The following notes are intended to assist those who might come into conflict with the authorities whilst protesting against officials of all kinds, including police.
Commitment (to prison) for petitioning is illegal. Here is an article on the "Seven Bishops" case with a picture of the painting in the corridor leading to the commons chamber:
Below is a BBC programme which, probably accidentally, gives a good account of the Glorious revolution. Towards the end it describes how knowledge of he Constitution was hidden by "Marxist academics:
Here is what Halsbury’s has to say on the subjects right to petition the Crown:
Halsbury's Laws of England/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS (VOLUME 8(2) (REISSUE))/5. THE EXECUTIVE/(2) FORMATION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND REMUNERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION/(iv) Ministerial Conduct and the Accountability of Government/419. Accountability to the public: petitions.
419. Accountability to the public: petitions.
In cases where no illegal act has been committed, and consequently no action lies, but where the subject deems himself unduly oppressed by the sentence of a judge or the conduct of an official, the law of the constitution has provided a remedy by petition to the Crown. The exercise of this right cannot be denied, since it is the right of the subject to petition the monarch, and all commitments and prosecutions for so petitioning are illegal1.
1 Bill of Rights s 1. The necessity for such a provision was proved by the Seven Bishops' Trial (1688) 12 State Tr 183. As to petitions for pardon see para 825 post. As to the monarch see para 351 et seq ante. As to the Bill of Rights see para 35 note 3 ante.
Disregarding the Bill of Rights is treason because it undermines the Constitution and tend to the overthrow of the Sovereigns authority and the revolutionary settlement in 1688.
All Crown officials since that date have sworn to uphold it. If they now choose to disregard it that is also prima facie evidence of perjury because it is proof that the individual was not honest when he took the Oath.
Please note section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911:
A person shall not be liable to be convicted of any offence against this Act, or of any offence declared by any other Act to be perjury or subornation of perjury, or to be punishable as perjury or subornation of perjury, solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false...”.
This means that if you are going to do something about this when dealing with officials either two witnesses or one witness and some other form of evidence, such as a video recording are required.
Here is the para 35 from Halsburys which covers citation of the Bill of Rights:
“Halsbury's Laws of England/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS (VOLUME 8(2) (REISSUE))/1. INTRODUCTION: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM/(7) THE DESCENT OF THE CROWN AND PROVISIONS SECURING THE SUCCESSION/(i) Descent of the Crown/35. Parliament's power to limit descent of the Crown.
35. Parliament's power to limit descent of the Crown.
The Bill of Rights, being thus confirmed by a Parliament summoned in the constitutional manner, was formally credited with the force of a legal statute, and appears upon the statute books as such (see infra). For a full discussion of the logical difficulties involved in the irregular procedure employed see Maitland Constitutional History of England (1908) pp 283-285.
Here is the extract from Maitland that is referred to:
“Now certainly it was very difficult for any lawyer to argue that there had not been a revolution. Those who conducted the revolution sought, and we may well say were wise in seeking, to make the revolution look as small as possible, to make it as like a legal proceeding, as by any stretch of ingenuity it could be made. But to make it out to be a perfectly legal act seems impossible. Had it failed, those who attempted it would have suffered as traitors, and I do not think that any lawyer can maintain that their execution would have been unlawful. The convention hit upon the word * abdicated' as expressing James's action, and, according to the established legal reckoning, he abdicated on the II December, 1688, the day on which he dropped the great seal into the Thames. From that day until the day when William and Mary accepted the crown, 13 February, 1689, there was no king of England. Possibly the convention would better have expressed the truth if, like the parliament of Scotland, it had boldly said that James had forfeited the crown. But put it either way, it is difficult for a lawyer to regard the Convention Parliament as a lawfully constituted assembly. By whom was it summoned ? Not by a king of England, but by a Prince of Orange. Even if we go back three centuries we find no precedent. The parliaments of 1327 and of 1399 were summoned by writs in the king's name under the great seal. Grant that parliament may depose a king, James was not deposed by parliament; grant that parliament may elect a king, William and Mary were not elected by parliament. If when the convention met it was no parliament, its own act could not turn it into a parliament. The act which declares it to be a parliament depends for its validity on the assent of William and Mary. The validity of that assent depends on their being king and queen ; but how do they come to be king and queen t Indeed this statute very forcibly brings out the difficulty—an incurable defect. So again, as to the confirming statute of 1690.
Do not think that I am arguing for the Jacobite cause. I am only endeavouring to show you how much purely legal strength that cause had. It seems to me that we must treat the Revolution as a revolution, a very necessary and wisely conducted revolution, but still a revolution. We cannot work it into our constitutional law…”.
In other words, to overthrow the settlement of 1688 would require the appointment of a new line.
When the Stuart line usurped their authority in claiming that the “Divine Right of Kings” allowed them to disarm their opponents they were lawfully overthrown. The same could happen again if the present regime are not careful and their policies have aggrieved the subjects sufficiently to make such a conflict inevitable. In fact, history is repeating itself. The law allows the subject to possess arms for defence but Home Office policy enforced by Chief Officers of police does not.
These passages from Blackstone confirm that the settlement of The Crown on the present line was lawful and that there is no authority to disregard the present arrangement except by a new “trial by battle”.