“Police probe far-right ‘yellow vest’ group that intimidated Anna Soubry…
Senior Met officers have studied the group’s own video, which shows them harassing the pro-Remain MP, and believe a public order offence may have been committed.”.
The Observer 23rd December 2018.
A spokesperson for the Yellow Vest Movement made the following observations about this press report.
“Senior Met officers”, particularly those employed in the Palace of Westminster, should know that British subjects have inherited a long tradition of freedom of speech in the form of “Heckling” politicians in public places:
“Politicians speaking before live audiences have less latitude to deal with hecklers. Legally, such conduct may constitute protected free speech. Strategically, coarse or belittling retorts to hecklers entail personal risk disproportionate to any gain. Some politicians, however, have been known to improvise a relevant and witty response despite these pitfalls. One acknowledged expert at this was Harold Wilson, British Prime Minister in the 1960s:...”.
The legal definition of “heckling” is “Petitioning” the Crown in the person of any of Her Officials.
It is a request from a person or persons to public officials asking that some authority be exercised to grant relief, favours, or privileges.
Request for relief from the tyrannical imposition of EU legislation which is incompatible with the traditional rights of the British people are certainly covered by this.
The legal protections which hecklers enjoy include:
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".
Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, the statutory form of the Declaration of Rights, goes further in not just recognising the Right to Petition for redress of grievances. It makes clear that attempts to prosecute British subjects for doing so are illegal:
“Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall...”.
Those anonymous “Senior Met Officers”, and the Speaker of the Commons, would be well advised to go to the corridor leading to the Commons chamber in the Palace of Westminster where they will see a life size depiction of the Declaration of Rights being read to William and Mary as a condition for their election as the first Monarchs after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Next to it is another of the people acclaiming the seven Bishops who had been unlawfully imprisoned for Petitioning James II.
They should also note that in the January 2017 “Brexit” Judgement the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Bill of Rights:
“Para. 44. In the early 17th century Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74, Sir Edward Coke CJ said that “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”.
Although this statement may have been controversial at the time, it had become firmly established by the end of that century. In England and Wales, the Bill of Rights 1688 confirmed that “the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall” and that “the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall
authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall”...”.
Constables hold individual responsibility for the exercise of their office which means that no senior officer can order the arrest of anyone. The constables who were present when Ms. Soubry was petitioned dealt with the situation as they thought fit.
For those reasons, if those “Senior Met officers” reasonably suspect that offences have been committed they still have their Warrant Cards and should do something about it personally.
Thus is the latest incident in which senior officers, like the Acting Commissioner who hid in his car while a brother officer was murdered, have failed to do their duty either by supporting the constables on the scene or exercising their authority to put what they believe to be a crime before a Jury. Shame on them. Their names should be made public and justice should be done against them without letting them evade it by retiring.
Press Release Ends.
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”.
Here is an account of how the peace treaty known as Magna Carta was settled, it being the precedent for events in 1688 and 2001:
“A metrical chronicle (4) records the threat to depose the King, (John) unless he fully amended the law and furnished undoubted guarantees for a lasting peace. On 5th May, the barons went through the ceremony of diffidatio, or formal renunciation of allegiance,(1) a recognised feudal right, and not involving treason if justified by events and properly intimated to the overlord.(2)
(4) Chronica de Mailros, sub anno 1215.
1. Blackstone, Great Charter, p. xiii, citing Annals of Dunstable (p. 43), says they were absolved at Wallingford by a Canon of Durham. 2. Cf. Adams, Origin, 181 n.; 306, 312; cf. also infra under c. 61.
Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction,by William Sharp McKechnie (Glasgow: Maclehose, 1914).
Here is Blackstone’s account in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:
“On 5 May, the barons, having chosen as their leader, Robert Fitzwalter, acclaimed by them as “Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church,” performed the solemn feudal ceremony of diffidatio, or renunciation of their fealty and homage, a formality indispensable before vassals could, without infamy, wage war upon their feudal overlord. Absolved from their allegiance at Wallingford by a Canon of Durham, they marched on London, on the attitude of which all eyes now turned with solicitude. When the great city opened her gates to the insurgents, setting an example to be immediately followed by other towns, she practically made the attainment of the Great Charter secure. The Mayor of London thus takes an honoured place beside the Archbishop of Canterbury among the band of patriots to whose initiative England owes her Charter of Liberties. John, deserted on all sides, and with an Exchequer too empty for the effective employment of mercenary armies, agreed to a conference on the 11th day of June, a date afterwards postponed till the 15th of the same month.
It was on 15 June, then, in the year 1215, that the conference began between John, supported by a slender following of half-hearted magnates, upon the one side, and the mail-clad barons, backed by a multitude of determined and well-armed knights, upon the other. The conference lasted for eight days, from Monday of one week till Tuesday of the next. On Monday the 15th, John set seal to the demands presented to him by the barons, accepting every one of their forty-eight “Articles,” with the additional “Forma Securitatis” or executive clause, vesting in twenty-five of their number full authority to constrain King John by force to observe its provisions...”.
Blackstone, Great Charter, p. Xiii.
Here is confirmation from Blackstone’s Commentaries that “Right of War” sets lawful title to The Crown and the limitations which bind the King:
“THIS conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government. And therefore, as the English laws still remained in force, he must necessarily take the crown subject to those laws, and with all it's inherent properties; the first and principal of which was it's descendibility. Here then we must drop our race of Saxon kings, at least for a while, and derive our descents from William the conqueror as from a new stock, who acquired by right of war (such as it is, yet still the dernier resort of kings) a strong and undisputed title to the inheritable crown of England...”.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Third : Of the King and His Title P 193.
Here is a reminder of the Oath of Allegiance:
“Oath of allegiance
“I, A…..B……., do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.”
The principles enunciated by Blackstone are the reasons why oaths are sworn to the present line, heirs and successors according to law. Any attempt to set aside the settlement of 1688 and apply a different system of law should entertained unless the present Sovereign is overthrown in which case a Constitutional Convention, as was held in 1215 and 1688 is the common law remedy.
By the Common Law “No man may sit in judgement of his own cause”. For that reason, neither of the institutions, a Sovereign and the House of Lords, has the authority to settle a dispute between them. That is the reason why our wise ancestors relied on a “Constitutional Convention” with representatives of all the estates of the Realm, as the final arbiter in the event of a dispute.
This is what the Bill of Rights has to say about this:
“The Subject’s Rights.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare...”.
“‘No practice or custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject could be relied on by the Crown as justifying an infringement of the provisions of the unrepealed Bill of Rights…”.
Bowles v. Bank of England (1912)
John Hurst. Magna Carta Society.