There was a preliminary
argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and
the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based
on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and
with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus
has never been lawfully crowned. There are those who may wish to
argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden
did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony
because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years.
In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second
point.
At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract,
before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to
maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her
hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and
signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found
in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly
prohibited.
The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of
man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the
British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect.
To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore
without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of
high treason among her other numerous crimes.
All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her
majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from
her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which
means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't
really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the
jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any
of "her majesty's" courts or judges.
Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own
cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth
could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty
of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are
obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the
question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by
a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury
trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of
Elizabeth.
No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to
request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause.
That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do,
they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent
Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is
immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact
that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular
point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.
If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.
