Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System

May 20, 2011

by Debra Siddons

" If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days." For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH)
Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the
12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge
of attempting to "pervert the course of justice".  For those of you
less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the
Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". 

There are two very important precedents that were established with

this case that need to be studied in detail.  There was a preliminary
argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and
the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based
on two distinct points.  The first point being she was knowingly, and
with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus
has never been lawfully crowned.  There are those who may wish to
argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden
did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony
because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years.
In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch's signature.  Which brings us to the second

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract,
before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to
maintain The Laws of God.  This she solemnly swore to do, with her
hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and
signing the contract.  Please note well that in The Law of God, found
in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly

The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of
man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the
British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect.
 To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT.  She is therefore
without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty ofhigh treason among her other numerous crimes.

All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her
majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from
her.  All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which
means they are all brought in the name of the queen.  So if she isn't
really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the
jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else.  And neither do any
of "her majesty's" courts or judges.

Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own
cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth
could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty
of the monarch.  It is a question of their own authority, so they are
obviously not impartial to the outcome.  That is why the ONLY way the
question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by
a jury.  And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury
trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of

No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to
request a jury trial.  No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause.
That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do,
they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent
Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is
immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest.  The fact
that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular
point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.

That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case.  If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.

The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the
Laws of God.

These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the
start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.

To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces
of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.

Whilst E2  is committing treason, explained in full detail in the
Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of


Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked
awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but
didn't know. We know now.

For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we
aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you
really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand
for the British Accreditation Registry.  It doesn't matter whether it
is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR
association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head
of the BAR.

So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all
know a peaceful way to bring the system down.  If enough people ACT
and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this
insanity and injustice.  All that is required now is for YOU to spread
the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can
begin immediately.  Or you can watch the last remnants of your
freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into
bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order".