The Secrets and Truth about Common Law Revealed

_________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (48 min 17 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________

Hello, this is Frank O’Collins and thank you for taking the time to read and listen to the Ucadia blog for this week on Thursday 29th May 2014 entitled “The Secrets and Truth about Common Law Revealed”.

I am excited about this weeks article and audio because it gives me the chance to start sharing with those of you who are listening to the fruits of several months of background research into the many hundreds of claimed statutes and laws principally of Westminster beginning with Henry the 3rd of England in 1224 right up to the 20th Century. Tonight, I will be referring only to certain statutes created between 1224 and the 16th year of the reign of King George 3rd and the year 1776. 

Just so you know, the results of this research is to make sure over the coming weeks that wherever and whenever a statute of Westminster is mentioned within the canons on the website One-Heaven.org, then to the best of my ability there should be a link to be able to download primary source material being the statute itself. I have not really started the linking process yet, so it will take a bit longer, but I hope that this will over time become a valuable resource for those looking for answers.

In any event, the reason I chose 1776 as the cut off period for this blog is that 1796 represents the year of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and for many Americans, then and now, it represents the end of formal ties as a colony to Great Britain. Of course, this is not strictly accurate as the Wills Act of 1837 which is the basis of modern American law on Wills and Testaments or the succession of Judicature Acts beginning in 1848 (then 1857, 1881, 1884 etc.) which are the basis of the same summary justice system in America as much of the rest of the world.  But as we will discuss in a little while, 1776 is nonetheless both symbolic and a real legal reference within the framework of the laws of the United States of America distinguishing more formally what is considered Common Law and what is not the Common Law.

Now if you have read or listened to any of the previous Ucadia blogs, or the Talkshoe calls you probably know, that I have not been the greatest fan of the common mythology surrounding the notion of “Common Law”. In fact, I have received a lot of flack over the years by calling out that what people think is the Common Law is in error and that any concept of real rights owes its history back to the Anglo-Saxon Laws of the Carolingians such as Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne in the 8th and 9th Century. So it might surprise a few people in this article and audio that I am not going to put down or denigrate the Common Law as such tonight. Instead, I hope over the course of this conversation to actually provide those who are listening and reading with specific prima facie evidence and actual proof of remedy and relief existing even today in Common Law. 

Again, this might seem strange given my previous apparent negative comments about Common Law, then this audio and article might also seem strange given my blog last week entitled “Proof that the Bankers and their Agents have completely destroyed any illusion of Rule of Law in Western Societies”. Last week, we went back to the most important and fundamental of concepts in speaking of the Golden Rule of Law, that “No one is above the law, and all are equal before it”.  We then went through and explained the nature of Statutes versus Proclamations as well as the differences between the types and forms of Statutes such as Ordinances, to Regulations and Policies and why Policies are the lowest form of Statutes with the least power and why all the Statutes issued for the past 200 years have been merely Policies.

However, there are actually four key reasons for raising the several examples of Remedy in Statute comprising the backbone of Common Law:

1. Firstly, through the blog and the audio tonight, the very fact that these Statutes exist is proof that the Judges and Lawyers and Jesuits and Elite and Illuminati know that no law concerning rights can be a law without remedy. We are going to show that they know this absolute maxim of law and have always known this maxim of law So, for any Judge or Magistrate or Politician to say now that “the law is whatever we say it is” is pure stupidity and an admission of complete incompetence; and

2. The Second goal of this blog and audio is to prove that this is not the first time the bankers, the lawyers and the political elite have got us into such a mess. They’ve done it before and no doubt would do it again if given the chance. In fact the circumstances more than 200 years ago were far worse than they are today and by explaining the apparent mystery and paradox surrounding Common Law that it seems to be tucked away in obscure Statutes in the 13th, 14th, 15th Centuries, hundreds of years before any Statute trying to abrogate such Rights.  Or to put it another way, to try to explain why something equivalent to a jet airplane was invented hundreds of years before someone invented and airport runway. It doesn’t make sense. So we will be addressing this anomaly tonight; and

3. The third goal of tonight is that people need help and so long as Judges and Lawyers and Politicians and Bankers and the Media continue to maintain the illusion that they honor the Rule of Law and you live in a democracy, then those who find themselves in trouble and against rampant bank corruption and lawyer corruption deserve a chance to find some remedy and relief; and

4. Finally, if certain Judges and Lawyers and Politicians refuse to acknowledge the prima facie and irrefutable proof of Common Law in writing, then it proves my points from last week and will actually help everyone see it for themselves – that you are dealing with idiots and lunatics, criminals and pirates, who don’t even care about appearances and so truly there is no Rule of Law.

By the way, Prima Facie is defined by Black 9th (pg 1310) as “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. Thus, as Blacks 9th states a prima facie case is 1. “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption”; and 2. “A party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the partys favor”.

Now there are actually two Acts that specifically relate to Prima Facie Evidence, being (31 & 32 Vict. c.37) in 1868 and (45 & 46 Vict. c.9) in 1882. You might like to download these acts for your own research and future reference. In any event, what the 1868 Act states as to Prima Facie evidence is extremely important, namely if you can (1) produce a copy of the Gazette in which the Proclamation, or Order or Regulation was cited; or (2) produce an genuine copy of such Proclamation, or Order or Regulation by a Government Printer; (3) a Certified Copy or Extract of a particular Proclamation, or Order or Regulation by a Clerk possessing the powers of a Privy Council, then this is to be taken as Prima Facie evidence.

Now you know the importance of having actual proof of key statutes that relate to Common Law and not simply hearsay, or presumptions or wild claims that so many publish through the internet.  But be careful.  It must be legitimate extracts and not forgeries.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the business creating fake stories and fake documents all the time. So beware in considering Prima Facie evidence.

So before we start by looking at the three key concepts that make knowledge of the Common Law so important, let me give one more key warning to everyone listening to this audio and reading this blog. The courts use a safety mechanism when facing people come at them with everything including the kitchen sink- it is called the argument of reductio ad absurdum – in other words – find but one error and then render the whole claim in error and throw it out.  Unfortunately, it happens over and over and it has even happened to me in the past when writing to tricky lawyers.

The way in part to overcome it, is by ensuring any memorandum of facts includes a severance clause to counter the attempt to use reductio ad absurdum.  The severance clause merely states that if any part of an argument is rendered deficient, or in error then the remainder still stands.  However, you can’t put a severance clause effectively in an affidavit and this does not excuse willful stupidity. More paper does not equal more chance of success. 

So whatever is considered relevant to your cause, be specific as to one matter, one issue, one thing in question and only that matter, that issue and that thing and exclude everything else for the moment as extraneous. Please, I beg you not to misuse such knowledge and act in an incompetent and stupid manner, because if you do, then you only have yourself to blame as you have been fairly and duly warned.

The real meaning of Common Law

Before we go too much further, what do we mean by Common Law? Well, Blacks 9th published in 2009 on page 313 defines Common Law as “the body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions”. This is of course, completely contradictory to the history of law and popular knowledge of the meaning of Common Law and just goes to show how out of control the private bar guilds in the last 60 years have become.  Just to prove how dishonest these legal fraternities have become, case law in the United States was restarted in the 1930’s – basically wiping all precedents prior to that decade.  So this definition basically tells you that as far as those who run the world today, all law is commercial and security law that started from the 1930’s which is absurd, untenable and blatantly, deliberately and obviously false.

Lets return to Blacks Law Dictionary again and this time to the 2nd edition published in 1910 and page 226 where we see a little more honest definition being “common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed and formulated and is administered in England”.

OK, so lets go back a little more and have a look at the Dictionary of English Law of 1882 by Charles Sweet of Lincolns Inn and page 172 and his definition of Common Law, which he defines as “that part of the law of England which, before the Judicature Acts, was administered by the common law tribunals”. Thank you Charles Sweet. I guess at least someone in the system, being judges who were not under the mental illness of legal realism needed to know the truth.  So in a nutshell, the Common Law by the Western-Roman system was all the statutes in force from Westminster prior to 1848 and the first Judicature Acts that created the abomination we have today, where there is no justice or law in modern common courts or magistrates courts because you are considered guilty before being innocent – which by the way is a Common Law Wrong contrary to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689 and several other laws.

It turns out that prior to the deliberate disinfo, false gurus of the truth movement, false and contradictory dictionaries of the past 60 years, knowledge of what the Common Law is was relatively, well, common.

In the United States for example, the English statutes did not become the laws of various states of the United States by virtue of their own authority in the mother country, but they became so by adoption. Such as the State of Georgia in 1784 as “the common laws of England, and such of the statute laws as were usually in force in the said province (Georgia) on the fourteenth day of May, 1776, and not repugnant to the constitution, laws and form of government now established shall be in force until repealed”.

A 1776 Virginia law automatically made all the common law of England and all acts of Parliament in aid of the common law that were enacted before the fourth year of the reign of King James a part of the law of the state of Virginia. Article 25 of the Delaware State constitution of 1776 stated “The common law of England as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force”.

Similarly in other parts of the world, the recognition of the preservation of statutes in force prior to a certain date was not some magical or mythical legend, but provable in law.  The reception of English law was clarified by the Australian Courts Act 1828, which provided that all laws and statutes in force in England at the date of the enactment of the legislation should be applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) so far as they were applicable. In NSW, this was further reinforced by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969.

So now, we have some clarity of exactly what we are speaking about. For the United States of America, it is all the laws of Westminster in force and effect as at 1776 not repugnant to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then confirmed as such by the laws of the various states and precedents of the courts.  For countries such as Australia, Canada and elsewhere, it is various acts passed prior to 1848 and for the United Kingdom it is all the laws prior to 1848 that were in force and effect and not morally repugnant.

Rights, Wrongs and Remedy

OK, now back to discussing three key concepts that are at the heart of Common Law, that we need to consider before we go any further, being: Rights, Wrongs and Remedy.

Until the rise of the absurdity known as “Legal Realism” in the 20th Century, the text named “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (in four Books) first published in 1765 (and again in 1769) was considered the foundation stone for anyone wishing to comprehend and establish basic competence in the key notions of law. 

In those four books Sir William Blackstone identified three concepts of Law above all others being Rights, Wrongs and Remedies. In fact, the first two books are dedicated to Rights, the third to Wrongs and the fourth to Remedies in describing the law and in particular Common Law.

In relation to the notion of Rights, Blackstone identified three absolute Rights of nature being personal security, personal liberty and private property. In fact Blackstone made the principle of the protection of these natural Rights against abuse the cornerstone and test of whether one lives in a civilized society, or one merely exists under the savage occupation of tyrants, pretenders and pirates. To quote Blackstone from Book 1 Chapter 1 on the Rights of Person, Page 120:

The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which are vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.

Thus, the law cannot function in the absence of Rights, or in the unfettered abuses and wrongs of official corruption and corporate special interests.  We can see the truth of these statements by Blackstone in looking at those texts considered the bedrock of defining Rights of men, women and persons.

Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta 1224 is said to state “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor we will not pass upon him or condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

The Bill of Rights  of 1688 (1W&M S2 c2)  expanded on the defence of Rights into several items such as 10, 11, 12 and 13 for example

No 10 That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
No 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void; and
No 13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently.

The United States Bill of Rights of 1789 similarly defines ten articles, also described as the first ten amendments that support the nature and type of Rights enjoyed by people and by citizens of the United States of America. Similarly, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 also defines the key Rights to be enjoyed and protected concerning persons and people.

Blacks 9th Law Dictionary on page 1436 defines Rights as several meanings and if I paraphrase them, a Right is considered “something that is due to a person by just claim, a legal guarantee, a moral principle; and a legally enforceable claim that another will do or not do a given act; or a recognized and protected interest, the violation of which is a wrong; or the interest, claim or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property”.

Given this summary definition, it is no wonder that when we first think of Common Law, we think of Common Law rights.  What then are Wrongs? And how do the definitions of wrongs play a party in Common Law?

Well, when we paraphrased the definitions of Rights, we actually mentioned the word in the context of a violation of a right.  That is in essence the first true definition of a Wrong as also defined on page 1751 of Blacks 9th as the 2nd definition of a wrong being “violation of another’s legal right”. The word wrong is also equivalent to the word and concept of injury.  There is then a whole list of different sub definitions of wrongs from civil, intentional, legal, moral, personal, positive, public and so on. The point being, that Common Law not only defines those rights granted to us, but those acts that are prohibited in violating such rights.

For example, the Statute of Merton in 1235 (20 Hen.3) states under Cap. 5. that it is a wrong for debts of the ancestor to be passed to the heir and that upon death both the principal and the usury or interest does not remain. In other words, under Common Law, all contracts with banks that seek to recover debts and interest from the grieving heirs are null and void, remembering that under the same Common Laws, a will and testament that names a beneficiary for a certain benefit, deprives an heir of that part of their inheritance and renders such effect of this statute mute.

Another example of a defined wrong is in the Statute of Westminster of 1275 under Edward 1st (3Ed.1.) and Cap 23 which states that no one shall have their property seized for a debt in which they are neither the debtor or there is no pledge. In other words, no one can seize your property unless there is proof of a debt or contract. In the same statute under Cap 26 we also have the definition of another wrong where no Officer of the Crown is permitted to take a reward for their office, which renders anyone occupying an office under any form of admiralty law or marshal law an outlaw and a criminal if they are sharing in the value of prizes or trophies.

Yet another example of a defined wrong is in 1436 by Henry 6th (15 Hen.6. c.6) against unlawful bylaws and orders whereby the articles of bylaws of any guild, or fraternity or company that are unreasonable or contradictory to Common Law are void and unenforceable. This is even expanded under Henry 7th in 1503 (19 Hen. 7. c.7). Another example that is reinforced many times throughout Common Law is the wrong of frivolous and vexatious suits such as in 1601 and Elizabeth 1st (43 El.1. c.6) and 1697 (8&9W.3. c.11).

There are of course, many more examples of defined wrongs under Statutes within the collection known as Common Law and I do not have time to go through them all here.  However as I said at the start, I will be making sure that not only statutes and instruments of rights but statutes of wrongs are clearly downloadable where appropriate within the canons of law on One-Heaven.org over the coming weeks as a helpful resource .

So what about fixing a wrong. You discover that the bank has taken property it should not have or a government agency has drained your bank account when it is not allowed to do so, or someone has seized your property for a false debt.  Well, that is exactly what statutes of Common Law that define remedy are supposed to do (in theory).

Charles Sweet of Lincolns Inn defines remedy in his late 19th Century Dictionary of English Law of 1882 as “Remedy is the means by which violation of a right is prevented, redressed or compensated. Remedies are four kinds: 
(1) by act of the party injured, the principal of which are defence, reception, distress, entry, abatement and seizure;
(2) by operation of law as in the case of retainer and remitter
(3) by agreement between the parties by accord, satisfaction or arbitration
(4) by judicial remedy, eg action or suit for relief 

Well in terms of remedy for tenants in mortgage when the landlord being a title company or attorney as trustee has done absolutely nothing to contribute to the upkeep of the property such as charges of connection of power, water or council rates is able under an act of 1433 (11Hen.6. c.5) to have the landlord convicted of waste against a claim for all the costs incurred by the tenant as treble damages. Now, lets say an attorney and bank are in collusion and make a false recovery through foreclosure, then under Common Law in 1529 (21 Hen. 8. C15), the remedy upon proof of a false recovery is that the property, rights, titles and tenancies shall be restored as if the false recovery had never occurred. Remembering, you have to proof in their courts a false action first.

So similar to the detailing of wrong, there are many examples of remedies documented within Common Law and again because the language is deliberately obscure, the listing of all of them are being updated through the Canons of law so there is as little confusion as possible.

The mystery of Common Law explained

Now we get to the key question and mystery – how come the Remedy of Common Law exists sometimes hundreds of years before the Wrong? It does not make sense.

It rests in a major shift and alignment of world power at the end of the 18th Century which we have discussed several times before, being the creation of the Illuminati and the coming together of a Trinity of interests being the elite of the Vatican, the elite of London and the new elite and Dutch royalty as elite of America and New York.

The creation of a global Matrix, a Frankenstein of spirit, mind and body where Rome represented the spirit, London the mind and regulations and Washington eventually under the control of the New York families as the muscle and enforcement as the body.

When the apparatus was being put together by the Jesuits, there was a glaring fact that could not be avoided- that the laws of Westminster and the English pirates was nothing like the history books.

I am going to read some of Canon 7396 of Article 79 of Fiduciary Law in the hope this makes more sense. 

Canon 7396
In regards to Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) and Public and Private General Statutes of Westminster, claimed to have been created and in force and effect as “Law” from 1224 under the reign of Henry III to the present reigning monarch:

(i) Contrary to the norms of Civilized Society and history (including Rome and Athens), there is no credible evidence that Public Statutes proclaimed by Westminster were ever made public and available for permanent review in various cities, towns and public squares outside of Westminster or in any public form until the publication of “The Statutes at Large” from 1763 by Danby Pickering of Gray’s Inn and then Owen Ruffhead of the Middle Temple in 1769. Therefore, by the ancient tradition of all civilizations public law that is not made public cannot be law, nor can it be validly claimed to be enforceable or just or in accord with the true Rule of Law; and

(ii) It is on the public record and admitted by multiple sources that a substantial number of former claimed Public Statutes of Westminster were “destroyed” in the 1666 fire. There is scant credible evidence how most of these laws were then “recovered” in suitable form to be included in the publication of Danby Pickering from 1763 and the folio edition of Owen Ruffhead; and

(iii) Within the 1763 publication of Danby Pickering (“The Statutes at Large”) and the separate work of Owen Ruffhead, there are references to words and phrases in statutes prior to the 18th Century that were neither in common use, nor yet invented within the English language, indicating either deliberate and wholesale fraud in creating acts that didn’t exist, or amending laws and their meaning that did not previously exist; and

(iv) In 1765, Sir William Blackstone published the work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in four books in which in Book I Part I Section III he explained the norms of statutes concerning repeals, revivals, perpetuity and repugnant laws. Yet the work of Danby Pickering and subsequent works of Public General Statutes (i.e. Butterworth, Spottiswoode, etc.) show Westminster contradicting its own norms by repealing acts which are perpetual; and claiming acts are repealed when they remain in word in force; and claiming acts which are wholly and morally repugnant have full force and effect; and

(v) For the entire span of civilized society until 1540, only approximately 500,000 laws had been passed by legislative bodies of which 90% were variations on similar laws. Yet from the dawn of Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) from 1540 to 1798 approximately 500,000 laws claiming to be “public” had been created and from 1799 to 1920 some 10,000,000 “public” laws were created of which less than 10% resembled any form of true historic law. Then from 1920 to the present day, more than 100,000,000 laws under Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) have been issued overwhelmingly for seizure of property, enslavement of people as insolvent debtors, immunity, franchise, commercial advantage, privatization, corruption, blatant theft of public assets and the destruction of rights with less than 1% resembling any form of ancient Rule of Law, or Justice or Due Process.

So now you know. Now you know the truth and secrets of Common Law.  Now you know the importance of reading and reviewing the Canons of Law on One Heaven and why this resource is only going to strengthen – not to usurp the law, but to help restore it.

Maybe it is impossible as we have discuss, for the those in power to wake up yet. But maybe, one case at a time, there might be judges and clerks and even attorneys that will have their minds and hearts re-awakened to the true nature of law, or justice and fair process.

To all of you who continue to help and support Ucadia, especially those of you who directly help support by your donations this continued work, I want to thank you for caring.  For those of you who just come to these blogs yet have not yet decided or chosen to help, then hopefully one day you might also make a choice to help and support something that has been researched and build now for more than 20 years.

Thank you.  Till we speak next week, be well. Cheers Frank

Proof that the Bankers and their Agents have completely destroyed any illusion of Rule of Law in Western Societies

_________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (61 min 21 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________

This is Frank O’Collins doing the blog for Wednesday, May 21, 2014; thanks very much for listening.  Tonight the topic of the blog and of the article is Irrefutable Proof that the Bankers and their Agents have completely destroyed any illusion of Rule of Law in Western Societies. 

This is another opportunity for me to share with you as we do these audios the proof and evidence and to assist you in expanding your knowledge and in moving forward on any issues you may be facing.  For example when any politician comes out on television and speaks the phrase Rule of Law they are lying, it is a blatant fabrication and distraction – because it simply does not exist anymore in nations such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Europe etc.

Rule of Law

What do we mean by Rule of Law and what do politicians claim is the Rule of Law in terms of statutes and why we are saying it is a complete fraud?  We will also take time to be clear that there are in fact Judges and Magistrates, officials around the world that have started to wake up and are creating sanctuaries of law in their court rooms.  There are counties and councils fighting against tyranny and even states.  But it is a terrible fight.  It is a fight that involves disconnecting from the mass media propaganda and against the oppressive stupidity and selfishness and fears of people who would rather serve a dying system than change, until there is overwhelming force.  Before we begin let’s just recap quickly on the article from last week which I hope you have had a chance to read and listen to.

Last week we raised the issue of the 10 Reasons why the Elite and Illuminati have lost all power and authority: And what it means for you.  Last week we went through and described the Elite Corporate Network and the 150 mega multi-national corporations which directly control more than 80% of the commercial wealth of the world.  

We spoke about the “Illuminati” which are the 300 or so First Class members or Knights of Justice of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta led by the Jesuits and headed by the Prelate, the most powerful spiritual leader of the Illuminati in the world.

We went through 10 reasons why the Elite and Illuminati have lost all power and authority:

1.  The Elite and the Illuminati never respected the Golden Rule of Law.  Tonight we will fill in some of the blanks regarding the Rule of Law.  We will talk about statutes and how law is created and the irrefutable proof using their own standards to show why none of the follow any of their rules any more.  We will prove that tonight. 

2. The Elite and Illuminati have abjured their own laws.  

3. The Elite and Illuminati never were the true successors of Christianity.

4. The Elite and Illuminati have abandoned their own pseudo religion.

5. The Elite and Illuminati never had any legitimate claim of right to rule.

6. The Elite and Illuminati have disavowed their own enslavement of the planet; they have destroyed their own system.

7. The Elite and Illuminati never had any manifest spiritual power.

8. The Elite and Illuminati have rejected the existence of the supernatural; they don’t believe at all and they are not following any single warning or prophecy at all.

9. The Elite and Illuminati never had the ability to curse or hurt you.

10. The Elite and Illuminati have cursed themselves in their own batshit, crazy madness.  

That is what we are dealing with today.  There is no veil anymore, no illusion anymore. There is no fakery any more, and the propaganda of the media is now seen for what it is.  It is an old and tired mouthpiece that just vomits crap every night to us and people have started to wake up.  

Let’s assume for a moment that there is thing called Rule of Law.  Let’s go back to their playbook and look at what their rules say that their rules are.  Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt because at the end of the day I want people to realize and have absolutely no doubt that you are dealing with people that are batshit crazy, mad, insane, stupid and blinded by their arrogance.  I want you to see that no matter how it is argued from the outside looking in or the inside looking out, they have absolutely no credibility other than trying desperately with force and fear, the old chestnuts they have used in the past.  

Before we look at some of the canons that we have actually written as a resource on www.one-heaven.org, and the structuring of statutes and the origin of creation of law, I want to bring back an article and audio that I did last year around the end of July.  It was entitle Motu Proprio of Francis and why by Rule of Law means no one can be above the Law.  When I did this audio last year not only was it an audio again giving the existing system the benefit of the doubt,  but it was an opportunity to return back to the simplest, the most foundational concepts of law and to return to the message that we find in Matthew in the Bible and evident in every civilized society.  The only exception to the rule has been under the mad oppression and tyranny of central bankers and all the wars that bankers have created as well as all the diversions that the bankers have created over the past two hundred years.  That is The Golden Rule, and the Golden Rule of Law being the Rule of Law.

When I did the article last year I read out 31 lines from The First Law of Truth under Book, the First Law of Yapa, and the Indigenous Law of the First Peoples of Australia.  I want to read that so before we get into the technical side of the canons and the complexity of describing the different types of statutes and the different types of structures of law that we don’t lose sight of the fundamentals.  

Let me read the first 31 lines of The First Law of Truth under Yapa.

1 This be the First Law of Truth: 
2 There is, there was, there has only ever been One Law; 
3 All law is equal that no one is above it; 
4 All law is measured that all may learn and know it; 
5 All law is standard that it may always be applied the same. 
6 A law be a rule given by divine instruction; 
7 This being the highest law. 
8 No lesser law may contradict it. 
9 A law be an edict, given by a great council of wise elders and agreed by all tribes; 
10 This being the second highest law. 
11 No lesser law may contradict it. 
12 A law be custom and ceremony over time. 
13 This being the third highest law. 
14 A rule that is secret cannot be a law; 
15 A rule that is unclear in meaning cannot be a law. 
16 A rule that cannot be applied cannot be a law. 
17 A rule may be written by sign or symbol, 
18 But only when spoken at a place of law is it law. 
19 A law may be spoken, 
20 But only when it is comprehended and agreed is it justice. 
21 All people of the same community, 
22 Are subject to the same rule of law. 
23 All men and women of a community, 
24 Are bound to live by the rule of law of the community. 
25 No one may be accused except by rule of law. 
26 No one may be punished except by rule of law. 
27 Where there is no justice, there is no law. 
28 Where there is no honor, there is no law. 
29 A man or woman who are not taught how to comprehend a law, 
30 Cannot be bound by it. 
31 Any law that is against such truth cannot be law.

Before we go on we just have to let you know that I did send a copy of Yapa to the Jesuits. And while the courts, most notably the courts of the Northern Territory (of Australia) have demonstrated themselves to be utterly bereft of even the smallest carriage of law, of justice, and even of due process in the increasing imprisonment and torture, and I say this with the utmost care, the murder of Indigenous by neglect, not a single finger has been lifted to help restore the honor and the dignity of the Indigenous of Australia.  

When we spoke about this in July, 2013, I gave three examples:

(1) If there are different rules for one set of society compared to the other set of society, then there is no Golden Rule, there is no Rule of Law and so any conveyance, ruling, statute, promulgation, trust, sentence is without any force or effect of law and is wholly immoral, unlawful and maintained only by force and fear;

(2) If there is different application of rules for one group or over another, then there is no Golden Rule and there is no Rule of Law and again any action done by such judges, magistrates, politicians and their business friends is without any legitimacy [whatsoever]; and

(3) If there are any absurd and wholly false statutes and rules that render judges or magistrates or politicians immune from the law they administer, if there are rulings that render banks or industries immune from prosecution then by such actions, the politicians who issue such false statutes destroy the golden rule and extinguish any form of Rule of Law until people finally stand up, wake up and stop accepting the rubbish that we are fed and restore the law with those who are willing and capable of standing for the law

Statutes

Let’s look at the canons so we can start to understand what we mean by statute and Rule of Law and provide irrefutable proof.  Let’s look at some of the details in the canons so we can start to understand the nature of statutes and why, by their own rules they have not been following their own rules.  I’ll ask you to go to www.one-heaven.org and to the section under 7.6 Creation of Law, Article 276 which gives a good outline and another way of expressing what we just read in Yapa and the Law of Truth:

Canon 3076
Creation of Law is the Authority, Methods and Administrative Acts by which a valid form of new law is created by Officials of a valid Society, or Juridic Person or Body Politic in accordance with these Canons.

What do we mean by Juridic person?  A Juridic person is an aggregate person; it is a person that demonstrates it has the capacity to create, to administer and to enforce its own laws and is recognized as honoring and adhering to the Rule of Law in accordance to the canons.  That is what we mean by Juridic person.

Canon 3077
There are six (6) valid and accepted methods of creating new laws of a valid Juridic Person, or Society or Body Politic being Decree, Precept, Rescript, Policy, Statute or Ordinance:

(i) By Decree is when a valid law is created upon decision, determination and then proclamation as an Order or Deed; and

(ii) By Precept is when a valid law is created in accord with a rule, teaching or principle and issued as a written command; and

(iii) By Rescript is when a valid law is created by a form of opinion, answer or judgment; and

(iv) By Policy is when a valid law is created by an Order or notice or act of publication to the bylaws of an agency or government; and

(v) By Statute is when a valid law is created by a Precept, or Rescript, or Order or Deed approved by an Legislative Act under fiduciary authority and assented by a Superior Authority; and

(vi) By Ordinance is when a valid law is created by Precept, Rescript, Deed, or Authoritative Direction under ecclesiastical authority in accordance with Ecclesiastical Law.

Proclamation

An example of a decree is a Proclamation.  An example where a Proclamation has been used to usurp the concept of a Parliament was at the time of Henry VIII in 1539 and what became known today as The Crown Act of 1539 where Henry VIII claimed that he could enact a law simply by Proclamation and for that to be considered lawful even though he was bypassing and usurping the power, position and symbol of Westminster. The Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539 (also known as the Statute of Proclamations [1] or 31 Hen. VIII) was a law enacted by the English Reformation Parliament of Henry VIII.  It permitted the King to legislate by decree.  English Civil War and restoration of Parliament under treaty in 17th century abolished the notion of Proclamations

There are two primary identifiers of a Proclamation.  One is that the one who is making the Proclamation claims authority in the position of a monarch or a god to ultimately bring forth a law and give it absolute authority.  The other is far simpler and it remains a tradition from the beginning of civilization and that is a Proclamation by a tyrant where a law is issued and must be followed.  If it isn't followed then people are punished, tortured, and murdered.  As it turned out, the civil war in England in the 17th Century and the resulting truce that saw Charles II returned to the throne, made the concept of Proclamation within western Roman law, for a democratic country an abomination, prohibited, unlawful and forbidden.  

In a few weeks’ time we are going to spend a bit of time just talking about the history of the United States in terms of law, constitution, structure and history.   We are going to do that because the United States has and continues to play a crucial role in the history of the world, in the present state of the world and despite its economic woes, still the future of the world. 

I will say, before we move on the statute next, is this:  I remind you to consider what I just said in regards to western Roman law and unmistakably before the War of Independence by common law, the very law that is supposed to function in the United States that are the laws of Westminster prior to the War of Independence, prior to 1776.  We are talking 100 years that this was known, written and embedded in book after book, word after word, unmistakable knowledge that a 

Proclamation within the context of the Untied States, within the context of Great Britain at that point, would be considered an absolute abomination either to be issued by one proclaiming to be a god, and/or a tyrant contrary to all the misinformation.  In a few weeks we will go through this in far more detail.  Contrary to all the lies, the first Proclamation ever issued in the United States was after, I repeat: after, states ceded from the old United States and formed a new United States and prior to Abraham Lincoln even taking office.  This was the first time a Proclamation was issued by Abraham Lincoln and not by James Buchanan which is a deliberate falsity.  There is no truth or basis for any of the two claimed Proclamations that were issued by James Buchanan.  There is no basis, logic, or sense to them.  if you read them you will see that they are absolutely bare-faced falsities.  The first Proclamation was by Abraham Lincoln and we will go through those Proclamations in more detail and context in a few weeks.  There are more notes following the statutes below.

Article 277 - Decree

Canon 3078
A Decree is a valid law created upon decision, determination and then proclamation as an Order or Deed by an Official Person, subject to the limits of their authority, in accordance with these canons and the procedures of their Office.

Canon 3079
A Decree is not valid, but an inferior and false document if it does not conform to these canons.

Canon 3080
A Decree is the highest form of law that may be promulgated within the limits of law of a Juridic Person. A Decree may not be issued unless permitted for a specific purpose under the laws of the Juridic Person by an Official Person holding such authority.

Canon 3081
Only three (3) types of Official Person may issue a valid Decree, Supreme, Superior and Ordinary:

(i) A Decree Issued by a Supreme Official Person is called an Imperium when promulgated as an order or Edictum when promulgated as a deed; and

(ii) A Decree Issued by a Superior Official Person is called an Institutum when promulgated as an order and Consultum when promulgated as a deed; and

(iii) A Decree Issued by an Ordinary Official Person is called an Ordinatim when promulgated as an order and Decretum when promulgated as a deed.

Let’s look at what we mean by Statute in Article 281 - Statute

Canon 3099
A Statute is a valid law created by a Precept, or Rescript, or Order or Deed approved by a Legislative Act under fiduciary authority and then assented by a superior sovereign Authority within the limits of the established authority of the Juridic Person or Society or Body Politic in accord with these canons.

What we are saying is that statutes can be different things.  They can relate to property, such as deeds, they can provide some teaching mechanisms, some explanation, they can be judgments, or they can be a variety of different things and you will see that in a moment. 

They can only be to the extent and the authority of the body that issues them and they need to be assented by some superior authority.  Within a democracy that is usually the role of the leader that is elected by the people to represent them.  In a constitutional monarchy this role would be the monarch.

When we look at Canon 3101 we now look at a way of grouping statutes to make sense of what we mean.  By statute I mean by these laws that have been issued from the time of the Magna Carta at the beginning of the 13th century right through to the present day and by those enactments of Congress in the United States, or by the House of Representatives, or by the Parliament of Australia, or the Parliament of Canada or by other legislative bodies around the world.  

Canon 3100
A Statute is not valid, nor shall it have any force or effect ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully or legally if it does not fully conform to these canons.

Canon 3101
All Statutes may be categorized according to three types, defined by the authority and standing of the members of the Body Politic, the primary form of the Statute and the limits of established authority under law of the Juridic Person or Body Politic being Ordinance, Regulation and Policy:

(i) Ordinance is the highest form of Statute, promulgated through religious practice and ritual by spiritual officials under solemn vow in accord with prescribed Ecclesiastical Law and Sacred Scripture. The word Ordinance is derived from two Latin Words Ordo and Nuntius meaning literally “an order from a spiritual messenger or body”; and

(ii) Regulation is the second highest form of Statute, promulgated under sovereign authority, through fiduciary procedures by fiduciary officers under solemn oath, in accord with established Sovereign Law, Ecclesiastical Law and Sacred Scripture. The word Regulation is derived from the Latin word Regula meaning literally “sovereign rule enacted by process or ritual”; and

(iii) Policy is the lowest form of Statute, promulgated under commissioned (agency) authority, by agents possessing commissions or licenses, in accord with established Bylaws. The word Policy is derived from two Latin words Polis and Cio meaning literally “government summons; or call or action of a set of bylaws”.

Canon 3102
The key elements of the form of a valid Statute are:

(i) Legislative Act means a Statute is created in accord with the Legislative Rules and Procedures (Rituals) of the Juridic Person, or Body Politic from which the Statute is to be issued; and

(ii) Legislative Right means a Statute can only be formed as a Legislative Act if it is done within the limits of the established authority and rights of the Juridic Person or Body Politic from which it is promulgated. No Statute may claim powers and rights greater than is bestowed to the Juridic Person under whose laws it is promulgated; and

(iii) Written Law means a Statute must be in writing and therefore must be in legible writing and printing on quality paper, parchment or vellum in accord with the Legislative Rules and Procedures (Rituals) of the Juridic Person, or Body Politic from which the Statute is to be issued; and

(iv) Proper Jurisdiction means a valid Statute only applies to the Jurisdiction of the Juridic Person or Body Politic under whose laws it is promulgated. No Statute may exceed the Jurisdiction and Authority of the Juridic Person or Body Politic making it; and

(v) Proper Possession means a valid Statute can only decree, prescribe, define, grant or convey Property which is morally and rightfully in possession and control of the Juridic Person or Body Politic. No Statute may seek to convey Property which is not in the control and possession of the Juridic Person under whose laws it is promulgated; and

(vi) Proper Form means a valid Statute can only decree, prescribe, define or grant certain rights or permissions or prohibitions, or repeal or amend previous Statutes if it conforms to the proper form as prescribed for an Ordinance, or Regulation or Policy. A Policy Statute cannot amend a Regulation Statute; Nor can a Regulation Statute amend an Ordinance Statute; and

(vii) Proper Law means a valid Statute must be framed as proper law, devoid of impossible acts, or prohibited claims, or abrogations of natural rights, or morally repugnant assertions or intentions that openly defy the Ecclesiastical Law and Sacred Scripture that is the foundation of law for the Juridic Person or Body Politic; and

(viii) Proper Consent means a valid Statute by the very nature of a Legislative Act requires that the members of the Body Politic representing all members of the Society or Juridic Person consent to its promulgation as well as any Superior Authority in accord with the prescribed Legislative Rules and Procedures. A Statute devoid of proper consent is automatically null and void; and

(ix) Proper Notice means a valid Statute cannot have force or effect of law unless it has been promulgated and noticed to all who are charged with its enforcement and are liable to obey its conditions. A failure of Proper Notice renders a Statute null and void even if all other conditions are fully met.

Canon 3103
All valid Statutes in the proper form of an Ordinance, or Regulation or Policy may be further defined as General or Public and Special or Private:

(i) A General or Public Statute is an universal rule, that regards the whole community. All competent forums of law and courts of the Juridic Person or Society are bound to take notice judicially and exofficio without the Statute having to be particularly pleaded or formally set forth as a precedent; and

(ii) A Special or Private Statute are rather exceptions than rules, being those which only operate upon particular persons, and private concerns. All competent forums of law and courts of the Juridic Person or Society are not bound to take notice, unless such Statutes are shown and pleaded.

Canon 3104
All valid Statutes may be defined according to their intended purpose and effect in law being Declaratory, Remedial, Amending, Consolidating, Disabling, Enabling, Franchise or Penalty:

(i) Declaratory is when a Statute does not profess to make any alteration to the existing body of laws, but merely to explain or declare or provide further clarity to its purpose and function; and

(ii) Remedial is when a Statute directly alters some existing precept, rule or principle of the body of laws of the Juridic Person, or Society; and

(iii) Amending is when a Statute alters or repeals or restores an existing and previously promulgated Statute (which may then also be Remedial, or Disabling or Enabling in its effect); and

(iv) Consolidating is when a Statute consolidates the clauses and terms of previous Statutes relating to the same subject matter (which may then also be Declaratory, or Remedial, or Disabling or Enabling in its effect); and

(v) Disabling is when a Statute restrains the alienation of certain Property or Rights; and

(vi) Enabling is when a Statute removes restrictions or disabilities pertaining to the alienation or franchising of certain Property or Rights; and

(vii) Franchising is when a Statute grants, or gives, or assigns or delegates certain Property and Rights; and

(viii) Penalty is when a Statute imposes some fine or forfeiture against some prohibited act.

Canon 3105
Any Statute that claims powers and rights greater than the established authority of the Juridic Person who issued it is automatically null and void from the beginning.

Canon 3106
Any Statute founded on fraud is unenforceable as law.

Canon 3107
Any enforcement of a defective or fraudulent document as a false statute within the bounds of an inferior Juridic person is public notice and consent that no law exists and that those claiming to be officials do not act with any force of law.

I want to get to the heart and the promise of this call which is the irrefutable proof that the bankers and their agents have completely destroyed any illusion of the rule of law.  Even though we have spoken of that and we have given arguments for that, I want to prove it in statute.  Canon 3102 above outlines for you the key elements of the form of a valid statute.  

You can go through and see the nine standard elements of the form of a valid statute.  If you have time then you can look through the canons and Google Lord Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England.  When you do you will find that while not in the same brevity or clarity, that from Blackstone’s 18th Century Commentaries on the Laws of England that these elements are supported.  These are considered by one of the standard texts which up until the 20th century was mandatory for all those that studied law. They are entirely consistent.  

We also cover in Canon 3103 the differences of Ordinances, Regulations, Policies between general or public, special or private and again you will find in the Commentary, the writings of Lord Blackstone, as well.  Canon 3104 gives us a comprehension as to the intended purpose of a statute, whether it be declaratory, remedial, amending, consolidating, disabling, enabling a franchise or a penalty.  Again we define those different standards.

Ordinances and Regulations

What I want to do in the time we have left is to focus on Ordinances and on Regulations and within their context I want to show you irrefutable proof tonight that definitely in the last two hundred years at least the people that are in Parliaments have absolutely, totally, and utterly disavowed, abjured, disrespected and destroyed any resemblance of their own Rule of Law, their own concept of Law.  To do this I need you to go to a different section within the canons at www.one-heaven.org and go to Fiduciary Law.  Under Fiduciary Law please look at Article 73, under Ordinance.  We’ll go through some of the key elements of an Ordinance which is the highest form of statute.  

Under Canon 7368 we see four essential elements of the form of any valid Ordinance.  First is that there is a solemn prayer, a solemn invocation to some higher spiritual deity and that is what distinguishes an Ordinance from lesser forms of statute.  

The second key element is that the people who enact it are ecclesiastical in their positions and that they have taken solemn vows or oaths.  Whether or not they have taken holy orders is irrelevant, but what is relevant is that they have taken a solemn pledge, oath or vow in the enactment of an Ordinance.  The third is that the Ordinance is ethically and morally just in accordance with the sacred scripture of the body politic.  The fourth is that it is theologically consistent within the ecclesiastical law of the body politic.  So there are four things:  solemn prayer, ecclesiastical person, ethically and morally just and theologically consistent.  These are the four distinguishing elements of a valid Ordinance.

Here is where we tie up an ancient principle again in regards to property. you have heard me say and I will say it again that one of the abominations of their system, an invention that they created, is the profane, sacrilegious, and morally repugnant concept of original sin.  I didn’t create original sin, you didn’t create original sin. They created it to control all property and the argument was that all property and all rights are derived from the Divine Creator.  

That is what they said, wrote and stood by.  Then when they implemented the concept of original sin they reinforced this by stating that no property could be moved, transferred, or conveyed unless it was done through an ecclesiastical act.  That is origin of deeds.  It is their system; it is their rules and not mine that is the basis of western Roman law.  

When you look at Canon 7369 we say that no body politic or Juridic person may issue a statute concerning the creation or the conveyance and transfer of any real property except by valid Ordinance.  Only personal property may be defined, conveyed and transferred by regulation.  Any statute that seeks to create, define, convey or transfer real property is an abomination of law and null and void from the beginning having no force and effect morally, lawfully or legally.  That is if it is not an Ordinance.  

Article 73 - Ordinance

Canon 7367
An Ordinance (or Capitulum or Cap.) is the highest form of Statute, promulgated through religious practice and ritual by spiritual officials under solemn vow in accord with prescribed Ecclesiastical Law and Sacred Scripture first issued under the ancient standards (Sacré Loi) of sacred instruments and writing or “Scriptura” of the Carolingians from the 8th Century CE. The word Ordinance is derived from two Latin Words Ordo and Nuntius meaning literally “an order from a spiritual messenger or body”.

Canon 7368
The key elements of the form of any valid Ordinance in addition to the key elements of any valid Statute are:

(i) Solemn Prayer means that all valid Ordinances commence with a solemn invocation and prayer to some higher spiritual deity in whom the members of the Juridic Person, or Body Politic or Society recognize as the source of their power; and

(ii) Ecclesiastical Persons means that the members of Juridic Person, or Body Politic or Society issuing such an Ordinance do so under their ecclesiastical rights and office, under some solemn pledge, oath or vow, irrespective of whether they have taken holy orders, or are known as priests or not; and

(iii) Ethically and Morally Just means that the Ordinance upholds the highest principles of Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process and does not diminish those rights recognized as being granted by divine authority; and

(iv) Theologically Consistent means that the Ordinance does not contradict the Ecclesiastical Law or Sacred Scripture recognized as the foundation of law for the Juridic Person or Body Politic or Society.

Canon 7369
No Body Politic or Juridic Person may issue a Statute concerning the creation or conveyance and transfer of any real property except by valid Ordinance. Only personal property may be defined, conveyed and transferred by Regulation. Any Statute by Regulation that seeks to create, define, convey or transfer real property is an abomination of law and null and void from the beginning, having no force or effect ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully or legally.

If you want to see examples of Ordinances in their system we see them in Canon 7370. For example, we find under the Carolingians, who invented the Catholic Church, their concept of what and Ordinance is and the origin of how they began their statutes.  We have in the second example, the opening prayer of the Magna Carta.  In the third example we have the statute of the provisos in 1350.  These are just examples and they are not the only Ordinances ever issued; these are just different examples to show you how an Ordinance is begun.  The fourth is the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex in 1455. The fifth is the Papal Bull Attornae Regis in 1481 and the sixth example of an Ordinance is the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence of 1776.  Last but not least an example of a valid Ordinance is the opening incipit of the template Voluntatem et Testamentum of the Ucadia Will and Testament template, which by the way I know is no longer available as a link.  It is being updated and will be restored as a series of links in the coming weeks.  So there are examples of Ordinances.  
  
Canon 7370
Examples of Statutes in the form of Ordinances include, but are not limited to:

(i) Carolingian Statutes (Capitulum) from the 8th Century which began with the invocation and prayer: “By the Grace of God, from whom all favors are gladly accepted by the faithful, desiring then to dispense (them) to (those/one) who confess true contrition. To all the faithful of Christ to whom these present letters shall come, everlasting greeting”; and

(ii) The Opening Prayer of the Magna Carta claimed from the 13th Century as 9 Hen.3. Magna Carta (1224) being: “Henry by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs and other faithful Subjects, which shall see this present Charter, greeting. Know ye that we, unto the Honor of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls of our progenitors and successors Kings of England, to the advancement of the holy Church, and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all free-men of this our realm, these liberties following, to be kept in our kingdom of England for ever”; and

(iii) The Statute of Provisors claimed under Edward III as 25 Edw. 3 stat.5. (1350) being “At the parliament summonsed at Westminster in the feats of St. Hilary, the year of the reign of our Lord King Edward the Third after the conquest of England the five and twentieth, and of France the twelfth; our said lord the King, by the assent of the prelates, earls, barons, and all the commonalty of his realm of England summonsed to parliament, to the honor of God and holy church, and in amendment of his said realm, hath ordained and established the things underwritten”; and

(iv) The Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex (Jan 8, 1455 Nicholas V) being: “Nicholas, bishop, servant of the servants of God. For a perpetual remembrance. The Roman pontiff, successor of the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Jesus Christ…”; and

(v) The Papal Bull Aeterni Regis (June 21, 1481 Sixtus IV) being : “Sixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God. For a perpetual remembrance. Since, through the Eternal King's clemency, wheryby kings reign, we have been placed in the most lofty watchtower of the Apostolic See…”; and

(vi) The Opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) being: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”; and

(vii) The Incipit of the prescribed Voluntatem Et Testamentum template being: “IN THE NAME OF ONE TRUE DIVINE CREATOR, LORD OF ALL, ALL LAW, ALL LIFE AND ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS”.

In Canon 7371 we describe how Ordinances may be perpetual, altered or repealed.  The point we make here is that a Regulation cannot repeal an Ordinance.  A Policy certainly cannot repeal an Ordinance.   When you see that you might have a clue of some of the stupidity that has occurred in the last 200 years by these Parliaments by using Regulations to repeal and amend Ordinances and by using Policies to repeal Ordinances.  That has absolutely no lawful effect whatsoever.  You cannot do that.  It is like saying that you can tell Her Majesty the Queen what to do.  You can’t do that; you can ask for something.  You might write a petition to the Queen.  You might elect the President of the United States but you cannot tell the President of the United States what he can eat.  You cannot repeal an Ordinance with a Policy.  Tell that to bankers who absolutely don’t care about anything but power for its own sake. 

Canon 7371
In terms of Ordinances and their length, effect, alteration and repeal:

(i) A Public Ordinance is perpetual, unless it specifies a temporary limit in which case it can be repealed by another Ordinance; or the conditions of perpetuity and permanency in which case the Ordinance cannot be repealed except by a higher Juridic Person possessing a more authoritative position consistent with these canons and the sacred covenant Pactum De Singularis Caelum; and

(ii) A Private Ordinance is always temporary and can never be specified as permanent and perpetual without rendering such an Ordinance null and void from the beginning; and

(iii) A Statute by Regulation can never alter or repeal an Ordinance. A Statute by Policy can never repeal or alter a Regulation, much less a Statute by Ordinance.

Canon 7372
A Statute cannot be ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully or legally considered to be a valid Ordinance:

(i) If the alleged Statute contradicts or repudiates the fundamental elements of form of a valid Statute; or

(ii) If the alleged Statute contradicts or repudiates the fundamental elements of form of a valid Ordinance.

If we look at Canon 7373 we have a few examples of invalid Ordinances.  It just so happens in the examples I give, the first three examples are under Henry VIII.  The Statute of 1534 claiming Henry VIII as the Supreme Head of the New Christian church cannot be an Ordinance because the Incipit is profane.  The Incipit, the beginning of the statute is sacrilegious.   You cannot use the word, “dread” which means fearful and terrorizing; it means an act done under duress.  I hope anyone listening realizes that never, ever, ever has a law stood if it has been enacted at the end of a sword, a pike or a gun.  Certainly nothing ecclesiastical has ever stood if it has been enacted at the end of a sword, a pike or a gun.  So, you can “write off” the Anglican Church.  You can “write off” in 1535 the dissolution of the small monasteries, the creation of the small welfare states and the theft of all property of our ancestors.  You can write off the dissolution of the large monasteries 100%.   The fourth example is the Papal Bull of Dominus ac Redemptor of 1773 which was supposed to have permanently and irrevocably suppressed the Jesuits.   

Canon 7373
Examples of Statutes that are invalid as Ordinances are:

(i) The Statute 26 Hen. VIII c.1 (1534) claiming King Henry VIII as the authorized supreme head of a new Christian Church is not an Ordinance as (1) the incipit to the Statutes of the year uses the words dread meaning “fearful and terrorizing” in profanity against Christian virtues and the word profit as heresy against the existing laws at the time against usury; and (2) the statute states an offer and not a fact when it pronounces “the King’s majesty justly and rightfully is an ought to be the supreme head of the church of England”; and (3) the act deliberately usurps the position of the existing Ecclesiastical Law and Sacred Scripture of the Body Politic and Society at the time (thus rendering the Statute null and void from the beginning); and (4) the opening of the Statute in no way conforms to the standards of an Ordinance; and

(ii) The Statute 27 Hen. VIII c.28 (1535) claiming the dissolution of small monasteries having lands less than two hundred pounds per year and conveyance and transfer of such real property to the King as (1) the claimed statute in no way conforms at any level to a valid Ordinance; and (2) the claimed statute is clearly written as a Regulation; and (3) the statute is morally repugnant in its scope, manner and contempt for the Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process with no recourse, or remedy; and

(iii) The Statute 31 Hen. VIII c.13 (1539) claiming the dissolution of monasteries and abbies and conveyance and transfer of such real property to the King as (1) the claimed statute in no way conforms at any level to a valid Ordinance; and (2) the claimed statute is clearly written as a Regulation; and (3) the statute is morally repugnant in its scope, manner and contempt for the Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process with no recourse, or remedy; and

(iv) The Papal Bull Dominus ac Redemptor by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 claiming to permanently and irrevocably suppress the Jesuits, proven by the letter Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum by Pius VII in 1814 repudiating the claims of the Papal Bull of Clement having no force or effect.

Let’s talk about Regulations quickly.  We have also spoken about examples where they have totally trashed their Ordinances.   Regulations, unlike Ordinances are done in the fiduciary laws of a society.  That is the Parliamentarians are acting as officers under oath, under sovereign law, ecclesiastical law and sacred scripture.  If Parliamentarians have not done an oath properly and if they are not sitting there under oath, then they are not fiduciaries and if they are not fiduciaries they cannot issue Regulations.  They cannot sit there with unclean hands.  As to the key elements of a regulation we list four under Canon 7441.  There are three capacities of a fiduciary:  good faith, good conscience and good character are present in the Regulation and it is lawfully consistent.  

There are examples of invalid Regulations. Under Canon 7446 we have examples of invalid Regulations.  For example in 7445 we say that Statute cannot be ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully or legally considered to be a valid regulation is that Statute contradicts or repudiates the fundamental elements of the form of a Statute.  It cannot be a Statute if it doesn’t comport to the form of Statute.  Secondly, if the alleged Statute contradicts or repudiates the elements or form of a Regulation it cannot be a Statute.   Of course that is exactly what they have done again in the last 150 years.  they have used Policies to amend and change Regulations.  Examples of invalid Regulations are listed below and it turns out the Henry VIII 1534 establishing the Anglican Church is neither an Ordinance nor is it a Regulation.  Nor, is the Statute of 1535 in the dissolution of small monasteries, nor is the Rights and Claims to Real Property which is another example of an invalid act that we describe under Canon 7447.  

I’ll go through these because these are important and this is the wrap-up as irrefutable proof.   I’ll read Canon 7447 because of what it signifies today:  since 1801 no claimed Juridic person or body politic or society under the direct control or influence of the Bank of England or central banks and that includes United Kingdom, United States Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Europe and the world, has issued any Ordinance or Regulation.  Instead all statutes and acts issued by such legislative bodies have either been Policies or false Statutes having no force or effect ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully, or legally and are null and void ab initio.  

Article 90 - Regulation

Canon 7440
Regulation is the second highest form of Statute, promulgated under sovereign authority, through fiduciary procedures by fiduciary officers under solemn oath, in accord with established Sovereign Law, Ecclesiastical Law and Sacred Scripture first issued under the Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) standards of instruments under King Henry VIII of England from the 16th Century. The word Regulation is derived from the Latin word Regula meaning literally “sovereign rule enacted by process or ritual”.

Canon 7441
The key elements of the form of any valid Regulation in addition to the key elements of any valid Statute are:

(i) Preamble means that all valid Regulations commence with a formal Preamble consistent with a form of Deed of a Trust, or Estate or Fund explaining the purpose of the Statute by Regulation, any intended conveyance or transfer of personal property or any action of declaration, remediation, amendment, repeal, franchise, penalty, disability, enablement or consolidation; and

(ii) Fiduciary Persons means that the members of Juridic Person, or Body Politic or Society issuing such a Regulation do so under a solemn oath to Office as Officers and Trustees under full Fiduciary Capacity; and

(iii) Good Faith, Good Conscience and Good Character means that the Regulation is issued under the fundamental principles of Trust and Fiduciary Law being Good Faith, Good Conscience (Without Prejudice) and Good Character (Clean Hands and at arms length); and

(iv) Lawfully Consistent means that the Regulation does not contradict any valid Ordinance or the recognized foundations and principles of Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process recognized as the foundation of all law and the laws of the Juridic Person or Body Politic or Society.

Canon 7442
No Body Politic or Juridic Person may issue a Statute concerning the creation or conveyance and transfer of any personal property except by valid Regulation. Only personal property may be defined, conveyed and transferred by Regulation. Real Property may only be conveyed and transferred through Statute by Ordinance. Any Statute by Regulation that seeks to create, define, convey or transfer real property is an abomination of law and null and void from the beginning, having no force or effect ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully or legally. 

Canon 7443
If the members of the Juridic Person, or Body Politic or Society enacting the Statute by Regulation have effectively abjured their oath of office by virtue of a secret oath to a fraternity or society such as a Private Bar Guild, or through such pseudo-ritual as Kol Nidre, then such Statute enacted will only have the authority of a Policy and not a Statute as it ceases to be under Fiduciary Law. Therefore, any claimed conveyance or transfer of personal property shall have no force or effect and such a Statute will be null and void ab initio (from the beginning).

Canon 7444
In terms of Regulations and their length, effect, alteration and repeal:

(i) Any Regulation that seeks to limit the future powers and authority of the Body Politic, or Legislative Body to repeal itself or other laws is null and void ab initio (from the beginning); and

(ii) Any Regulation that is morally repugnant or contradicts or repudiates the fundamental elements of form of a valid Statute is null and void ab initio (from the beginning); and

(iii) A Regulation can never be permanent or in perpetuity and if no temporary limit is stated, then such a Regulation exists only so long as it is not repealed by a new Regulation or Ordinance; and

(iv) A Statute by Regulation can never alter or repeal an Ordinance. A Statute by Policy can never repeal or alter a Regulation, much less a Statute by Ordinance.

Canon 7445
A Statute cannot be ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully or legally considered to be a valid Regulation:

(i) If the alleged Statute contradicts or repudiates the fundamental elements of form of a valid Statute; or

(ii) If the alleged Statute contradicts or repudiates the fundamental elements of form of a valid Regulation.

Canon 7446
Examples of Statutes that are invalid as Regulations are:

(i) The Statute 26 Hen. VIII c.1 (1534) claiming King Henry VIII as the authorized supreme head of a new Christian Church is not an Ordinance nor is it a valid Regulation as (1) the incipit to the Statutes of the year uses the words dread meaning “fearful and terrorizing” in profanity against Christian virtues and the word profit as heresy against the existing laws at the time against usury; and (2) the statute states an offer and not a fact when it pronounces “the King’s majesty justly and rightfully is an ought to be the supreme head of the church of England”; and (3) the act deliberately usurps the position of the existing Ecclesiastical Law and Sacred Scripture of the Body Politic and Society at the time (thus rendering the Statute null and void from the beginning); and (4) the opening of the Statute in no way conforms to the standards of an Ordinance; and (5) the statute seeks to convey Real Property and thus contradicts the limits of authority of a Regulation; and

(ii) The Statute 27 Hen. VIII c.10 (1535) claiming that no testament concerning lands, tenements and hereditaments be lawful except by the form prescribed by the king in writing known as a “will” as (1) the claimed statute in no way conforms at any level to a valid Ordinance; and (2) the statute seeks to convey Real Property and thus contradicts the limits of authority of a Regulation; and (3) the statute is morally repugnant in its scope, manner and contempt for the Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process with no recourse, or remedy; and

(iii) The Statute 27 Hen. VIII c.16 (1535) claiming that no conveyance of land or Real Property as well as Personal Property be conveyed or transferred unless it be in writing and by deed (indented), sealed and inrolled as (1) the claimed statute in no way conforms at any level to a valid Ordinance; and (2) the statute seeks to convey Real Property and thus contradicts the limits of authority of a Regulation; and (3) the statute is morally repugnant in its scope, manner and contempt for the Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process with no recourse, or remedy; and

(iv) The Statute 27 Hen. VIII c.24 (1535) claiming that no right of valid forum of law, or valid judgment of law, or Right of writ or Right over land or Real Property exist, except through the King alone as (1) the claimed statute in no way conforms at any level to a valid Ordinance; and (2) the statute seeks to convey Real Property and thus contradicts the limits of authority of a Regulation; and (3) the statute is morally repugnant in its scope, manner and contempt for the Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process with no recourse, or remedy; and

(v) The Statute 27 Hen. VIII c.28 (1535) claiming the dissolution of small monasteries having lands less than two hundred pounds per year and conveyance and transfer of such real property to the King as (1) the claimed statute in no way conforms at any level to a valid Ordinance; and (2) the statute seeks to convey Real Property and thus contradicts the limits of authority of a Regulation; and (3) the statute is morally repugnant in its scope, manner and contempt for the Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process with no recourse, or remedy; and

(vi) The Statute 31 Hen. VIII c.13 (1539) claiming the dissolution of monasteries and abbies and conveyance and transfer of such real property to the King as (1) the claimed statute in no way conforms at any level to a valid Ordinance; and (2) the statute seeks to convey Real Property and thus contradicts the limits of authority of a Regulation; and (3) the statute is morally repugnant in its scope, manner and contempt for the Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process with no recourse, or remedy.

Here is the rule of Ordinances of the Catholic Church:  every Papal Bull issued was issued as perpetual.  Well, not every one, so I withdraw that.  If it stated it was perpetual, it was perpetual.  The bulls that issued and created the Jesuits were perpetual bulls.  Unless those bulls were in effect, faulty, or done with malice then they stood. The only way they could be defeated is if they had a technical fault.  So, a Papal Bull that tries to render a Perpetual Bull null and void itself has no effect.  The proof of that was the fact that the Restoration of the Jesuits in 1814 was done by a Letter as opposed to a Papal Bull.   The very fact that the 1814 Letter by Pius VII repudiated the Bull, demonstrates that the Bull of 1773 is as if it never existed.  

How do we prove that?  Simple.  Number 1:  A fundamental condition of any Statute by their laws, being valid as a Regulation or Ordinance is that the members of the legislative body issue such instrument in good faith, good character and good conscience in full fiduciary capacity to the benefit of the Juridic personal society.  In other words they cannot be traitors.  They cannot be criminals.  We know they act as criminals, but by their own laws they are not allowed to be.  It is built in to their own laws.  In 1798 Westminster established an act granting power and authority of annuities to the Bank of England and obligated society to repay the debts.  By 1801 following the Act of Union they created a trading corporation known as the United Kingdom and granted the Bank of England in 41 Geo iii, c 3.  It’s in their Statutes that the right to operate and administer a corporation of the same name and took 28 million pounds of annuities plus interest were paid back; later there was another 36 million pounds at exorbitant interest already borrowed sine 1798.  

All acts of Parliament since 1801 have been internal Policies only.  They are only internal Policies for the employees of the Bank of England and not for the corporation of Great Britain.  No valid Ordinance or Regulation has been passed since 1801.  By 1816, Westminster had to prove the figure of 372 million pounds through 55 separate legislative acts granting unprecedented powers and authority to the Bank of England under the proviso until the money and compounding interest was repaid, the Bank of England would remain in control as a defacto Crown and United Kingdom.  In 1816 the Consolidated Fund Act introduced the final controls with a fund for all purchase revenues of Great Britain and Ireland under the control of the Bank of England with the Bank allowed to deduct its own expenses.  By the 1850s all properties and trusts were shifted over to the Bank of England.  That was the total control.  That basis was the beginning of the banking control of the world leading up to funding of the Civil War in the United States and the rest.  

Canon 7447
Since 1801, no claimed Juridic Person, or Body Politic or Society under the direct control or influence of the Bank of England, or Central Banks has issued any Ordinance, or Regulations. Instead, all Statutes and Acts issued by such Legislative bodies have either been Policies or false Statutes having no force or effect ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully, legally and null and void ab initio (from the beginning):

(i) A fundamental condition of any Statute being valid as Regulation or Ordinance is that the members of the legislative body issue such instrument in Good Faith, Good Character and Good Conscience in full Fiduciary Capacity, to the benefit of the Juridic Person, or Society. In 1798, Westminster established an act granting power and authority of annuities to the Bank of England (39 Geo. III. c. 60) and obligating the Society to repay the debts; and

(ii) In the year 1801, following the 1800 Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland (39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 67) creating the trading corporation known as the United Kingdom, Parliament granted the Bank of England (41 Geo. III. C.3. § XXV) the right to operate and administer the corporation of the same name (United Kingdom) until twenty eight million (£28,000,000) pounds of annuities (plus interest) were paid back including the previous £36,000,000 already borrowed since 1798. Thus, all Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom since 1801 onward have been the internal Policies for employees of the Bank of England and not for the corporation of Great Britain. No valid Ordinance or Regulation has been passed since 1801; and

(iii) By 1816, Westminster had approved the figure of £372,374,471 (since 1798) through fifty five separate legislative acts granting unprecedented powers and authority to the Bank of England under the proviso that until the money and compounding interest was repaid, the Bank of England would remain in control as the defacto Crown and “United Kingdom”. The Bank of England (Advance) Act 1816 (56 G. III c.96) introduced further historic measures whereby the Bank of England was authorized by Policy Acts to pay the Public Service directly, rather than the Exchequer and that the bank’s own private notes were to be accepted for the first time as public money; and

(iv) The Consolidated Fund Act 1816 (56 G. III c.98) introduced the final key controls of the bank with the uniting and consolidation into one (1) fund all the purchase revenues of Great Britain and Ireland with the bank having the right to appoint commissioners to the Exchequer for the Consolidated Fund. The bank was then granted the right through its commissioners to extract interest and expenses from the Consolidated Fund directly with the effective “privatization of the exchequer. From this point onwards, all politicians and public servants and people became “employees” of the bank; and

(v) As no Statute or Legislative Act since 1801 by Westminster or any other Body Politic or Legislative Body under the control or influence of the Bank of England or any associated Central Bank represents a true and valid Ordinance or Regulation, all claimed Statutes and Acts purporting to define, transfer or convey Real Property or Personal Property are ipso facto (as a fact of law) null and void ab initio (from the beginning) having no force or effect whatsoever ecclesiastically, morally, lawfully or legally.

I know it’s a lot of words to go through and you probably shudder at going through this.  I wanted to outline as clearly as I could the irrefutable proof that by their own rules and system that there is absolutely no Rule of Law operating.  When you see the kind of madness and mayhem of the Patriot Act and other morally repugnant policies, they are not Ordinances.  There is no spiritual authority and they are not Regulations.  When you see them enacting acts to steal property, which they are unlawfully, illegally and immorally doing I want you to know that all you are dealing with are lying tyrants, cowards, thieves and batshit crazy mad people.  That is what you are dealing with and it’s not easy.  

I know it’s not easy and it’s not been easy for me.  As I said to someone the other day, “I cannot thank all of you who listen enough and those of you have the courage, and it is a courageous thing to do, who actually give a damn and who actually have the means to help support Ucadia.”   I do not have a patron and I don’t know how I survive month to month; it is a miracle that I am still here; there is certainly no patron or anyone behind the scenes supporting what is going on.  

Most of my time is scraping around and finding ways to survive.  That is what most of my day is spent on.  I wish it was spent on this, but more than half of my time is spent ‘scraping around.’  It’s not easy to survive and people who should know better have not changed either through fear or laziness, contempt or arrogance, or anything we have spoken about in the past.  It’s not all bad.  As I said at the beginning tonight, there are some judges and others who are changing.  There are signs, glimmers.  There are people in the military who are changing.  There are countries that are changing.  It’s not all bad.  But, when you turn on the television and you see those liars, those agents for the bank that sold their souls for 30 pieces of silver remind yourself that whatever they say is without authority.  

The only reason they are still there is because enough military and enough people with guns and force support them.  The rule of tyranny remains the same from the beginning of time. When the people finally awaken to the tyrant and realize that all they have been told is a lie concerning Rule of Law, then you can measure the reign of tyranny with an egg timer.

Until next week, for those of you who do help and are there to help, thank you for your support.  For those of you who continue to read, thank you.  I hope you found this useful tonight.  Until we speak again, please be safe and be well.  Thank you and good night.