Laymans Guide to Lawful Dissent

This is a complete comprehensive overview by David Robinson of the Practical Lawful Dissent process with all notices and 3 examples of successful processes and the replies.

           Lawful Dissent and the practical application of the law by David Robinson

(Plus three complete examples of successful processes used, most of the replies and transcripts of all of the notices we served beginning from page 67).

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero

This publication has been written in layman’s terms as much as possible to provide the reader with the necessary tools to stand up against an incredibly corrupt system of administration in Britain and the commonwealth today, peacefully, and whilst standing entirely under the protection of the common law by using nothing but evidential facts.

Please understand that the common law judicial system in Britain and the commonwealth has been systematically corrupted since parliament was created in 1236. The Common Law Court process is a fundamental part of the law of the land and should never have been allowed to be replaced by the corporate magistrate courts that we have today, especially without the consent of the people. More on this later.

To change ANY constitutional safeguard without first obtaining the consent of the people is Treason. High treason is to hand over the authority and decision making processes which govern the people to any foreign entity, without first being beaten in open battle.

What most people consider to be law these days is not law at all. The ‘banksters’ have sought to take control over governments for many generations now and have largely succeeded in doing so on a global scale, by controlling the flow of information, education, wealth, and by manipulating common concepts. Amchel Rothschild quote, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws,” shows how we have been subjected according to corporate rule and denied our own ancient and fair system of law.

Illegal wars have been created by false flag terrorism events that are destroying other sovereign nations abroad, its a war on sovereignty as there is no place for sovereignty within the “Big Society”/”New World Order”. The Traitor (PM) David Cameron mentioned “the big Society” live on TV when he was the Crime Minister for example.

Millions of civilians have been culled in the middle east by our so called leaders, done in our names under the guise of a war on terrorism, but many lives are also being destroyed at home more covertly although it is being done in plain sight if we care to look at all the evidence. There is a global agenda to drastically reduce the world population but I don’t intend to go into all of the problems herein.
ALL true law in Britain and the commonwealth is protected by the constitution which was created by the peoples uprisings against tyranny in the past. The law also complies with the 10 commandments in the Christian faith which is at the heart of British law. The constitution is consented too by the good people because it is natural law, it guarantees justice for all and is very simple to understand. It protects the innocent and vulnerable and is simply common sense. The sovereign peoples of Britain and the commonwealth consent to be ‘governed’ by the common laws of the realm because they are just, not ‘ruled’ by corporate policies that do not comply with the constitution and are unjust, which is what we have going on today.

It is not denied by those pretending to be in service to the people that we are policed by consent in Britain. It says as much on the Police Federation’s own website, or did. This simply means as said, we consent to be governed by a fair and just system of service as subjects of a constitutional monarchy under the common laws and customs of the realm.
The reason that we consent to the law is because within Common Law Court hearings the jurors can annul unconstitutional laws even after they have been granted royal assent. Within a common law jurisdiction we the people are sovereign as we have the final say with regard to what laws we consent to be governed by. The monarchy today is anything but constitutional therefore we all have a duty under the law (Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215) to reject the crown until the constitution is once again properly observed by all. We have a duty to ourselves, our ancestors and to those yet unborn to safeguard the laws that protect us all equally against injustice. There can be no going back to the way things were before article 61 was invoked however, this is because the constitution has been usurped for many generations…the 1688/9 Bill of Rights also usurped the duties of a constitutional monarch.
My name is David Robinson and I have been standing in open lawful dissent against the crown (as demanded by law) since March 2010. I have enjoyed a 100% success rate with every process that I have completed by using Article 61 of the Magna Carta and treason evidence against all demands made upon me (and upon others) by the present illegal administration. I have acted successfully with power of attorney for two other people as well as protecting myself from aiding and abetting a rogue government.

UPDATE (Oct 2018) Earlier in 2017 Southend policy enforcers (police) proceeded to commit Treason by arresting a member of the PLD group for questioning the council and fake court over the matter of the legality of paying Council Tax, he did not refuse to pay. The story hit the tabloids who spun the truth as per usual. He (Ollie Pinnock) was forced into a video link kangaroo (non) court hearing and given 25 days in prison without having the opportunity to present his defence. I  myself had power of attorney with regard to the matter also, but they would not allow me entry into Southend police station whilst he was incarcerated over night.

However, he paid up under extreme duress of circumstances and did not serve any time in prison, he did this with the blessing of the PLD movement. He also has a duty unto himself and loved ones not to cause himself loss or harm under the Common Law. You can always comply under duress, it means that you are not accepting liability for complying and aiding and abetting treason by doing so, and you will have a claim against them once the common law has been reasserted within the judiciary, which has to be done at some point of course. The imposters within Westminster cannot allow us to defeat them with regard to Council Tax because they will lose control. It’s the servility and fear of that tax that they need to maintain the status quo, and everyone hates the Council Tax so it would open the floodgates if they did. They can print all the money they need so its not really about the money it generates but of course that is a factor.

I began my individual legal/lawful stance against the corrupted system in 2010 by conditionally accepting an £80 fine that I had received from DVLA for not displaying a tax disc. After completing a simple but lengthy process of putting all concerned on Notice (i.e., police, courts, DVLA etc) that I was standing in lawful dissent according to law (article 61 of Magna Carta 1215), and that I had lawful excuse not to consent to their illegal demands for tax, summonses, fines etc, and that it would be a criminal offence for me to do so. I achieved a stalemate situation whereby nobody would act against me physically because if they did they would be acting against the people and the British/English constitution in full knowledge of the facts, therefore evidently committing High Treason at Common Law, the most serious crime that can be committed in society.

The death penalty still exists in Britain for High Treason never mind what the so called government may say. ‘They’ claim that the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act was repealed in 1998 when the Right Dishonourable Tony Blair introduced the Crime and Disorder Act, in chapter 36 he attempted to repeal the 1795 Act and the death penalty for high treason, but Blair had no lawful authority to do so, and he committed treason in his attempt. Blair committed three counts of High Treason in all (among other very serious crimes). He would be in prison today if only the people would stand united under the common law in lawful dissent (diffidatio – legal revolt) together as the law demands we must. The police were the only block that stopped me getting Blair into a court of law….they are the gatekeepers of the treasonous regime…they will someday be amongst the most hated people within society once the truth has all come out.

The remedy to this mess relies on the people uniting and rejecting their demands, whilst at the same time demanding that the police act according to the evidenced facts and assist the people in this monumental struggle, all it takes is numbers. Your country needs YOU!!

The corporations (led by the Bankster’s) have taken over the governments of Britain and the commonwealth alike. All elections for the past few decades have been rigged allowing the corporate (so called) elite criminals to rule by deception, coercion and force. This can only continue if the people are kept in the dark or decide to do nothing once they have been informed of the facts. Personally I will never aid and abet such a disgusting regime as that would make me equally guilty for their acts of terrorism, paedophilia, genocide, treason and many other very serious crimes, which are all well evidenced. I don’t intend to go into all of the problems within this publication but you already know things aren’t right. Its time to focus on a peaceful remedy whilst we still can.

I first entered into lawful dissent in January 2010 by serving two affidavits on the crown (Buckingham palace), with the first affidavit demanding that the Nice treaty (France) be repealed and parliament be prorogued (ended its term and calling for a general election). I provided the crown with 40 days (as is required by constitutional law – Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215) to remedy their unconstitutional behaviour by allowing Blair to sign the treaty of Nice in January 2001. After 40 days had elapsed with no response I denounced my presumed allegiance to the crown within the second affidavit. From there on in it is my lawful duty is to distress the crown and reject its alleged authority until redress has been achieved.

I didn’t need to individually petition the crown however, because previously in 1999 a committee of 65 barons (Lords, dukes, viscounts etc), had convened to discuss whether or not it was unconstitutional to sign up to the EU’s treaty of Nice. The evidence proved that it would be an act of High Treason to enter into such an agreement so they dutifully (according to the correct protocols of British/English constitutional law), petitioned the crown demanding that she (QE2) not ratify the Nice treaty nor allow Blair to sign it.

After their petition was only vaguely replied to by the queen on the 39th day of the 40 days provided for a reply, and that the treaty of Nice was signed by Blair on the 26th February 2001, the barons committee had by law to invoke Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta on the 23rd day of March 2001, which they did. It has not since been revoked publicly by the Barons’ Committee which means that the entire commonwealth is in a state of open revolt i.e., the law demands that ALL British and Commonwealth constitutional subjects peacefully rise up against the crown in order to protect the Commonwealth constitution, whilst doing so we are protecting our god given rights and freedoms that the constitution defends (our individual and collective sovereignty).

The very fact that the barons’ petition was replied to by the alleged Elizabeth II, albeit via her private secretary (sir) Robin Janvrin is noteworthy. She knew damn well that the barons would have no choice but to invoke Article 61 and, if the 1215 Magna Carta had truly been repealed by parliament within the 1297 statute version, or was made null and void by the pope in 1216 like the traitors and propagandists suggest, then she would have either ignored it or stated that it was no longer a legal instrument or requirement. She did neither.

By courageously invoking Article 61 the committee of the Barons provided us all with a peaceful remedy against the systematic deconstruction of our ancient laws and customs by imposters within Westminster. Britain (constitutionally) has a very good system of justice but it has been denied us for generations, and most people think that the corporate rules being used today are laws! Any rule that does not comply with the constitution is NOT a law. Rules require your consent (tacit or otherwise) and the law of course demands that nobody consents to treasonous rules.

The common law has our collective consent because it is natural law and fair to everyone equally, despite social status. It has become customary. Customs are not subject to parliament ether since they have become established principles of law by their longevity. The common laws are consented to by the people via the jurors (who are in fact the judges in all hearings). The jurors (peers) must annul any government created laws if they are unconstitutional. Acts and Statutes created by government could also become laws within properly convened common law courts, as long as the constitution and the spirit of the law (the intention of the law) are complied with by those Acts and Statutes….i.e., if they people don’t strike them from the statute book then we are happy to comply with them. They would be considered good law.

Note:…Case law (which is said to be one way of creating the common law) can only be regard as case law if it is created within properly convened courts of common law as said….the jurors rights and duties were usurped in 1285 so it has been a very long time since the proper courts have been operating. Even within Magna Carta unlawful courts were used at the time…Magna Carta 1215 on the whole protects the people against tyrannical governance but it also has Norman (Roman law) influences within it. The courts referred to within Magna Carta (except the petite assizes) were not run by the people for the people, they were often run by the crown.

Britain and the Commonwealth has ‘National Sovereignty’ within a common law jurisdiction. If this is not the case today then treason MUST have been committed. Indeed treason has been committed many times and is still being committed to this very day. The evidence of treason is in abundance yet without courts of law it remains unheard….its the last thing they want heard even in their treasonous hearings!

National Sovereignty means that we are all literally Kings and Queens in our own land, it has to be that way if real equality under the law is to exist. ONLY those who are working within the system as public servants are at that time not sovereign beings, because they are in service to the sovereign (people) until they clock off from work, and once they have they automatically revert back to their natural sovereign state of being. 

To cut a long story short I ended up conditionally accepting all demands to attend their court summonses for alleged driving offences when I decided to make my stand in 2010, by not paying any fines that were imposed on me in my absence, and refusing to consent to an arrest warrant issued by the so called court it resulted in a stalemate. I have never paid a penny of said fines, I’ve never been to their fake courts and the police wouldn’t arrest me even when I walked into Bath city police station (in 2012) to report the crimes of Treason being committed against me by various public servants, including a police chief inspector for roads traffic policing (Wiltshire), a court manager, legal advisor, the attorney general at the time (Dominic Grieve) and, an agent of the DVLA. They didn’t want to know about my evidence, and after the police sergeant dealing with me phoned said Chief Inspector and Chippenham Magistrates (non) court, he was informed that the matter was being dealt with….the fake arrest warrant was 18 months old by then but he didn’t even mention it let alone attempt to enforce it.

Five years on (2 years completing the process) and still nobody has acted against me for the unpaid £1000.00+ fine or my none appearance in their corrupt fake courts, yet I am also ignored as I demand a trial by jury on the matter(s) of treason, coercion, torts against me etc in a properly convened court of law (court de jure – Common Law court with a jury), because it is unlawful for me (or anyone else) to consent to their de facto courts and I want justice! Their fake courts which are nothing more than private corporate entities trading for profit by deception, whilst using treasonous rules against us would never have jurisdiction to hear the matter. There are NO courts of law in Britain today because they are all private corporate businesses who pretend to gain their authority from a usurped and deposed Queen.

I later went on to help others stand against the system when I moved to Glastonbury Somerset because nobody in the judiciary, police or government would communicate with me, so I went to the people. I later acted with power of attorney for a couple of people to further prove article 61’s validity and won every battle that we entered into (see later within this guide).

None of these battles went to a hearing in front of a jury as we demanded of course, neither did we enter their fake courts. The demands against my clients just fizzled out, summonses were not acted upon by the police, warrant officers, process servers and bailiffs did not act upon their threats either. We even stopped a 7 day committal order to prison for contempt of court issued by a so called district judge (Richard Bromilow) Yeovil (so called) “County Court” (process included herein). Two years on and my client/friend has never been dragged into their corporate courts, nor has she served any time in prison or within a police station, no fines have ever been paid by her nor has she complied with charges for water and sewage either (which is what the matter was originally about).

We also had HMRC refund £1700.00 and quash a further fine of £1250.00 demanded from another client/friend whom had previously paid fines for not filling in tax returns forms for a few years. The fines kept on coming even though she had paid some of them under duress because of the threats she had received, so we decided to put the agents of HMRC on Notice of the fact that the crown has no authority to make such demands, and that the individuals at HMRC making the demands were committing Treason. The simple (4 Notice) process that we used can also be viewed at the end of this guide.

After HMRC agents realized that they had opened the flood gates by eventually zeroing my clients account and refunding what she had already paid, they sent a debt collection agency after her the following year, I believe as a damage limitation exercise. The debt collection agency were put on Notice and they handed the matter back to HMRC who again zeroed her account. The ONLY argument we used was that they have no authority to make any demands since article 61 came into effect and treason evidence.

I began my dissenting career by claiming to be a freeman on the land within my documents, I was just learning the basics back then. I was a free man as I wasn’t in prison and have never been. I stood stubborn on the first point of authority/jurisdiction and did not go too deeply into using their rules against them.

The freeman on the land movement is a very different movement than the lawful dissent one. A ‘free man’ (to my understanding) simply means someone not already incarcerated and therefore not restricted. Sadly the freeman movement has misdirected good people by falling into the trap of using the regimes criminal rules against them. I soon realised that by using their rules and attempting to remedy any lawful/legal matter within their fake courts was double think, illegal, and would never remedy the fact that treason is being committed by the “courts”. Instead I decided to only use laws (not rules) of the land (Constitutional law) to challenge the system, and by doing so to defend myself and others and the common law Constitution itself.

To deny/denounce the British constitution publicly is sedition which is another very serious crime and is why they often ignore our Notices. By ignoring us they tacitly agree to the contents of our notices by acquiescence under the law. The same applies if we ignore their notices which is why we don’t.

All demands on you are unenforceable by law if you use this remedy correctly, but that wont stop them trying to scare you into consenting. “Courts” are not courts of law and they all know it. Police constables are nothing more than corporate policy enforcers today, most police men and women don’t even know what real law is or where it comes from, because they have never been educated with regard to the common law Constitution. So using the truth in law and treason evidence may well be ignored and force may be used against you regardless….no guarantees can be given within such a corrupt regime obviously.


Step 1. Simply create or copy an Oath of allegiance to the committee of the Barons or declare your standing under article 61 within an official ‘Notice Of Lawful Objection’ served on a Police chief inspector (or above the rank of), or an alleged judge, magistrate or any other alleged public servant or agent of the crown who has an oath of office.

The Oath of allegiance can either be sent by recorded post to one of the accepting barons (not a necessary requirement) or simply kept as a document proving your intent. It needs to be signed and dated by yourself and three signatory witnesses to make it a legal instrument, which copies of can then be used as evidence of your lawful standing (intent) within any process you may undertake. If your oath is returned or gets lost (if you do post it to a baron) it doesn’t matter, the fact that you posted it and have a copy of it with a postal receipt proves your intent, and intent is very important in law. You are no longer an outlaw once you stand with the people under the common law Constitution in Lawful Dissent. Most people are operating blissfully unaware of acting in outlawry whilst standing outside of the law today.

Now some people are not keen on the Barons because they have done very little since invoking Article 61. They are basically impotent and somewhat disinterested it appears, therefore it is up to we the people to use the security clause (Article 61) and to at least be grateful that they did invoke it in accordance with the correct protocols of Constitutional law. Therefore for any agent of the state to publicly deny its Invocation would be sedition.

There is also a valid argument against using Article 61 these days, although the constitution makes it clear that we all have a duty to do so. There has been so much propaganda put out by the criminals in power in an attempt to destroy Magna Carta’s credibility, that it can create more work rebutting that propaganda within the Notices we serve. Treason evidence is in abundance, and to keep things very simple we are not permitted by law to aid and abet a treasonous administration, period.

Example of an oath of allegiance to a Baron.

To: Lord Craigmyle (for example).
Scottas House,
PH41 4PL

From: Joe Public.

Sent by recorded post.


Dear Lord, Craigmyle,

In full knowledge of treason being committed in Parliament, by delivering the Sovereign Peoples of this Common law land into the hands of foreign powers, in understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the office of Sovereign, from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons’ committee whom invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 as long as they act strictly according to the constitution at all times, and in accordance with the protocols set out within article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 until such times as redress of these present wrongs has been achieved.

Sworn and subscribed on:  (Date)


3 Signatory witnesses

(anyone on or over the age of 21 can witness your oath they do not need to be professional people, nobody is going to question the validity of your witnesses or oath anyway. There is no need for signatory witnesses to worry about having problems arising from signing these lawful/legal instruments).

NOTE…you can word your Oath as you wish as long as you follow the basic structure of its intent and purpose. The same applies with all Notices, Affidavits etc. I don’t use templates for my Notices but I often copy and paste a previously written Notice that is similar to the one I want, and then simply adjust its contents to suit the occasion/circumstances of the moment…we can each do the same.

List of Accepting Barons;

Lord Craigmyle [Definitely Accepting]

Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire PH41 4PL;

Lord Strathcarron

3 Elizabeth Court, Milmans Street, London SW10 0DA

Otterwood, Beaulieu, Hampshire SO42 7YS;

Marquis of Aberdeen

House of Formantine, Methlick, Ellon, Aberdeenshire AB41 7EQ;

Earl of Cromer

6 Sloane Terrace Mansions, London SW1X 9DG;

Earl of Devon,

Powderham Castle, Exeter, Devon EX6 8JQ;

Lord Dormer

Yew Tree Cottage, Dittisham, Devon TQ6 0EX;

Viscount Exmouth,

The Coach House, Canonteign Falls, nr. Exeter, Devon EX6 7NT;

Lord Newall

18 Lennox Gardens, London SW1X 0DG

Wotton Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 0RZ;

Lord Milne,

188 Broom Road, Teddington, Middlesex;

Lord Oaksey

Hill Farm, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9HS;

Earl Cathcart,

Gateley Hall, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5EF

18 Smith Terrace, London SW3 4DL;

Lord Ailsa,

Cassillis House, Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7JN;

Lord Napier of Magdala (asked me to remove him from the list but I refused to do so without him providing me with a good reason why I should).

The Coach House, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1HU;

Lord Sudeley (Merlin Charles Sainthill, interesting name)

25 Melcombe Court, Dorset Square, London NW1 6EP;


2. Send a ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ to any individual acting as an agent for the crown with regard to any demands that you may receive. You are not saying that you wont comply with their demand(s) with this Notice, you are instead stating that you will comply with all of their demands as long as it is legal/lawful for you to do so since article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked, or that since Treason is evidently being committed by our alleged representatives.

Example of a successful notice of conditional acceptance used.

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).

DMB 380

From: Joe public
xxxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx ,
BA6 xxx

Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx

Date Notice served:

Sent by recorded post.


  Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.

Dear Mrs C Graham,

I am writing to you after I received a demand for a payment of £1,200.00 for ‘Overdue Tax, Tax Return & Penalties’ dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Please be aware that this is a Notice, a lawful instrument that requires your urgent attention. This ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ may be used as evidence in my defence.

Whereas I, Joe public, stand entirely under the tenets of constitutional law in lawful dissent as to my duty under the law and, that it is to my understanding entirely unlawful to pay any monies to HMRC at this time and since the 23rd March 2001 and, that I have withdrawn ANY/ALL presumed allegiance to the office of Sovereign (including HMRC) due to my individual duties under the law (see exhibit ‘D’, Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons), those duties being stated within Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (see exhibit ‘C’, Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 text), invoked by royal command according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional Law on the 23rd day of March in the year of our Lord 2001 (See exhibit ‘B’, Letters between the barons’ committee and the office of sovereign), therefore it is to my understanding that the law forbids me to comply with your demands for monies.

Whereas it cannot be legally denied that the invocation of this most important Constitutional tenet did occur on the aforesaid date and, that it stands as the CURRENT LAW of the realm, please provide me evidence in substance to counter this claim within 7 (Seven) days from your receipt of this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ and I shall promptly comply with your demand for payment.

I do not wish to break the law Mrs Graham, if I am coerced/forced under threat into breaking the law by you, then you shall be solely liable for the consequences.

Maxim in law: ‘Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus’ – “Any act done by me against my will is not my act”.

The Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 on the 24th March 2001. An article by Caroline Davis (see exhibit ‘A’) which can also be viewed online under the title ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’ is clear evidence of that claim.

Magna Carta Society wrote: “The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September (2009) that Magna Carta, sealed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the (criminal) Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”

Therefore I, Joe Public does conditionally accept that HMRC has the lawful authority to make demands on me for tax or fines, on proof that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is no longer in effect today and, that the signing by Tony Blair of the treaty of Nice has been revoked and, that the crown does indeed, according to Constitution law, have the legal/lawful authority to make and enforce such demands.

Whilst the law provides me with ‘lawful excuse’ to distress the crown and its institutions at this time, it is to my understanding that I CANNOT BY LAW consent to the fine demanded by you Mrs C Graham as an officer for HMRC. British constitutional law forbids me to aid and abet the crown until Article 61 has been publicly revoked by the barons’ committee. It also forbids me to aid and abet any other man or woman who is not also standing in open dissent in compliance with the law under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215. I must (by law) also compel you Mrs C Graham to abide by the constitutional law yourself and to stand with the people in lawful dissent as the law demands.

Failure to respond to this ‘Notice of conditional acceptance’ within the reasonable time frame allotted, or without providing evidence in substance that clearly defines that article 61 is no longer in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including interested third party interlopers) that HMRC has NO lawful claim against I, Joe Public and, that any further attempt to extract monies or goods from me over this matter would be harassment, which may invoke a counter claim for damages against HMRC and you personally Mrs C Graham.

Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

We are ALL responsible and culpable for our own actions or omissions under English/British Constitutional law. Please check the facts for yourself before replying. Ignorance is no defence in law.

Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to appear vexatious and, with all of my unalienable Constitutional rights reserved.

Signed: Joe Public.

Witnessed by:

Signature.                                                     Printed name:          Date:                 

1.–—————————————– – –———————————–

2.——————————————- – –————————————

3.—————————————— – –————————————

Enclosed evidence.

Exhibit ‘A’ (Daily Telegraph reported on the invocation of Article 61 of MC 1215 on the 24th March 2001).

Exhibit ‘B’ (communications between the Committee of the Baron and Sir Robin Janvrin, Queens private secretary)

Exhibit ‘C’ (Article 61 of MC 1215 text)

Exhibit ‘D’ (Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the Barons).


Peers Petition Queen on Europe. Daily Telegraph.

By Caroline Davies

12:00 AM GMT 24 Mar 2001

“FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.

The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter’s Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta’s provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.”


The petition of the barons and letters from both parties in full.

The Petition.

A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta 1215

February 2001. To Defend British Rights and Freedoms.

              as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:

1. the loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973;

2. the terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to the European Union:

a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your Government;

b) to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;

c) which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice, abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers of enforcement;

d) to create a military force which will place British service personnel under the command of the European Union without reference to British interests, and contrary to:

i) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,
ii) the Queen’s Commission, and;
iii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;

e) which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in British interests;

3. the creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights”at will;

4. the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to;
a) suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath Act, 1688;
b) subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;

5. Your Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in 1707;

WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953. We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.



The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. (Imposter) Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1 October 2000, when the treasonous Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”

The Treaty of Nice signed by the Treasonous British Government in February 2001:

Article 24 –transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting.

Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.

Article 191 – assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [ie: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Articles 29 and 31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).

Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.

Article 17 – establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: “The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed.” Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.

The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU “competence”, including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.

Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.

Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [ie: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta 1215, the Declaration of Rights, 1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee the country.

The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “ Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.” (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)

In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.

Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was “still part of statute law…on which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.” The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details: “…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.”

Both Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between the sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.

List Of Signatories Peers signing the petition:

Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel), Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.

The petition was also signed by:

Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.

Letter To The Queens Private Secretary

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace

23 March 2001

“You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause 61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty’s ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty’s obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.

From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty’s promise to her loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogativa regis is merely declaratory of the common law…

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed. We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance. Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seek in gratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever.

So it is clear that no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people – may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish. Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty’s subject.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib.Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite? These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)

2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is further protection of our common law rights.)

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others – have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops..until redress has been obtained. We are and remain Her Majesty’s most loyal and obedient subjects.”


Ashbourne, Rutland, Massereene & Ferrard, Hamilton of Dalzell

The Reply

“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.

The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”


Article 61 the entire translated text;

“61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.”


3. Send a follow up ‘Notice of default and opportunity to cure’ once the time frame for you receiving a response to your first notice has expired or they have ignored your conditions (we normally give between 7-14 days for a response depending on the urgency of the matter). This second notice is providing them with another opportunity to respond to the first Notice of conditional acceptance if you have been ignored, or the question within the Notice has been ignored. You can offer more opportunities to ‘cure’ (make good) if you like? the law demands that we offer at least one opportunity to cure to remain in honour. It is important to remain in honour in law.

Example of a Notice of default and opportunity to cure:


Joe public.
xxxxxxx xxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxx ,
BA6 xxx

Date Notice served:

   Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Dear Mrs C Graham

I, Joe Public do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

This is a lawful notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says. I do not stand under the Law Society’s ‘legalese’ and there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein. If you fail to comply with this Notice then you will be deemed to be in absolute agreement with the points raised. Do not ignore it.

A reply to this notice is REQUIRED and is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full name and on his or her full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Your response is required within TEN (10) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice; failure to comply will represent your tacit acquiescence with the FACTS of this Notice or that you are unable to provide lawful proof-of-claim to the contrary.

You are hereby put on Notice of my standing and the lawful facts. Do not ignore this Notice unless you agree to acquiesce to the facts, thereby agreeing in full with the lawful points that I made in the previous Notice served on you dated: xxxxxxxxxxx and delivered by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery date xxxxxxxxxxx – tracking number xxxxxxxxxxxx and signed for by xxxxxxxxxxxx (basically just roughly copy the signature, if illegible provide a photocopy/screenshot of it and add it to the evidence file).

If you fail to respond to the aforesaid Notice in ‘substance’ or within the reasonable time frame provided herein, without first legally rebutting the points raised within previous Notice(s) served, it shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that all points and concerns raised by me herein/therein are true and indisputable lawful facts and, that you agree to them entirely and without exception. It will also be taken to mean that any further action taken against myself as a living wo/man or legal fiction would be deemed by all interested parties to be harassment or coercion to commit crime under common law.

I, Joe Public over the age of twenty one years, competent to witness and with first hand knowledge of the facts do say the following, that:

I have asked you previously to provide the evidence to confirm or deny whether Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is still in effect at this time.

I am concerned that by complying with the demands of HMRC that I shall be in breach of the laws of this land since said Article came into effect and, that I would also be in breach of my sworn Oath of allegiance to the committee of the barons. I do not wish to break the law Mrs C Graham, please advise me in accordance with the truth in law so that I may do the correct thing according to law.

Being the second Notice to be served I use this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ as a reminder of the first preceding notice, which was either ignored or mislaid or not answered to correctly according to the points raised within it – in SUBSTANCE.

Allowing for a reasonable time frame for you to respond to this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ I provide a further TEN (10) days from your receipt of this document for you to reply in substance. I hereby offer you this further opportunity to rebut or confirm my understanding of the common law as referred to in my previous Notice(s) so that you may remain in honour and thus by doing so, enabling an opportunity to remedy this matter amicably to save any breach of the peace.

I hereby attest and affirm that all of the above is the truth and is my lawful understanding.

Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with my natural, indefeasible and unalienable rights reserved.

Sworn and subscribed on the date:


Witnessed by:

3: ________________________


4.  Send a ‘Notice of Default’ to put an end to the matter. By ignoring you they will have tacitly agreed to all the points you made within your Notices, they are in dishonour and cannot legally pursue you further. ALL public servants have a ‘duty of care’ to respond to any concerns of the public, promptly, accurately and in good faith.

Example of a Notice of Default:

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).

DMB 380

From: Joe Public.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxxx,

Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx

Date Notice served:

Sent by recorded post.

                                       NOTICE OF DEFAULT

                                   Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle. 

Dear Mrs C Graham,

You have failed to respond to the two (2) previous Notices that I served on you, which is now taken to mean that you and all interested parties agree entirely with the points of law that I have previously stated and, that HMRC has no claim against I, Joe Public since you have provided your tacit consent to said Notices.

I provide you with a further Seven (7) days from receiving this ‘Notice of Default’ to respond to the Notice of Conditional acceptance in substance and in full.

You are in dishonour at this time as you have a duty of care to respond to the very serious constitutional points that I refer to within said Notices. Any further action taken by HMRC against I, Joe Public, whilst my lawful claims remain un-rebutted without substance providing evidence to the contrary of said claims, shall be agreed to be harassment by all interested parties and a counter claim may ensue against you personally Mrs C Graham. Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury and within the reasonable time frame provided.

Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to be vexatious and, with all my inalienable constitutional rights reserved. On my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

Signed: Joe Public.

Witnessed by:

Signature.                                            Printed name:            Date:         

1.–—————————————– – –———————————–

2.——————————————- – –————————————

3.—————————————— – –————————————


5. If the demands continue however (they are sometimes automated) we serve a Notice of Misprision of Treason on the individual(s). This Notice contains compelling evidence that treason is being committed as does the Notice of Conditional Acceptance and, that the agent is aiding and abetting a criminal administration. Everybody has a duty under British/English constitutional law to stand in defence of the constitution under article 61 when it is in effect, and we also have a duty to compel others to stand with us. If Treason evidence has been provided to an individual then that individual as a legal/lawful duty to report it to the police. The bottom line is that by taking this stance we are only acting according to the laws of the land. Nothing more. It can be said that it isn’t our fault that the barons were compelled by law to invoke Article 61, and that we being loyal subjects of a constitutional monarch are thus duty bound to make this stand.

Example of  a Notice of Misprision of Treason:

To: Mrs C Graham (doing business as an officer of revenue and customs for HMRC).

DMB 380

From: Joe Public.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx,
xx xxxx xxxxx,

Tax ref: xxxxx xxxxx

Date Notice served:

Sent by recorded post.

  NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OF MISPRISION OF TREASON     Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.

Dear  Mrs C Graham

Please read the following ‘Notice’ thoroughly and carefully. It is a NOTICE, a LAWFUL DOCUMENT and EVIDENCE. It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION.

Please be aware that failure to act on this LAWFUL NOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act, which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/any British sovereign man/woman within or without the realm of the English Isles and Commonwealth and, is an OFFENCE under the (unlawfully repealed) ‘Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act 1795,’ SECTION V (Misprision of treason).

Whereby;…it is an offence at common law for any person(s) who knows that treason is being planned or committed within or without the realm, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace.

Also please be aware that the penalty for committing ‘Misprision of Treason’ in this day is life imprisonment and total asset stripping, and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not malice, frivolity, vexation nor ill will.

Whereas you persist to harass I, Joe Public despite being notified of the facts and that you have made UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself/legal fiction, and that you are continuing to coerce me to comply with unlawful statutes by threat of enforcement and, that you are acting for a ‘corporation’ whom has at this time no lawful claim against I Joe Public a sovereign man standing in lawful dissent and, that the crown is committing high treason against the sovereign peoples of the British Isles and Commonwealth at this time therefore I cannot lawfully nor morally support financially, or in any other way, a treasonous administration of governance, or any private entity not also standing under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DO SO ! Therefore…

It is to my understanding that you must now by the common laws of this realm and, with the evidence herein/therein supplied STOP all actions against I, Joe Public immediately. I have absolute ‘lawful excuse’ to deny payment to HMRC or to deal with anyone/entity not also standing under said article 61.

In light of the evidence reported to you personally Mrs C Graham herein this notice, this evidence by LAW must now be reported by YOU to the police for you to stay within the bounds of constitutional law, failure to do so would contravene the 1795 Treason Act section V and would therefore be an act of ‘misprision of treason at common law’. I will be forced by law to report any further illegal demands from you to the police.

FURTHERMORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that:

1.)  A long range deception to overthrow the sovereignty of the British Isles, by controlling its currency and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalized by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion.

Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled ‘Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’ (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as ‘European Economic Community’. The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

2.) Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.

3.) The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-Frenchpro-federal European lobbying body posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. The documentation evidencing these events are present on the discs FCO 10 30/48.

4.) The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.

5.) The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

6.) Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970 – 72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents have been released after the thirty year rule.

7.) The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are all born free to do whatever we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm, injury or loss to another’s life, liberty or property or their rights to life, liberty or property.

8.) England, within the United Kingdom (corporation) of Great Britain is a common law jurisdiction and British parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender land or transfer, even temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war.

9.) No man (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common law of Great Britain that forms the British constitution (Magna Carta 1215, Bill of Rights 1689, the Coronation Oath Act 1689 and the Act of Union succession and settlement 1701-1707).

10.) The Bill of Rights 1689 still stands to this day. The Bill includes the clause: “No foreign prince, person, prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm”.

11.) Treason in statute law was redefined by the Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include;
a) compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his/her spouse or eldest son;
b) levying war against the sovereign in his/her realm, which includes, any insurrection against the authority of the sovereign or of the government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder;
c) giving aid or comfort to the sovereigns enemies in wartime.

12.) Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

13.) Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes the subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

14.) The evidence presented in the ‘Shoehorned into the E.U.’ files shows that the Heath Government of 1972 was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.

15.) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British parliament, was a criminal act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.

16.) The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain’s independent decision making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was an act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

17.) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original EEC Berlin document 1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, was an act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.

18.) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 increased the European Unions powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

19.) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government attempted to repeal the Treason legislation by way of section 36 of the ‘Crime and Disorder Act 1998’ abolishing the death penalty for High Treason. This included the illegal repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law still stands as common law has primacy. This was an act of High Treason by the Blair Administration.

20.) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further acts of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

21.) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word ‘sovereignty’ from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

22.) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 surrendered further control of policy including that relating to immigration and borders. This was an act of Treason at common law by the Brown administration.

23.) The ex Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is evidence to prove that this is an act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.

24.) The current Prime Minister Theresa May, by misleading the British public to withdraw from the European Union via the use of the Lisbon Treaty whilst Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect, is an act of treason by the May administration.
25.) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by professional accountants of their books in the last 15+ years. One year of non-publication is a criminal offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U’ s own court of auditors for the past 15+ years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance of British taxpayer’s funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.

26.) The six European Treaties since 1972 are all unlawful and should be struck completely from the statute books.

The evidence submitted herein is to my understanding precise and factual and is in no way whatsoever intended to deceive, mislead, cause mischief or as an act of frivolity, vexation or ill will.

Whereas this document is required to be responded to in its entirety within 28 days on your receipt of this ‘Notice of understanding of Misprision of treason’ please respond as to your lawful standing in light of this evidence presented herein on your full commercial liability and penalty of perjury..

Our constitutional law demands that we ALL take up lawful rebellion in support of the barons petition of the 7th of February 2001 and, to continue to distress those that refuse (as to the terms and conditions laid down under Article 61 Magna Carta 1215), which was Invoked by the barons’ committee on the 23rd March 2001 and reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davis on the 24th March 2001, under the title ‘Peers Petition Queen on Europe’. The invocation of Article 61 still stands to this day as the lawful position of the British Isles and commonwealth.

The evidence confirming that treason has and is being committed, is provided within a computer disc format compilation of public records documents amounting to almost 500 pages entitled ‘FCO 10 30/48 Shoehorned into the EU’. Within this compilation of signed and sometimes stamped documentation the evidence of both sedition and treason are proven. This information can be readily found on the internet for your perusal.

I now AFFIRM that all of the information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and first hand experience and that I am of lawful age and mentally competent to serve this ‘Notice of misprision of treason’.

I hereby affix my common law name to all of the affirmations and claims made herein this document with explicit reservations to all my natural, unalienable Sovereign Rights and Habeas Corpus, and to my specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract nor obligation which I have not knowingly, willingly, voluntarily and without misrepresentation, duress or coercion entered into, and that any hearing with regard to this matter(s) is to be heard under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land in open forum as this matter is of course in the public interest and, that this is in accordance with due process and my constitutional rights.

Without Malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.


Witnessed by:

Witness 1).
Witness 2).
Witness 3).


Copy of the Daily Telegraph report ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’ 24th March 2001. Exhibit A.

Copy of the letters between the barons Committee and the office of Sovereign in 2001. Exhibit B.

The entire text of Article 61′ Enforcement clause’. Exhibit C.

Maxim: ”Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.”