Explaining to a police officer about the Bill of Rights

 

He meant the Bill of Rights 1689!!

mynewschannel on 10 May 2011

Yes I got a bit flustered as I had to jump my back gate a couple of times as I misplaced my keys.
Yes i know 1689 and not 1688
Had to do this video in 2 parts.

Cameron and co- ” We need a bill of rights”

I think what he means is- We need to re-write your bill of rights otherwise we can’t lawfully keep fining you all at the drop of a hat!!

This is forbidden in the bill- without first undergoing a trial- with a jury of our peers’- cost approx £50.000 a throw- but you can insist on this RIGHT!!

Ministers tried to stay out of nick when thiefing by using this bill- the bill does not protect theft!!

This week the Limp Dem MP used it in the commons to name the footballer ….whats’ that – he used the bill of rights- the one they deny we have?

This is the part he used….

English Bill of Rights 1689
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

See it doesn’t cover theft! but covers their freedom to speak within the commons without fear!

They the elites don’t want you serfs using this part….
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

Thats’ just abit of what protection it gives YOU!!!

Here is the absolute truth that it operates today- as yesterday- and FOR ALL TIME TO COME!!

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

SO WHY DO THE WESTMINSTER SHYSTERS WANT TO CHANGE IT- WHY DO THEY DENY IT EVEN EXISTS.?

ANSWER- THEY ARE PART OF A ROGUE GOVERNMENT!!!

Hamilton sued The Guardian, along with Ian Greer, and had a 300-year-old law changed so he could do so, which was the Defamation Bill – altering the Bill of Rights 1689 by permitting what had been said in Parliament to be questioned in the courts. The Defamation Act 1996 gained Royal Assent in July 1996. However, on 30 September 1996, a day before the libel trial was due to begin, Hamilton and Greer claimed that a conflict of interest arose and both men dropped the libel action, saying that they could not afford to continue. They each paid £7,500 to The Guardian’s legal costs. All the cash for questions evidence was sent to Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. On the evening of 1 October 1996, on Newsnight, Hamilton took part in a televised live debate with Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian.

BRITAIN HAS IT’S OWN ANCIENT LAWS WHICH STILL STAND AND CANNOT BE BROKEN. PLEASE STUDY THE ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 AND READ WHERE IT SAYS IN THE OATH ‘I DO DECLARE THAT NO FOREIGN PRINCE, PERSON, PRELATE, STATE OR POTENTATE HATH OR OUGHT TO HAVE ANY JURISDICTION, POWER, SUPERIORITY, PRE-EMININENCE OR AUTHORITY WITHIN THIS REALM.’ IF YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1689 YOU SHOULD !!

MINISTERS AND LIZ ALL TRAITORS!!!

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

FOREIGN STATE=BRUSSELS’!!

STUFF THE LAWS OF ALL FOREIGN STATES!!!!!

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

ZIONIST STATE INCLUDED!!

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/explaining-to-a-police-officer-about-the-bill-of-rights/