Magna Carta 1215 Article 61 & Practicing Lawful Dissent
The Lawful & Peaceful Way for Sovereigns to Win
Here is some of Elisabeth Beckett’s work:
Letter From Elisabeth Beckett To Queen Elizabeth 4th February 2009
4th February 2009
Re: Unconstitutional reign
Giving careful consideration to the mode of address in this letter, although in courtesy I have addressed it in conventional manner, it is clear that having, in effect, abdicated by failure to perform your coronation oath you leave the people of this nation without effective titular head to whom we may address our petitions. I write to you only in your pre-eminence in Common Law.
I write on Edmund Burke’s remark that for evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.
At your coronation you swore on oath to rule this country according to our laws and customs. This contract with us was written clearly in Magna Carta and replicated by Edward I in 1274. After saying that he would give no such oath, the archbishops, bishops, barons and freemen said that, in this case, they would get another king.
In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this oath then chapter 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.
I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.
In other words, the 1911 claim, is incorrect and the monarch’s assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent – as in the Northern Ireland Bill.
Despite all the long years of your reign this method of agreement, either forced on you, or under “automatic assent” nevertheless cannot be upheld as lawful.
Many people who have written to you on constitutional matters have received replies from your secretary (most recently, Sonia Bonici) saying that their letter had been forwarded to the government department misleadingly called the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Ministry of Justice. Your compliance with this has permitted the judiciary under these government departments to claim, as in the Chagos Archipelago appeal, that our fundamental liberties do not exist and that the peoples of these islands have no rights under our law.
I am old and now seriously ill. I cannot die without making clear to you that you have broken your oath to us your people.
The 1911 act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is against our constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of 1627. The most serious instance of this is the use of our taxes to fund the banking system of this country: this is being explained to the electorate as a step which will in some way make us rich, whilst in fact it is not only unlawful, but a most serious abrogation of our rights and your duties under our constitution.
Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfill your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
THE ARCH-DHIMMI OF WESTMINSTER-NEVER SPOKE OUT ON THIS LADIES BEHALF- BUT CAN ON ASYLUM SEEKERS- WHO ARE LIVING A LIFE OF RILEY HERE.
Voyager said…The Church of England has become a branch of the Home Office – a sort of Bureau of Religious Affairs to represent the minority faiths of the UK to the regime. It no longer believes in a Risen Christ nor in a world to come.
It is no longer Calvinist so it is inherently aligned with the Zeitgeist and prelates who are like the Sadduccees of old more interested in social standing and comforts than in asceticism or warning of “the primrose path of dalliance”. As a result it is effete.
The political “intervention” in one BBC bulletin, “interference” in another – sounds effete and simply carrying out instructions from The Home Office no doubt the fax arrived simultaneously at various mass-communication outlets so the message could be proclaimed.
The Anglican Church seemingly has no problem with the past 12 years – it certainly did not urge people to boycott Labour in 2005….nor has it urged a referendum on the EU.
It is simply another cipher for the regime – after all Rowan Williams an Affirming Catholic was appointed by Tony Blair Scottish Crypto-Catholic and John Sentamu, Barrister, by Gordon Brown, Scottish Crypto-Marxist
Again Patriot Elisabeth Takes on TRAITOR Elizabeth of Buck Palace!!
Elizabeth expert on our Constitution…A Queen the Puts two fingers up to us all— Same to You Liz!!
Britain’s People Held Under The Hideous And Treasonous Servitude..Of The Fabians…Replace The Queen She Has Failed in Her Duty!! BROWN AND DARLING ACTED UNLAWFULLY….RE B+B Takeover….
Elizabeth Beckett’s letter to the Master of the Rolls.
In the posting beneath this I recorded the sad news that Elizabeth Beckett died last weekend.
As an example of her long fight for the restoration of the Sovereignty of the British people and this nation’s restored independence AND in recognition of the sturdy fight she waged for her fellow countrymen and women, I reproduce below a letter she sent to Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls dated 10th October last year which confronts recent constitutional outrages not least in the matter of the banks! Please circulate this as widely as possible in tribute to this fantastic Lady.
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls
From Elizabeth Hibbert Beckett 10 October 2008
Dear Sir Anthony – your Lordship
I write to you in your position as Master of the Rolls and in view of your article on Magna Carta in The Times.
Churchill, writing on Magna Carta, said, that there will come a time when government, inflated with power, will try to overrule it, but it will come into use again.
I write with deep and serious concern about the present actions by government on using taxpayers money for their debts, apparently due to their encouragement of hysteria since there is “plenty of money around” (said by speakers on Today and Newsnight).
The safeguards that need immediate action are:
a) that the debt should be made under the Nordic system
b) that it should be safeguarded as belonging legally to the Taxpayers NOT the Government.
a) The Queen should be asked to prorogue parliament immediately as a temporary arrangement until there has been an election.
b) a national government of convention should hold the fort. (The Queen was unfortunately taught about the constitution by Sir Henry Martin who became a Fabian in 1921. She has apparently not grasped the significance of her position and her Coronation Oath and imagines that she is subordinate to her ministers.)
c) I consider that as Master of the Rolls in this terrible time it must be for you to try to disabuse her of this and hold chapter 61 of Magna Carta to her notice. (Various people have suggested Princess Anne as Queen in her place since Prince Charles has not grasped the Christian importance of our constitution in Magna Carta and throughout our history – our early Christianity, starting from c. AD 50, has been central to wars from without and within against ‘this dear land’; Magna Carta as a defence against William of Normandy’s laws. Llanfranc was the imposed archbishop of Canterbury and the invasion was inspired by Papal direction.
d) I write to you since Lord Faulkner acted unconstitutionally in putting before Parliament that the Royal Prerogative belonged to himself and the Prime Minister in the Constitution Reform Act of 2005. You will know Sir Edward Coke’s clear description that the prerogative could not be taken from the monarch – even by act of Parliament, agreed by Halsbury.
Your position as effectively deputy Lord Chancellor gives you authority to support us, the people of England and Scotland. On the other hand, government has shown a lack of constitutional restraint and even lack of knowledge of the laws of this country both in the Constitution Reform Act and further acts that have forced me and others to ask you to use the strength of your position acting as the executive guardian the people of this country and contracted to the monarchy by law. As the substitute Lord Chancellor, when the other appointee betrayed his position a by treasonous claim initially defined by the 1351 Treason Act.
I have take two steps in the defence of our position
a) I have laid Information with the court lawyer at Newcastle, Mr. Brown, that by making the Queen sign the Lisbon Constitution, Mr. Gordon Brown, acted treasonably against various Acts, his own Oath of Allegiance, and his Privy Councillor Oath. (This perjury should legally remove him from Parliament.)
b) With the help of a friend, a retired policeman, I e-mailed the Speaker of the House of Commons that by passing as law the Bradford & Bingley takeover, being called ‘nationalisation’ by Statutory Instrument without mention of the name of the monarch Mr. Brown and Mr. Darling acted unlawfully and should not be allowed to take up their seats in the Commons. I quoted the basis of this illegality as the 1661 Praemunire in which the punishment of a Praemunire is outlawry, the loss of property and land and possibly death.
Harold Wilson repealed Praemunire which goes back to 1392. But since when he did this it would have been in defiance of the 1795 Treasonable and seditious practices act para 2, 36 Geo III c.7, his oath of allegiance and his Privy Council oath, it was not lawful. And this valuable act of George III was made permanent in 1807, 1817 and 1848, so was given strength and longevity even against Mr. Blair’s endeavour to repeal it in the Criminal Justice Act 1998.
On The Borrowing
a) I doubt whether the government has the power to borrow to this extent for a national government. The 1911 Parliament Act which gives the majority power in the Commons without the Lord’s right to amend had already been sent back as unconstitutional by Edward VII. It was accepted by George V under the impression that automatic assent of Asquith (another Fabian) was correct like the Statutory Instruments the present Government laid on the table at the time of Northern Rock. It was made on the false basis that no Bill has been sent back by a monarch since Queen Anne in 1707. (i) There is no trace of discussion in Hansard or anywhere else. (ii) Bills had been sent back by William III, George III, William IV, Victoria and Edward VII, as Asquith well knew. Such a claim of automatic assent paralysed our constitutional laws and is probably the basis of the Queen’s behaviour.
If the people are to be helped at this time, three means of taxation should be changed.
a) Mortgage relief should be reinstated.
b) VAT which leans very heavily on small businesses – or at least Mrs. Thatcher’s VAT rebate. It is merciless, politically motivated and costs the nation £20 Billion annually with no benefit to this people.
c) Tax on fuel should be reduced since its effect is arbitrary by any taxable logic.
So Mr. Blair altered legal aid so much that even people on my income (less than £9,000 pa) cannot get it and treason needs a very narrow certificate from the lawyers. I therefore ask you to take the steps necessary under 2a) above if it is by any means within your power.
I am taking a case on the illegality of some aspects of council tax in the high court: I was granted oral review, but thought it wiser to have counsel rather than act on my own and Leolyn Price CB QC has kindly agreed to represent me.
The lowering of trust apparently intentionally has led to loss to shareholders for whom legal protection is needed. The people in Parliament seem to have little knowledge of the law nor the legal protection of the people, only the desire for power and in this case globalisation. William Blackstone said, “Law is not a matter of opinion.” This, our representatives seem not to have learnt.
The House of Lords is the Curia Regis to advise the Monarch. The suggestion that a man who has twice been asked to leave the government for malfeasance should be given a position in the Lords tends to further distrust of government at a time when trust is essential if the nation is to come together and rise above the present discomfort and lack of trust in this government and the Curia Regis. It gives an impression of irresponsibility in government which is outside our principles and traditions. But apparently fits in with the teaching of five-year-olds that they are part of a wider community without being based in their own. Mr. Blunkett, Mr. Brown and others have published books paid for by the tax-payer effectively dispersing any concept of our Christian heritage. Mr. Brown, as an example, in his white paper has said he intends to give the Royal Prerogative to Parliament or even to the people in one sweep of the pen without recognising the meaning of the prerogative removing our history and our constitution for which our ancestors fought.
I now put before your Lordship the grounds of high treason against those presently governing this nation.
a) Firstly so that the so-called removal of the prerogative power from the Queen comes directly under the 1351 Treason Act since the Act of Constitutional Reform by taking the prerogative from the monarch, the power being in Sir Edward Coke’s words a part of the monarch and cannot be taken from the monarch even by act of parliament and removal, therefore, comes directly within the phrase “if a man compasses or imagines the death of the sovereign . . .” it is treason: “if a man levies war against the sovereign …” and by taking over the position of the Lord Chancellor and turning it into something else this comes into “slaying the Lord Chancellor …”. And as head of constitutional affairs and the justices by false laws that treason is further laid and supported in later treason Acts and backed by the 1351 Treason act in the words, “… and because that many other cases of the like treason may happen in time to come which a man cannot think or declare at this present time; it is accorded, that if any other case of supposed treason which is not above specified…” is to go before the justices and the king to be judged treason or felony
b) Under this heading I name the imposition of automatic into “the Royal Assent”. for this has been claimed “as to the status of convention that the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both houses of parliament the Prime Minister is in doubt …” (quoted from 1972 letter from 10 Downing street) This conflicts with the statement in Rogers Walters, “How Parliament Works”, Pearson and Longman fourth edition which is in use in the speaker’s office and in most county libraries where the Royal Assent is clearly defined: “A Bill presently before both houses needs the Royal Assent as the third element of Parliament before it can become law.” Rogers and Walters add the concept of the assent being ‘automatic’ and it is relevant to the treason that the phrase was inserted in 1911 for King George V to be persuaded to pass the Parliament Act and other legislation against our constitution. under the framework of the Treason and Felony Act of 1848, ‘any person who compasses or imagines devises or intends to depose … in order to force constrain or compel her or they to change their measures or courses … shall be guilty of felony”, conviction being transportation for not less than seven years with hard labour.
In the book on the constitution by Nigel Knight, tutor in Law at Cambridge University, a further aberration and compelling of the mind of the monarch on the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was given against the wishes of George V.
That this chicanery has continued to be used does not make it less heinous and it is relevant that the claim of 1972 from Downing Street connived with the entry into the EC and hence the EU.
I write now, in view of the danger, after the attempt of Michael Foot to nationalise banks, now being effected under the same intention, but with the camouflage of a world economic crisis, to ask your Lordship to declare the automatic assent void and illegal under the constitutional statute including that of 1795 made perpetual in 1807, 1817 and 1848 and only repealed under the automatic assent, Rogers and Walters claim the assent by convention had become automatic since Queen Anne was the last monarch to send a Bill back. In fact, William III, George III, William IV, Queen Victoria and, as Asquith well knew, Edward VII (because the Bill had been handed to him), had all returned Bills.
Most of the ordinary people of England such as myself and my friends, know the principles of our constitutional laws for which the freemen and barons of England fought and forced on John with the help of the bishops and arch-bishops at Runnymede.
The cruelty, despite constitutional constraint, which successive governments have forced on us involves a mercilessness that has to be held as treason against the sovereign people and augurs badly for such people having the power over our money. I fought for ‘the man on the shop floor’ when I gave Lord Hailsham the concept of the conscience clause against the Foot Bill (Trades Unions and Labour Relations Amendment Bill). Lord Hailsham was unable to get that clause through and it had to wait until Mrs. Thatcher and yet this is central to our spiritual existence as a Christian nation. These politicians could see no relevance in the freedom of the spirit of man.
We, the ordinary people of Britain, the freemen, ask for you to take the steps needed to free our constitutional laws and customs giving us protection against the hideous and treasonous servitude under which we are presently held and free our sovereign from the Fabian thrall or, failing that, under chapter 61 of Magna Carta, replace her with someone able to honour their Coronation Oath. The present situation is worse than that under King John.
(signed) Elizabeth Beckett
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Elisabeth Beckett – Our Boudicca
Elisabeth Beckett is one of those true British people that makes you proud to be British.
Whilst the deluded workers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery were surrendering to the government and their lackeys in the trades unions, this lady who is 91 years of age was fighting for our nation even though she is very ill.
I put her letter up her and state that if we had had a Queen Elisabeth and not a Queen Elizabeth, then this country would be in a far better state than it is now.
The public were denied this story and the sight of this brave lady taking on an all powerful state, that did it’s damndest to stamp it’s jackboot all over her…………why?
Because she was blowing their gaff wide open…………..your taxes are illegal and most other things they do…………..all laws since 1910 are void!! passed under pressure from the fabian Asquith and his Sien Fein Fabian friends…
Their fear of an old lady should give you courage………….when TRUTH is on your side!!
The point being made was their left liberal stance politically, neither Sentamu or the Arch- Dhimmi of Canterbury spoke out regarding the abuse of an elderly sick lady, both ignored her plea for their aid in upholding the laws of this country, and not those of the illegal EUSSR.
Both have the stench of Common Purpose coming from them, which has nothing whatsoever to do with a Christian God.