting this information here below in this post, in as short and summarised a way as I can. I'm laying out the simple logic of how the English/British Constitution is compatible with Natural Law and Natural Justice and how it is the ‘real deal’. This is to help you come to understand that a community cannot function in any other way than by the same principles that are built into our Common Law Constitution.

This doesn’t have to (and shouldn’t in my view) require the introduction of anything to do with strawman arguments, birth certificate fraud, Cestui que vie, Capitis Deminutio Maxima, Cusip numbers, trusts etc. This topic is purely understanding the logic that the Universe requires us to live in a community or society based on Individual Rights and self-governance. It’s a non-negotiable - involving anything else is either a distraction or, worse, will continue to manifest further conditions of enslavement. Many people will not like hearing this: if people want freedom, then you must understand these principles and start to explore Natural Law. That's not just Will saying that - but a requirement of the Universe. Sorry!

Basic Logic

People want freedom to make decisions that affect themselves and don’t want to be bullied and coerced
That requires a community in which everyone recognises each other’s free will - and the right for all to exercise their free will
In turn, that means that the community in which we live must realise the Universe’s own objective requirements for morality - specifically that knowingly exercising your free will in such a way that it encroaches on someone else’s ability to do the same, causes you to commit a crime under Natural Law
Any other behaviour is right behaviour as defined by the Universe
Committing those crimes has consequences for us that are delivered back to us through the natural unfolding of events - or the organic playing out of dynamics within the Universe. This is the delivering back to us or mirroring of our 'stuff'.
A community that recognises all of this is a community that functions under the ideology of Individualism and recognises Individual Rights. It’s fundamentally non-collectivist
Collectivism is dangerous - because it is group-think. We have been led or been programmed to believe concepts like ‘...for the greater good’. Or the needs of the majority must always override the minority. This is dangerous and fundamentally anti-universe and if you find yourself using these phrases, you've been tricked.
Voting in elections is violence on the minority or individual. You are expecting (if your opinion is the same as the majority) that what you want will override the other opinion - through sheer brute force of numbers.
What the majority wants isn’t necessarily correct and the Universe fundamentally doesn’t operate like that because this would be the will of the majority denying the free will of the minority - or even the individual.
The English Constitution - is it compatible with everything described above? Yes, because all it’s doing is defending the people against an administration becoming something more:- ’a government’.
Under a Common Law constitution, the government isn’t really a government at all
Why? - because under a Common Law Constitution, it’s the people that do the governing of themselves - not officers or officials (public servants). The government is nothing more that an administration executing the wishes of the people. This is anarchic-like.
Justice is created through the consciences of the Jurors because the people (through the jury) are the final arbiter of law - and specifically in each individual situation. The individual defendant is afforded Justice by examining intent and context.
The Jury are in authority over government legislation and can pass verdicts that are in opposition to legislation - which is known as Annulment by Jury
The English Constitution is therefore compatible with Natural Law and what the Universe wishes for us!
The English Constitution properly places limitations on ‘government’ (such that it is) so that people’s individual rights under Natural Law are protected

A Few Technical Details and Important Facts

The Constitution is not the original 1215 Magna Carta itself - but the Great Charter (as it is also known) is the most recent document that expresses the customary laws and principles that are contained within it. The Constitution was already in place!
The Constitution does not bind or compel the people (anymore than Natural Law does) but, instead is merely a one-sided promise on the part of the Head of State (the most senior public servant) to preserve the liberties of the people and to help them achieve Justice in their community. Magna Carta was a reaffirming of that promise.
The English/British Constitution cannot be a two-sided contract in which the people are a bound party. Why? Because ‘the people’ cannot sign - it is an abstract of the mind. You cannot bind a group to a contract.
More importantly, you cannot bind people who haven’t even been born yet into a contract. The Constitution is not about compelling the people - it is about compelling and limiting the ‘government’.
It’s not all 63 chapters of the Great Charter that are important - but a subset called the Articles of Common Law.
These principles expressed in the Articles of Common Law already existed as our Constitution and Laws prior to 1215. Some Common Law is contained in those articles and some remains as custom that evolves as Common moral principles respected by all and reflected in the on-going decisions of juries. Common Law is Constitutional Law!
The King was under duress to seal it (royal sign) if he was to remain King. I.e. it was a condition of him remaining the head if state that he had to agree to act within already-established law (because, at the time, he wasn’t)
The Pope had nothing to do with the laws of England - he was an outsider and foreigner who had no say. Therefore his claim would be null and void
Similarly, the wayward King John at the time would not have had the authority to give away the realm to a foreigner - it’s not his to give away.
Later ‘versions’ of Magna Carta are not Constitutional but merely statute - legislation written by government - though they may and do affirm principles in the original.
‘Government’ cannot repeal the Articles of Common Law held within the 1215 Magna Carta - despite what they may claim - because 1215 Magna Carta is Constitutional law and not Statute
The ‘government’s’ legislative-making powers (the branch of government known as the legislature) is subordinate to the Common Law (the people’s law)
Magna Carta 1215 was the result of King John’s trial by his own peers (the Barons/Lords) for his crimes
It was not a power-grab by the Barons. The Barons were vassals of the Crown and needed to manage and farm the estates. For that they needed the help of the Commoners as much as the commoners needed the Barons’ estates for help in living. It was a more synergistic relationship.
The Constitution didn’t necessarily function perfectly back in the day - it's always a struggle and will never not be. But the rights of the people and the obligations of the King (government) were kept much more in the hearts and minds of the people and they knew how it should work. The people were ‘zealous’ for their rights.
The Monarch, under this arrangement, was a Limited Monarchy - not what it unlawfully became later under the ‘Divine Right of Kings’. More consistently back in the Saxon times, no potential King would ever have ‘assumed’ his right of Kingship. Whilst it was not a right, and it had to be earned, it did quite often get passed down from father to son, nonetheless.
Common Law was prevalent all over Europe prior to the Norman invasion and the same sentiment as expressed in Article 39 of Magna Carta was also expressed two hundred years before by Emperor Conrad of Germany… Nemo beneficium suum perdat, nisi secundum consuetudinem antecessorum nostrorum et per judicium parium suorum. No one shall lose his right, unless according to the custom of our ancestors, and by the judgment of his peers. See 3 Blackstone, Commentaries 350
1215 Magna Carta is not Statute - not because it predated the formation of Parliament but because it is an expression of the people’s law. Parliament was not the beginning of statute anyway, as, prior to Parliament, it was the King that created statutory legislation.
The Articles of Common Law were known as Legem Terrae (the Law of the Land). The ‘Law of the Land’ has a specific meaning and did not include government legislation.
Importantly, (despite the erroneous claims by the Judiciary and Legal Profession) ‘Common Law’ is not Precedent or ‘Judge-made’ law (Stare Decisis). Whilst an appeal system must indeed be in place, nothing can bind a future jury.

Conclusion and Some Traps People are Falling Into

The Constitution of England (now Britain) is a set of principles by which we the people wish to live. This is expressed in a series of customs and written principles that are recorded in 1215 Magna Carta. So, in a sense, you could say that the 1215 Magna Carta is not the Constitution itself - but merely the most recent record of its principles.

The constitution is a set of ideas that are based on Natural Law and Individual Rights - and must be known, understood and held in the hearts of all citizens for it to be alive.

You don’t have rights and liberties just because some important men got together and happened to ‘do the right thing’. Your rights do not hinge on the say-so of the great men of history. Their actions merely either deny or uphold those principles - but they, themselves, do not invent or destroy them. Regardless of what they do now or did then, your Natural Rights remain and have always existed because it is a truth in the Universe and the English/British Constitution reflects that.

A Constitution that is based on Common Law and contains the central feature that allows the people themselves (and not their ‘government’) to decide on justice, is a Democratic Constitution. It is Jury Independence that is the primary characteristic or feature of Democracy - not voting in elections

Not all constitutions are therefore compatible with Natural Law - only a Common Law or Democratic Constitution (assuming you understand the true meaning of Democracy!) Anything else will be a compromise because it doesn’t allow the people to manage or govern themselves. Those compromised constitutions will always eventually lead to tyranny. That's how special ours is. So please - stop ignoring it, learn about it and let's begin that inevitably long process of getting it recognised and restored by creating a national conversation about it. Be a pain in the neck and ask awkward questions, say things that people don't want to hear and make a nuisance of yourself!

It is the responsibility of the people to be sufficiently exercised and passionate about these rights and principles and always to be vocal and demanding of them; calling-out wayward public servants reminding them of these ideas and principles and why they are limited by these Constitutional constraints.

Hitting back at government by picking holes in their administrative processes is missing the point and not calling them out morally. This amounts to nothing more than ‘catching them out’ at their own game. This is pointless as it allows the foundational principle of morality to go unchecked!

Similarly, you have to go further than picking holes in their own legislation. If government is breaking its own legislative rules, then yes, that can be useful to point out - but ultimately if you don’t also point out their deeper moral crime and obligations under Constitutional Law, then you are scoring an own goal. Who cares if they’re breaking their own rules - they’ll just change them!

If you have discovered some breach in their procedure about council tax or issuing summons, then government will simply ‘fix it’ either by correcting their mistake or changing the legislation to fit what they want to do. This doesn’t achieve anything - we must appeal to the higher laws, shine a light on their crimes as determined by the higher authoritative law of the Constitution. Not going all the way leaves a lie in place and sometimes continues to prop up their crimes by implication!

Tying-up the local authorities and councils might have a detrimental effect or even bring these structures down - but then we’re left with a void and whilst people don't know how it’s supposed to operate, this could be dangerous. It's quite possible that the powers-that-shouldn't-be would like these structures to collapse. You might be doing them a favour!

It is interesting that it is the councils and not central government that is receiving all the attention. At least you could argue that you are getting something for your money with local services. It is almost as if the greater crime - specifically that you are not being afforded the choice as to whether you have those services in the first place, is being denied. That is denying your Individual Rights, is collectivist and unlawful under the Constitution - but nobody appears to be making those arguments.

Local governments and councils are at least closer to us and more visible - and are ultimately the structures we would still wish to work with in a properly-functioning society. It's the distant, invisible centralised systems that are the biggest danger to us, surely. Why not ask awkward questions about VAT, income tax, tax on fuel, inheritance tax, or even stamp duty for example! Calling them out on the immorality of these would be much easier.

Why are some people in the freedom movement appealing to Judge-made law? Does that fit with Natural Law and Natural Justice? Look out for people who claim that state judge-made law (Precedent) is the highest authority, because ultimately those that claim this are presenting pro-statist/collectivist arguments. The ultimate authority must always remain the consciences of the people hence Trial by Jury and Jury Independence being the central mechanism. Appealing to Precedent is still outsourcing Justice to a perceived authority. This is misdirection.

Looking for anomalies in the King or Queen’s oath is not going to get you anywhere - it’s another distraction from the key point. When the most profound necessity is being ignored (the authority of the people on all matters of justice) then worrying about the wrong kind of signature, seal or stone at the coronation is frankly laughable!

Why are large portions of the Freedom Movement cheering on Bills of Parliament that call for referenda - even if well-intentioned? A Referendum is anti-individual rights because you're still calling for majority-rule! When doing this you are falling back into the trap of believing that you can legitimately override the rights of a minority. You don't like it when you're the awake minority - so why continue to fail to call that out? Referenda are unconstitutional - because the constitution is about protecting the rights of the minority or individual from the bullying collective. The opinion of the greater number does not necessarily hold greater merit and instead often represents a lazy, superficial understanding or unconscious choice - so why keep calling for a system that keeps us all in that condition?

If people who are speaking out, like Andrew Bridgen still don't understand proper Constitutional, individual rights-based principles, then call them out kindly but firmly and teach them. Speak about this loudly and incessantly so these topics can't be ignored - it's your responsibility to do so!

These are some of the own goals that are being scored and by freedom-lovers and traps they are falling into. Please, please learn about these philosophies and show that you care. It's the 'care' principle that the other side understands only too well but are deliberately hiding from us. It is the true meaning of the 'G' in free masonry. The 'Generative' principle. "What do you care enough about in the world to put your will behind?" We've let things go off-track too far and there are no shortcuts; this is not about digging-up some carefully hidden technical paper process that, if discovered and put into action, will magically cause the whole edifice to collapse. Even if that were the case, they may want that to happen anyway!

2024 will see things being ratcheted up with greater revelations of contrast coming to the surface. These are opportunities for us to call things out and think morally at a more profound level. If we fail in this regard, the downward spiral will only continue. We can pull this around but only if we're honest with ourselves, understand that self-governance is a prerequisite and call for the reinstatement of the Constitution/real Democratic principles in our society at every opportunity that we can - that specifically means full Trial by Jury and Jury Independence.

William Keyte - 27th January 2024