inns of court There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II. Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament. This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state known as The City of London, or simply 'The City.'

The City is not a part of England, just as Washington is not a part of the USA. The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually. When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor. Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms. In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world's oceans.

The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerce or British wealth, but the Crown's commerce and the Crown's wealth. As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion. Today, the bonded indebtedness of the world is held by the Crown. The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and holds an exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of Court. They are; the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar.

The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple. The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America. To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States spelled with a capital letter 'S,' denotes a legal entity of the Crown.

At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown. Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The Warranty Deed is only a 'color of title.' Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent. The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the populace.

Another method used to hoodwink natural persons is enfranchisement. Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a corporation. A 'juristic personality' has been created, and you have entered into multi-variant agreements that place you in an equity relationship with the Crown. These invisible contracts include: birth certificates, citizenship records, employment agreements, driver's licenses and bank accounts. It is perhaps helpful to note here that contracts do not now, nor have they ever had to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable by American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a written statement of the contract.

Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit by resorting to tort law (fairness) arguments as justification. Judges will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect. These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a 'bill of benefits,' conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes). Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, ".citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind"

What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment instrumentality. It also should be borne in mind that even cursory circulation or commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown's debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income. And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that's you) can be held personally liable for the Crown's debt. The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the gain wouldn't have been possible were it not for the Crown. They view the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it - as an operation of law - the identical same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.

Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read. The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce.

When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation. A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security. Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.

Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die, your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven't died yet. But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with all due prejudice. For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thoroughgoing study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a 'stranger to the public trust,' forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things. Citizenship would have to be made null and forfeit and the status of 'denizen' enacted. If there are any such natural persons extant who have passed through this fire, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them

Mark Owen is a freelance writer living in Toronto, Canada. He can be reached at

  • Inns of court
    I thought I write a brief about law this morning in hopes to help people stay clear on what is going on. I don’t have all the answers but sharing what I know will hopefully help others.

    The only thing on the planet that is actually called law is the Torah, everything else is not law as it is never said to be law, such as legislation, regulations, ordnances, bylaws etc. The Torah means the Law. The first 5 chapter of the Bible is the Torah. Within the Torah you will find God the true Creator is talked about only in Genesis Chapter 1, the rest of the Torah is about LORD God, a man of war as per Exodus 15:3. It is LORD God that gives commandments to Moses and allows the Children of Israel to enslave humanity. You will find in Exodus 19:3 LORD God claims ownership over the earth and in Exodus 19:12 LORD God tells the Children of Israel to enslave humanity. In Exodus 20 LORD God gives MOSES the 10 Commandments and in Exodus 21 LORD God issues the laws by which the Children of Israel may treat their slaves. This is part of a Covenant with LORD God in that as long as the Children of Israel follow LORD God in all his Laws of God, then they get to enslave humanity or rather the Gentiles.

    Now back to Genesis chapter 1. God did not make any laws however he did give all man dominion over all the earth. Dominion means to rule, thus we as man are not under anyone’s rule, this goes for male and female. Now to apply this one has to leave the world of fiction. You have to see the truth that we are all man created as male or female by God within the context of the Bible. I say context because the Bible is written by man not by God. The purpose of the Bible is to create a Contract with humanity. If you believe in truth then you see you world as all man being equal and your responsibility to replenishing the earth. If you believe in the lie that other man can take on labels such as Children of Israel, then you view your reality in terms of fiction and domination over all others. Because it is indeed the Children of Israel as they see themselves controlling the world and they have offered you a choice between enslavement and freedom via the use of stating your dominion through Genesis 1:26-28, they have to leave you alone. The problems come when you deviate from the understanding that you are a man created as male or female by God and state a name and a birth date instead, which identifies you as a person rather than man. When you make use of their laws you imply that you are a fiction and thus under their authority. I am not saying that using their laws to stop illegal activities against you won’t work as they do from time to time, but in doing so you are saying that you are their slave.

    The other problem to all of this of course is the Queen and other Monarchs through out the world. The Police and other authorities within Governments all swear their allegiance to the Queen or King. Thus it matters not what the law says, it only matters what the Queen or King says is law. It is by the Monarchs rule through the use of force that maintains all control over the slaves. Of course once again the only way out of this is to declare that you are not a fiction, but a man created as male by God, for the Monarchs only rule over fiction, not truth. For the Monarchs are just like you and me, man created as male or female by God and have no provable authority over anyone, except when you make use of fiction in terms of names and titles. In truth no one owns any property either. We share all that is in the Universe, but no one can say that they own anything, for doing so is a lie, because it completely improvable. They assign property to names and titles, but not to man. You can’t assign property to man saying it applies to one man, because indeed we are all man. This is the basis of Common Law and thus makes Common Law a fraudulent system.

    So how long must we endure this system? I am not sure. I am hoping that the Mayan Calendar is true and that indeed we all get to ascend out of here to a better place come Dec 21, 2012. Have to wait and see. So long as people are willing to use force against the population to enslave their fellow man, no one will be free.

  • rob -
    A picture tells a thousand words here the Royal parasite personally meets the hand picked judicial lackeys that work for HER and the crown and ensures SHE never needs to go before those courts her lackeys control. Her vast palaces and mansions will never face the same fate as the millions of men whose properties, business's and children are stolen by the utter scum and dregs of the earth.

    Foreign litigants seem to have better access to courts than British taxpayers – who, after all, do fund the legal system

    Are the English courts becoming the preserve of the world's super-rich? London is seen as the world's capital of "divorce tourism", while the richest 1% are increasingly using England's courts to settle business and family disputes. The number of commercial disputes where one or both parties are foreign has risen from 65% in 2008 to 81% in 2011, while 24,000 of the 150,000 divorces in English courts involved international parties, according to reports this week. If this is the case it is no bad thing, according to government officials. The £300m, 11-storey Rolls Building off Fetter Lane, central London, was built to handle high-end commercial disputes for a mostly foreign clientele. The justice secretary, Ken Clark, said of the building, which opened last summer: "The provision of modern, high-quality services for all parties will present the opportunity to market the facility at a global level … to maintain the unrivalled work of the high court and English law." While there is much merit in encouraging the export of some English law (libel and superinjunctions excepted), it should not be done at the expense of domestic justice. Yet that appears to be precisely what is happening.

    There is ample anecdotal evidence that this focus on making London's commercial courts attractive to rich foreigners may be at the expense of the courts providing justice to English citizens. Legal aid is being cut, along with interpreting services, nearly 140 magistrates courts are being closed, and historic buildings sold. The Rolls Building may cater to big international business, but what about smaller local companies that provide most of the country's innovation, employment and tax revenue? Will they still be able to afford to litigate? Russian oligarchs Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich may settle their multimillion-pound business disputes in the Rolls Building, but the path to justice for most domestic litigants is a sadder, seedier journey in courts suffering decay and neglect. Total spending on the courts in 2010-2011 was £1,772.6m (up slightly from £1,700.8m in 20010-11). Nearly half goes on staff and judiciary; civil business accounted for £612.5m. Litigants pay fees to use the courts but they don't cover the whole cost. These fees are increasing, but while that may provide a barrier for those on lower incomes, they are a fraction of the costs of a big business dispute. The argument is that while the taxpayer may lose when two rich foreigners sue each other in the English courts, the overall result for Great Britain plc will be a net gain: English lawyers, experts and investigators will eventually pay more tax.

    This is a similar argument to that made for the anomalous tax exemption for non-doms: that even though they don't pay full tax, they benefit Britain with their spending. However, it could equally be true that they inflate the going rate for services. This is problematic when it leads to inflation of housing costs, but downright disastrous when it prices ordinary people out of justice. These policies exist without data to back up their claims. We pay a lot for our court service, but it's not enough. Courts are under-resourced, which leads to delayed justice – particularly in criminal courts. There aren't enough courts to meet demand and facilities are in desperate need of modernisation. If we're a society built on the rule of law, then justice is one area where we shouldn't skimp, and we should be able to clearly see what we're getting for our money. There are three things the public needs to know about courts to ensure justice is being done: 1) who is using the courts (court listings with real names of parties); 2) for what purpose (case details and documents); 3) the result (results list). The tragedy is that this most basic information is not available, a situation that has prompted City University's Centre of Law, Justice and Journalism to create an open justice initiative to make recommendations on greater transparency and access to court information.

    In The Silent State I took readers on a tour of England's top courts where I put the rhetoric of open justice to the test. At the Royal Courts, the top civil court, the experience was pretty good. However, at the top criminal court, the Old Bailey, things took a decided turn for the worse. The main entrance is reserved for lawyers, press, and court staff, while the public has to make do with what looks like a tradesman's entrance down a litter-strewn alleyway. The reception is officious and unfriendly. There are signs threatening contempt of court everywhere. There is minimal information about the cases, and the view is obstructed in most galleries so only those in the front row can see all the participants – and even then they must lean forward on to the railing, a posture that usually earns a stern telling-off from the usher. Go to magistrates courts and the experience is wildly varying, but the overall sense is that the public are there on sufferance. If the public can't see justice being done, or afford the costs of justice, then the entire system becomes little more than a cosy club solely for the benefit of judges, lawyers and their lackeys, a sort of care in the community for the upper middle classes. We need to open up courts to the commons and ensure that the people in whose name justice is being done are able to see and understand how the laws under which we live are enforced.

    We are planning a publicity campaign to take place outside the High Court, Strand starting 23rd April for 10 days. All of us simply want Justice so, we believe that if we can expose the judiciary for all its failings then we have the platform to put all our cases forward.

    The Judiciary is protecting the organisations that are supposed to be there for the public but as a lot of NHS Complainants and NHS Whistleblowers have experienced, they have no teeth and therefore no value to us. We don't need face value, we want public authorities with real bite and that are not afraid to rock the boat and we don't want a judiciary that simply aids cover ups.

    We need and want Truth and Justice and so we are asking all who are pursuing justice to come under the umbrella of Campaign for Truth & Justice and let's take to the streets, if mainstream media wont assist us, we must create our own publicity and we must use every medium available to us. We can win this fight, if I did not believe this, I would not bother but I have already been one step away from victory, six years in prison put us back several years.

    Now we are ready to re-launch but we need a unified surge, we need to establish numbers, this way we cannot be ignored. The State is terrified of the prospects of this happening. We cannot depend on anyone else, we have to do this ourselves. I hope you will be able to join us for all our sakes.

  • Campaign for Truth & Justice

    The ONLY reason these evil bastards get away with murder is that they stop any form of recording either audio or video that would capture crooked judges and lawyers stealing a families assets with impunity. Freemasons totally dominate court process's and the orders that allow their coffers to be topped up with the sweat and toil of the millions of men caught up in their facade of justice and law when it is merely a vast thieving machine for the ruling royal mafia.
    The state apparatus can persecute persons they do not like , with the tacit approval of ALL elements of the " legal system " happily , with malicious pleasure , pretending that they do not see it happening

    I should call myself - REFUSENIK - the person refused fair trial and in the most blatant way having my human rights abused by Queensland legal system .

    My struggle for justice became the familiar case of the fight against the established perfidy of the people in the legal system ( Queensland , Australia ) where all elements - police , prosecution , trial judge and the " defence " lawyers - cooperate to achieve the conviction in the hassle - free way and then the supervisory ( judicial ) bodies rubber stamp their achievement . That happens within the legal system claiming to have allegedly superior mechanisms to achieve the fair trial and with the " respect for human rights " , " respect for civil rights " , " honesty ", " fairness ", " justice ", " openness "," legitimacy ",. However , the definitions of the above and the compliance is determined by the same people who make the decisions so ( as it would be expected ) grey matters are whitewashed ; blunders are covered up ; lies , mistakes and errors are concealed . My search for justice shows how easy it is for the people within the state apparatus to persecute persons they do not like , with the tacit approval of ALL elements of the " legal system " happily , with malicious pleasure , pretending that they do not see it happening .

    Furthermore they close ranks helping each other when trying to cover up the perfidy of the initial perpetrators , obeying their own code of silence and in effect disclosing the abyss of the corruption , depravity and rottenness of the whole system . No sense of shame , no moral restraints , no hesitation , no reflection or regret of doing something what is morally and legally wrong . They are not interested how to remedy a wrong done to another human being but how to protect the wrong doers by inventing some crafty phrases which obscure the truth and imply that all is in perfect order.

    With the harangues of phrases about " community safety " they are protecting those who actually threaten that community safety and allowing unconvicted yet criminals in own ranks to continue their hideous , criminal conduct . This mindless cruelty is done by fellow Australians working within the structures called " democratic institutions " supposedly having the duty of care . That happens in spite of claimed existence of checks and balances , in spite of allegedly open , fair , transparent legal system existing in Queensland . The legal system which instead of protecting the society from criminals is harbouring criminal elements within itself .

    Possibly , because the legal industry is so convinced about their self importance (by manipulative and often brutally violent controlling of many aspects of the community life) and full of disrespect towards the rest of the society . Disproportionate influence , looking at their contribution to the prosperity and well being breeds endemic arrogance so characteristic in the legal industry and the culture of avoidance of the unpleasant truth .

    There seems to be attitude among lawyers to avoid presentation of issues which could potentially embarrass a trial judge or Department of Public Prosecution or are against the dogmas propagated as unchangeable truths . By tacit mutual agreement lawyers do not criticize judges and judges do not criticise lawyers and it became a society of mutual adoration and not a genuine and fair legal system .

    There are also matters of moral standing , honesty and integrity and easiness with which an injustice can be committed in this legal system , with evident eagerness to destroy human life. There is hypocrisy second only to arrogance of certain people .

    I have been denied protection by the law . Instead I have been persecuted using the law as convenient tool for people with criminal tendencies in state apparatus . It is a difficult battle against entrenched , experienced in perfidy and manipulation people , who have contempt for all morality and decency , and there is disproportionate level of knowledge , skills , experience and access to resources making it difficult to crack the veneer of pretension of respectability . With very limited means of communication or protest and with the reputation tainted by being in prison I have been faced with the wall built not of bricks but peoples attitudes and conduct . The wall of perfidy , lies , inhumanity .

    My suffering is aggravated by the fact that I dared to represent myself in court and persecuting me is kind of a lesson to others not to contemplate such idea although I am asking not for a privilege but for the respect of my right to do so .


    To Manchester City Magistrates' Court.

    I lodge this Statutory Declaration with the court for the case R. v Scarth, to be 'heard' on Thursday 23rd February 2012, & in doing so demand that it be part of the Court Record. The text is below, but it is also sent as an attachment, which should be easier to print. I DO intend to read it out at the 'hearing', though I do not put it forward as a 'Defence', in that I do not accept that a Quisling Court has any jurisdiction in Britain. In the event that I am too exhausted to read it out, I ask that one of my Mckenzie Friends should do so.

    IF the magistrates are NOT Quislings, there will be no trial anyway, as they will throw the charges out as, 'NO CASE TO ANSWER', & Order an investigation of all those involved in the criminal conspiracy to mount this malicioua prosecution.


    I, Norman of the family Scarth do solemnly and sincerely declare, as follows:

    It is my understanding that in lodging this Statutory Declaration with Manchester City Magistrates’ Court for the hearing on Thursday 23rd February 2012 in the case of R. v Scarth, it becomes part of the official court record of that hearing.

    it is my understanding EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW is paramount and mandatory (God's Law-Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: "No one is above the law."; "Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.").

    it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law,

    it is my understanding that law and statutes are separate and distinct as evidenced by the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 which states "and for all Bodies now by Law or Statute or by any valid usage authorized"

    it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in the United Kingdom is a representative one,

    it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent,

    it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist,

    it is my understanding people in the United Kingdom have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed,

    it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints

    it is my understanding the United Kingdom is a common law jurisdiction,

    it is my understanding that Common Law is Law which applies to all is: No claim may be bought against me without somebody to make that claim and that claim must be for harm against them, their property or their rights. The law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both,

    it is my understanding that the people of the United Kingdom are sovereign this is evidenced by the Declaration of Rights and subsequent Bill of Rights,

    it is my understanding that Parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender, lend or transfer sovereignty except when conquered in war,

    it is my understanding that the signing and ratification of the various and several treaties of the European Union are in direct breach of both the Declaration and Bill of Rights,

    it is my understanding that agreements made on behalf of the United Kingdom by traitors to the United Kingdom do not bind the people of the United Kingdom,

    it is my understanding that all existing courts and governments are de facto only and not de-jure,

    it is my understanding that government does not clearly express that one may be charged for failure to obey a de facto government or court,

    it is my understanding that if one has lawful excuse one may choose to not obey a court, tribunal, statute, Act or order, and that this is evidenced by way of example in the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971,

    it is my understanding that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse and that this is evidenced by way of example in the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971, where belief must be that the law creates and vests a specific right to act in that way. In English law, a limited form of statutory offence is termed "claim of right". Chamberlain v Lindon [1998] 1 WLR 1252 [1],

    it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action,

    it is my understanding that a fully responsible adult has no need to ask for permission to do something which is fundamentally lawful,

    it is my understanding a bye law is defined as a rule of a corporation and is applicable only to officers and servants of the corporation this is evidenced by the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 Sections 124 - 127, the Evidence Act 1845 section 1 and the Burgh Trading Act 1846 section 3,

    it is my understanding that I can use a public notary, or any authorised officer of a court, to perform duties found under any act thus they have the power to hold court and hear evidence and issue binding lawful judgements,

    it is my understanding in Law truth is sovereign (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor.13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind."

    it is my understanding Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit or statutory declaration (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12)

    it is my understanding an un-rebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: "He who does not deny, admits.")

    it is my understanding an un-rebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Law (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or "duel," of affidavits wherein the points remaining un-rebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.)

    it is my understanding a matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: "He who fails to assert his rights has none.")

    it is my understanding a lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: "If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.")

    it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation to attend and the ones issued by any court creates no obligation or dishonour if ignored,

    it is my understanding that I have the power to refuse intercourse or any interaction with police officers who have not observed me breach the peace,

    it is my understanding that I have the right to refuse to interact or co-operate with criminals, de facto government agents or negligent police officers,

    it is my understanding that if I have the power to appoint directly or by proxy I must have the power to fulfil those duties myself,

    it is my understanding that clause 39 “No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimised, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land", and clause 40 "To no-one will we refuse or delay right or justice”, of the original Magna Carta 1215 are still in effect, and that the expression "law of the land" shall mean Common Law.

    Therefore be it now known to any and all interested, concerned or affected parties, that I, Norman of the family Scarth am a freeman, this is evidenced by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1,

    I hereby serve notice and state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent is peaceful and lawful, though I do reserve the right to use whatever means may be necesary to defend myself when under attack from the Quislings who have now seized every position of power in Britain.

    I claim the right to use force to protect my property, thus preventing any other entity claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to my property.

    I claim the right to claim, collect, receive or be paid any pension if I have paid into it, or am otherwise entitled to, and claim that said right is not affected by anything I do,

    I claim the right to use force to protect my physical body in all circumstances, thus preventing any other entity claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to my physical body.

    I claim the right to refuse to supply an intimate or non-intimate sample of DNA for any purpose, without my written and notarised consent.

    I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counter claim, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court.

    I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by police officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is FIVE HUNDRED GB POUNDS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and FIVE THOUSAND GB POUNDS PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarised consent. Also if violence be done to either me or those under my care and protection the fee shall be FIFTEEN THOUSAND GB POUNDS in addition to any compensation that may be awarded.

    I claim the right to use a declaratory judgement, statutory declaration , charging order or warrant, to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.


    Tragically, I now state we no longer have British Law in Britain, but QUISLING LAW.

    The charges against me are malicious, the latest in a catalogue of persecution which started 17 years ago. That being so, it is not 'Law' - it is WAR under the PRETENCE of Law, not only against me, but against the British People! Quislings have done by stealth what Hitler failed to do by force, turning Britain into a Ruthless, Lawless, Murderous & Merciless Orwellian Police State! For several decades now, Quislings governments have been imposing Quisling laws upon us, to be enforced by Quisling Courts. Neither Quisling laws nor Quisling courts have any authority in Britan - other than the power which comes out of the barrel of a gun! See my message sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, which they have contemptuousl ignored. I will NOT defend myself in ANY of your Kangaroo Quisling 'courts' until the computer, mobile phone & other items STOLEN from my Sheltered Housing flat by Quisling thugs masquerading as police officers are returned to me. Most treacherous, criminal means were used to gain access to the block of Sheltered Housing where I live &; in collusion with even MORE treacherous people (Incommunities Ltd, with whom I have a contract to protect me from such crime); even GREATER treachery to trick me from my home to commit an unlawful arrest, to UNLAWFULLY enter my home & UNLAWFULLY steal the equipment which has on it a vast amount of evidence of corruption generally & of crime against me, by the very same 'Police' Force, & by others. That evidence is VITAL to defend myself against these malicious & ridiculous charges. Until that computer is returned to me there can be no trial. To deny me that computer & that evidence is itself 'Perverting the Course of Justice', A CRIME SUBJECT TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT!

    More importantly I will not defend myself in ANY Quisling Court until the computer STOLEN from the lady who did no more than give me a lift in her car is returned to her, with meaningful compensation for the theft & for the trauma inflicted on her. The above crimes were accomplished with treachery beyond the comprehension of normal people. On the computer there is – OR WAS – evidence of seventeen years of persecution by criminal elements within Agencies of the British State. The persecution became serious & potentially lethal from the age of 74, following my SINGLE-HANDED success in the European Court of Human Rights (Scarth v UK, 33745/96). It brought a vital change in British Law, incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act, a change much disliked by lawyers & judges. On 8th August 1999 (just 17 days after the ECt-HR ruling) came the first murderous attack on me by a mob-handed gang of West Yorkshire Police, being used as a Private Army. It was in fact an attempted assassination, very clever in that, if successful, it would have been 'Death from Natural Causes'. It failed only because my constitution proved stronger than most men of my age. There has been a nation–wide cover-up of that police crime, & 12 years of attempts to silence me, including unlawful arrest, false imprisonments, malicious prosecutions, Kangaroo Courts, robbery, defamation & further assaults - & STILL CONTINUING, this malicious prosecution & this hearing being part of it. Those actively involved include Police, Court Service Staff, Judiciary (ACTING FROM PARTICULAR MALICE), Prison Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Council Officers & Councillors, most of whom can be named & called as witnesses.

    Unfortunately, some among those who purport to be the ‘Forces of Law & Order’ (the Police & the Courts) are themselves involved in the persecution, & not only refuse to investigate or prosecute others who have wronged me, but unlawfully block me from that which has been the Right of everyone in the land from centuries before the police or the CPS were invented: the Right to start & progress a Private Prosecution. Sadly, the legal profession is a very jealous one. The endemic hostility towards the Litigant In Person runs throughout the profession, equalling that of the Nazis for the Jews. One would have thought my success in the European Court of Human Rights would have brought me respect from the professionals. On the contrary, their hostility towards the ordinary LIP is doubly so against the successful one. It is worst of all against the LIP intending to start a Private Prosecution. There is tacit collusion between the Forces of Law & Order to deny the protection of The Law to whistle-blowers like me. However, they go much further than just to deny protection, but deliberate obstruct the one who seeks a remedy in the courts himself. The result is ‘ONE-WAY LAW’: - Law to protect the powerful, Law to oppress those who are not. And Heaven help he who dares to protest at this state of affairs! It is NOT British Law, which is 'Two-Way Law'!

    Crimes have been committed against me INFINITELY greater than the malicious charges I am now facing. . As said above, we are all ‘Equal in the eyes of the Law’: If I can be prosecuted, then I too can prosecute. That is how it actually WAS under BRITISH LAW. As said above, Quislings have done by stealth what Hitler failed to do by force, & we now have QUISLING LAW - & that means ‘ONE-WAY LAW’: For more than a year now I have been seeking to start ‘Private Prosecutions’ in many different magistrates’ courts but have met criminal obstruction in each of them. My latest attempt was in Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 12th January 2012 when I ‘Laid the Information’ in a SWORN AFFIDAVIT, which, as you know, is much more than is legally necessary. Until Summonses are issued against those named in the affidavit, then I will not defend myself against the malicious charges against me.

    I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address these criminal actions by police officers, government officials, principals or agents or justice system participants who, having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counter claim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms. I claim the right to deal with any counter claims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture both video and audio evidence of said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.

    Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein, or make their own counter claims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and received via registered mail to: 36 Anvil Court, BRADFORD BD8 7QW, West Yorkshire, no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail recorded delivery service. Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, act or regulation against myself, Norman of the family Scarth for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties. and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.


    Such is the hatred of the legal professionals towards the Litigant in Person, when I asked two solicitors in Bradford to witness my signing of an affidavit they told outrageous lies in refusing to do so.

    First I called at the Office of Solicitors Direct, 109-113, Carlisle Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD8 8BY, & told a young man what I wanted to do. He asked for my passport & the affidavit, took them both from me, and then disappeared from my sight with them both, which worried me a little. About ten minutes passed before he came back with a Mr Lamb, who told me that the wording was wrong, it should say ‘declaration’. I have sworn affidavits before & knew he was not telling the truth. He did not offer to draw up the affidavit ‘correctly’ but said he could not help me, so I left. I then telephoned Hansards Solicitors, 13 Duckworth Lane, BRADFORD BD9 5ER, & spoke to a man telling him I needed to swear an affidavit that was already drawn up. He told me to call at his office & I could swear it there. I went to the office, handed him the affidavit, which he looked at, then told me “This is no good, it has to be drawn up by a solicitor”, which, as you know is a blatant lie. I mildly suggested he was wrong, at which he made a move as though to eject me out of the door (bear in mind I am 86 years old). I told him if he laid a hand on me I would retaliate. I had not been in the office more than three minutes but he called to a member of staff, “Call the police”. The conduct of Solicitors Direct was bad, but this was far worse. It WILL be reported to the Law Society.

    Fearing similar treatment (OR WORSE!) if I ask a solicitor to witness the signing of this Declaration, I now verify the truth of it by SWEARING BEFORE ALMIGHTY GOD, that the facts stated above are true. I trust that Almighty God might be considered of higher standing than a Quisling Solicitor! Sworn by Norman Scarth on the 20th day of February 2012. N.Scarth

    For men facing the divorce trap and the ability of an unelected judicial mafia to strip them of all their worldly possessions trial by jury is the only way of ensuring some sense of impartiality .

    Impressed with speedy post-riots justice, ministers consider cash-saving measure, according to Magistrates' Association

    Ministers are considering restricting defendants' ability to choose jury trial in less serious offences, according to the Magistrates' Association. The proposal, supported by magistrates, is being advocated as one element in the Ministry of Justice's cash-saving drive, building on lessons learned from processing offenders following last summer's riots. Cases known as "either way offences", where the accused can opt for trial in a magistrates court or in front of a jury at crown court, are most likely to be affected.

    Such cases usually involve relatively low-value thefts, such as shoplifting, or minor cases of criminal damage. Ministers have been impressed with the speed with which justice was dispensed after August's riots. A white paper on developments to be adopted following the riots is being drawn up by the Ministry of Justice; its contents have not yet been finalised. The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has suggested that magistrates might be given greater sentencing powers, increasing the maximum term they might be able to impose from six to 12 months for a single offence.

    But the Ministry of Justice played down reports of a review of trial procedures, saying: "There are no plans to remove trial by jury. We are looking at ways of improving how courts respond quickly and efficiently to crime and disorder. No ministerial decisions have been made. However we are clear that trial by jury will stay." Trials at crown court cost more than three times as much as in the lower courts.

    Criminal barristers and human rights groups are likely to be worried by an erosion of what is seen as a fundamental liberty. John Fassenfelt JP, chairman of the Magistrates Association, said that he believes ministers are actively considering how to reduce the number of "either way offences". He said: "It's one we have suggested they could save an awful lot of money on."

    The Magistrates' Association added: "It's being considered in the light of the riots. It's something we have been concerned about for a while. Particularly for theft where someone might nick a bottle of wine and then elect to go for crown court trial. That costs a lot of money." David Cameron has been an enthusiastic supporter of the right to trial by jury. In 2007, he even suggested that it might formally be incorporated into legislation. "Things like the right to trial by jury, that's not actually in the European Convention, but maybe that's something we should have in a British Bill of Rights," he said in a radio interview.

  • POLL vote on the right to jury trial

    A man attacked a convicted killer before a judge pronounced the death sentence for him in the hammer-slayings of his wife and twin 2-year-old sons. The man rushed the defense table in the Dekalb County, Georgia courtroom.

    Banks and supermarkets are to be able to sell consumer legal services in England and Wales for the first time following a change in law.

    The government says the new Legal Services Act will offer more choice and better value for the public. It says it also means law firms will benefit from investment and allow them to explore new markets. But critics have said it would undermine the quality of advice.

    The government says the change would encourage economic growth in the industry and raise the profile of the UK as a first-class legal services market. Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said it was a "landmark day" for the legal industry. "Our legal services are already rated among the best in the world, used by millions of people around the globe as well as in the UK, and these changes will set them up to move to new heights. They will enable firms to set up multi-disciplinary practices and provide opportunities for growth," he said.

    "Potential customers will find legal services become more accessible, more efficient and more competitive." Legislation and regulation has restricted the management, ownership and financing of firms providing legal services for hundreds of years. Currently, solicitors and barristers' chambers are owned by the lawyers themselves under partnerships. Critics have dubbed the act "Tesco Law," and the move has come under attack from some lawyers, including a coalition of about 100 firms, when it was first announced in 2009. They said it could wipe out good quality, local legal advice.

    common law COMMON LAW is the Law of the People, by the People and for the People.

    FASCISM is the Law of Corporatism enacted by Statutes.

    Aaron Russo made a film called, “AMERICA: FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM”, and his warning was the same warning that has rung in People’s ears repeatedly down through time. Every time TYRANNY raises its head, the PEOPLE must rise higher in the DEFENCE OF LIBERTY and turn to those 4 boxes Ed Howdershelt proscribed when he said: “There are four boxes to be used in defence of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”.

    When STATUTE LAW is BAD, JURIES NULLIFY those BAD LAWS because, “Common law doth control Acts of Parliament and adjudges them when against common right to be void,” (Edward Coke). This is using the 3rd box …. and ONLY when this fails ought the 4th box be opened. “When the People fear the Government there is TYRANNY. When the Government fear the People there is LIBERTY” – Thomas Jefferson.

    COMMON LAW is made by the unanimous and lawful judgments of JURIES who exercise their SOVEREIGNTY in the administration of JUSTICE because “The purpose of a court in a civilized society is the vindication of men’s rights and the enforcement of just causes” - Thomas Denning.


    AUSTRALIA is NOW in the grip of TYRANNY enacted by BAD LAWS. Those BAD LAWS enforce OBEDIENCE by the PEOPLE to the same unconscionable undermining and deprivation of their laws and their liberties that brought about the “Glorious Revolution” in England in the 17th century, the “War of Independence” in America in the 18th century, and every other uprising throughout history when RIGHT and JUSTICE have been denied or destroyed.

    The GREAT CHARTER of LIBERTY 1215 clearly says that: “No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, either dispossessed, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor pass over him, nor send over him, except by means of the lawful judgment of his own equals indeed the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay Right or Justice.” The RIGHTS to LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY are INALIENABLE and INTRINSIC to WE THE PEOPLE.



    Yours sincerely,John Wilson.


    rcj block

  • Private Prosecutions Blocked at Royal Courts of Justice

  • Machine Gun Case & MAPPA Disclosure
    Roll up ,roll up, come witness yet more corruption in Cardiff Courts
    Monday 11th July 2pm


    Liberty activist Jim Johnson was fined after being found guilty at a trial several weeks ago. Jim never paid the fine, so the court bureaucrats demanded he show up at a hearing about that. He was told he needs to fill out a financial affidavit so the court bureaucrats could determine if he could pay the fine, or else he'd be charged with contempt. Jim did not fill out the form and was jailed indefinitely.

    In addition, court security officers Tebo and Fredriksen attempted and failed at intimidating the audience into standing for the robed man. Tebo also attempted to order me around, violating my right to cover a public hearing as a member of the press. In addition, Tebo actually assaulted me and grabbed me by the arm in an attempt to remove me from the courtroom. He and his security continued to threaten the crowd with arrest.
    legal mafia The complicit media regularly wheel on the legal mafia to preach to us about the rule of law. But the rule of law they talk about is not the laws from the past that were instigated to protect us from criminality, the rule of law they preach about is their manufactured schemes that create endless ways of fining the long suffering public with millions of despotic laws that have little to do with Common Law and plenty to do with Maritime Admiralty courts were judicial lackeys sit in judgement with NOT a hint of juries.

    The rise of the judicial mafia's powers since Magna Carta has been a slow stealthy erosion of our rights that have decreased, the more power lawyers and judges have procured for themselves. They have slipped in new laws any time they felt they could get away with it and under the radar of the public who really have no interest in the rule of law. They suggest they only operate on the laws manufactured by their political allies but 'CASE' law is how judges make law up as they go along as in family courts were even their own kind have expressed amazement at the way judges manipulate to steal vast swathes of land, business , property but most importantly children. It is only when it comes up and bites you that you realise , what they have disguised as the rule of law is a very devious scam that across the globe ensures the legal mafia can fleece trillions of dollars / pounds in draconian satanic masonic dens of iniquity were they destroy peoples lives in a greed of diabolical proportions. Those charged with upholding the law are the biggest abusers of those laws.

    The ruling mafia , especially the British crown with the Queen at its head , use the bar associations controlled via the inns of court in London and directly connected to the United Grand Lodge of England that oversees the mass fleecing of every victim of these devious 'laws' that pass as some form of justice system. It only provides the power and wealth for the ruling mafia who in the past would have raped and pillaged a village, town or city (as they did during the British Empire) but they can now rape and pillage the world using 'laws' that mask the true extent of this tyranny.



    PART 2 PART 3 PART 4


    Nearly two thirds of criminals avoid jail despite amassing at least 15 convictions, shocking figures show.

    Instead of being put behind bars, more than 62,000 offenders were given lesser punishments, such as community service or a fine, last year. More than 4,000 walked out of court with only a caution. The figures reveal that serial offenders are less likely to be given a jail sentence today than at any time in the past decade. And they further raise concerns that career criminals, including drug dealers and burglars, are getting only a ‘slap on the wrist’.

    Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: ‘Many of my constituents are losing faith in the criminal justice system because – as these figures show – even when people have become habitual offenders they are not actually brought to justice. ‘The criminal justice system simply doesn’t administer what my constituents regard as justice. ‘If the Government wants to claim to be a government that puts victims and the law-abiding first, it urgently and desperately needs to take action on this.’

    The figures showed a total of 96,710 criminals sentenced last year for more serious ‘indictable’ offences had 15 or more previous crimes against their name. They included violent muggers, burglars and drug dealers. Of those, only 36 per cent – around 34,600 offenders – were given immediate custody. That means around 62,100 were given other sentences. Of that total, 8,200 were given suspended sentences, leaving them on the streets unless they committed other crimes.

    More than one in five were handed community service and 16 per cent – around 15,000 offenders – were fined. One in ten was given a conditional discharge. The figures also showed that 4,340 criminals were given a caution for their most recent offence despite 15 or more previous offences. In 2004, the custody rate for offenders after 15 or more crimes was 42 per cent.

    Blair Gibbs, head of crime and justice at the Policy Exchange think-tank, said: ‘Most people would expect a serial offender with over a dozen previous convictions to be sent to prison, if only to protect the public and give communities some respite. ‘We need to cut reoffending rates but we also need to protect the public by ensuring that those prolific offenders who keep committing crime are locked up. ‘Over the last decade, sentences got longer in law but shorter in practice and more repeat offenders were diverted on to ineffective community sentences instead of going to prison.’

    Justice Secretary Ken Clarke wants to cut the number of prison places by 3,000 over the next four years, to save millions from the justice budget. But he has faced a backlash from right-wing Tories concerned about the party’s reputation on law and order. Ministers have faced criticism for cuts to policing and criminal justice of 20 per cent or more, while aid spending is increased.

    But Mr Clarke has insisted cuts are necessary and has pledged to toughen up community sentences. He also wants to start a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ in prisons to turn offenders away from crime. Currently three out of four offenders return to crime within nine years. Mr Clarke will use private and charity groups, paid by results, in an effort to stop the ‘revolving door’ justice system. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘We are clear that the justice system will continue to protect the public by locking up serious and dangerous criminals.

    ‘Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent courts, as only they have the full facts in front of them. ‘These statistics highlight that the number of criminals committing multiple crimes has nearly doubled in the last decade. This underlines why it is so important to focus on taking a new approach specifically designed to tackle reoffending, and so cut crime. ‘The consultation on our proposals for doing this has closed and we will be publishing our final response shortly.’

  • Why should JUDGES put criminals' rights first?
    Direct Line had paid a team of private investigators to mount a covert camera from a 50ft mast and camp in an animal shelter outside Mr Noble's house to prove he had lied about the extent of his injuries

    £3.4m crash victim sued by insurer after he learned to walk again can keep the money

    * Insurers used private investigators to try to prove fraud
    * 43-year-old used 'determination alone' to recover after crash

    When Mark Noble was left virtually wheelchair-bound after a crash, his £3.4million compensation at least provided some comfort. Through sheer determination, the builder then managed to recover some of the use of his legs. But unbeknown to him, the insurer behind the payout was spying on him – and took him to court to try to claw back the money.

    Yesterday his ordeal came to an end as a judge ruled he could keep the cash – and that his recovery had been down to the power of his will. Direct Line had paid a team of private investigators to mount a covert camera from a 50ft mast and camp in an animal shelter outside Mr Noble’s house to prove he had lied about the extent of his injuries. Mr Noble, of Wareham, Dorset, suffered multiple injuries and fractures when his motorbike was involved in a collision with a car in 2003.

    He was forced to give up his job and could no longer play rugby. He could only walk short distances with crutches or a stick and needed a wheelchair if he had to go further. In 2008 Direct Line was forced to pay out nearly £3.4million for loss of earnings on behalf of driver Martin Owens, of Southampton. But a few months later a neighbour saw Mr Noble walking unaided and tipped off the insurance company, which called in the Insurance Fraud Bureau.

    Their footage apparently showed him walking, using a chainsaw, driving a dumper truck and carrying heavy weights. Last night his wife Janet said: ‘What have we won really? We have been allowed to keep the payout my husband always deserved. ‘Nothing has changed. He hasn’t got his life back from before the accident. Mark is in chronic pain every single day of his life and takes a carrier bag of painkillers every month.

    'The reason he is able to walk now is because he worked really, really hard – through sheer bloody-mindedness – to get where he is today.’ On bad days he can hardly get out of bed, she added.

    Banksters Gangsters Traitors ie corrupt Judges-Lawyers, Politicians, use “smoke and mirrors” to commit “legal” theft :

    The Governmental and Judicial systems within Australia, at both Federal and State levels, is owned by the “Crown,” which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning Australia, this is a different “Crown” and is fully exposed and explained below.

    We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the “Crown.” From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts ...

    The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modelled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner and Middle Temples, and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row.

    This Temple “Church” is outside any Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution. All licensed Bar Attorneys – Attorners, in the world owe their allegiance, and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, whether realising this or not.

    This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. The Four Inns of Court to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London - a sovereign and independent territory which is not a part of Great Britain to defraud, coerce, and manipulate we men-women.

    These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing crimes in Australia under the guise and colour of law . They are known collectively as the “Crown.” Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar Attornies, not lawyers.

    The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,” as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery.

    Australia is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies. Australia is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal Government is their pawn broker.

    The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane . A manipulative body of corrupt bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in Australia by imposing fraudulent “legal” - but totally unlawful - contracts on the Australian people.

    The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim’s judiciary. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta.

    This City of London Temple was the headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and Rule were first made, which became known as Code. Remember all these terms, such as Crown, Temple, Templar, Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie together their origins with the present Australian Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts.

    We hear constant talk about the rule of law, which is the rule the Vatican Cannon Law, Admiralty Law operating on the Land. Under which No Australian has any rights in any Australian Court of Law, even under the Constitution.


    1: The global justice system is domiciled in Temple Bar (named after the Knights Templar) and Royal Courts of Justice in the “City” of London. All judges and lawyers throughout the world cannot practice unless they are members of their local state or country “Bar Association,” named after Temple Bar in London. In essence, all lawyers are “Knights Templar Bar Attorneys,” and members of the Masonic secret society brotherhood in the “City” of London, whose head is the Governor of the Church of England and British Sovereign.

    Things haven’t changed much since Babylon or the time of Christ, where the judiciary, as a group, was among the most arrogant, hypocritical, hateful, persecutors of God’s Soul men-women . With the Pharisees, it was the lawyers who rejected the counsel of God, and were rebuked by Christ. (Luke 7:30, 11:45-46, 52, 14:3) Deuteronomy 16:18-19 implies that all judges should not be paid at all.

    2: A Foreign Power, a Corporation known as the “ Crown”, located in the “City” of London, controls Australia using its Judicial structure; of the Captain of a ship, who under Admiralty Law is Judge, Jury, and Executioner.