At the time of writing this (the evening before King Charles III's Coronation), the situation could not look more peculiar to anyone with a proper understanding of the Constitution.

Huge efforts have been made to draw to the attention of senior people in the establishment, the unlawful condition of the governing system of our country. The ignorance of (or dangerous and deliberate disregard for) the Constitutional Rule of Law is, quite frankly, jaw-dropping.

This campaign (along with others) has been working hard to expose this unlawful state of affairs and expose the very hidden and concealed information that sits at the centre of our constitutional law, that has (in my view) been deliberately suppressed certainly in recent times but in fact, over a much longer period of centuries.

The central piece of information that our establishment prefers to bury is the fact that it is the people themselves, through a more powerful Jury mechanism than we have in place today, that can judge not only on the defendant but also the justice and appropriateness of the legislation itself.

This elevates the people, through the jury, to the highest governing council of the land as it places them and they alone as the supreme legislature and judiciary. The current legal profession are generally not educated to understand this and the judiciary are coy about this at best.

The reason for this urgent statement, is down to the impending situation arising from the upcoming coronation - thrusting our governing system into a condition of yet further unlawfulness and criminality.

Many will already be aware of the letter that Justin Walker and I wrote to the Duke of Norfolk laying out and echoing the concerns of certainly hundreds of thousands of people. Those concerns were that King Charles III cannot lawfully and legitimately take the constitutional coronation oath whilst he continues to support further external powers and influences that would be a threat to the constitution and our liberties.

His continued support of the policies of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the World Heath Organisation (WHO) and other International bodies conflicts with his primary duty as the highest public servant of the people.

As was the case with the oath taken by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, we have at last heard that the text to be used for King Charles' oath will be that which is more constitutionally-correct, that does not include the infamous ‘governing... ...according to statutes in Parliament agreed on’ from the treasonous 1688 Coronation Oath Act. This is something at least. However, it will mean that King Charles’ promises in tomorrow's oath will completely contradict much of his other work and loyalties.

It is important to lay out the fact that, contrary to the treasonous claims made on its website, Parliament is not sovereign. The monarch is the sovereign and retains that important role of being the highest public servant and first among equals. It is ultimately his responsibility and his alone, through his ability to refuse Royal Assent to legislation, to ‘run the administrative affairs’ for the people who hold sovereignty. The people retain sovereignty at all times through the right to Common Law Trial by Jury - the right to judge the legislation of our country. Under a correctly-functioning Democratic Common Law Constitution, the power to punish is not with Parliament but remains with the people through Judicium Parium: Trial By Jury - that is the mechanism that provides the consent of the governed. It is therefore the Monarch’s role to keep that constitutional Rule of Law in place, but failing to do so delegitimises the administrative government.

Therefore, the question is not ‘should there be a Monarch within our governing administrative system’, but more, ‘is the proposed individual in question fit and proper to fill that role?

Many of the Kings and Queens of England, prior to their coronation, made it clear that they would uphold the original 1215 Magna Carta Constitution. The issue is no different now. The proposed Monarch today must be suitable in their intentions for governing the nation, otherwise another should be sought.

Many people who clamour for a Republic are missing the point and are contributing to the dangers. Removing the position of the most senior public servant who is meant to be imbued with powers that resist the treasonous acts of our politicians is fundamentally misunderstanding the profound importance of this role. We the people, should be supporting and understanding the importance for the existence of the role of the Monarch but, at the same time, zealously holding the Monarch’s feet to the fire or replacing him with someone more suitable if he proves unwilling to uphold the Constitution.

It is with horror that I now see that our establishment (whilst entirely misunderstanding the constitutional role of the Monarch), are suggesting that the people now take an oath to Charles! This is a complete inversion of the principles of the Constitution that binds our governing system. It is, in my view, a lethal, energetic that inverts the spiritual aspects of our constitutional realm.

If being charitable, one might say that this is an appalling ignorance or cluelessness; but some instead might call it a nasty, conniving and cynical behaviour on the part of senior figures of the political class.

For clarity, it is worth laying this out. The King takes an oath to the people to govern according to Laws and Customs - specifically, that means the ancient Common Law, Legem Terrae or the Law of the Land; not statute. The articles of Common Law written in the 1215 Magna Carta are the last statement of those Common Law constitutional principles, and is, therefore, our written constitution. Those who claim either that the country has no constitution, or that Common law is something different are labouring under some dangerous misconceptions.

The Constitution of this country is built on the articles of Common Law written into the 1215 Magna Carta (or the Great Charter). Subsequent versions of Magna Carta were merely written in statute and can be amended or repealed by Parliament. But Parliament and the entire modus operandi of government is bound under the constraints and limitations of our 1215 Constitution because that is pure constitutional law, not statute. That is not something that they can repeal or amend. That ancient constitution is the set of standards by which we, the people, can determine whether our own government is acting within law or, in fact, acting criminally. It stands to reason, therefore, that they cannot alter it, otherwise they will be writing themselves into constitutional authority.

The now unconstitutional nature of our governing system is reaching a point that is so inverted, that unless the people in very significant-enough numbers, begin to read into this material, understand it and begin loudly asking questions of both our senior and junior public servants, we will find ourselves in a very dangerous situation indeed.

Time is running out, ladies and gentlemen. This once great nation can only stand and return to any form of greatness, when the people themselves determine the moral character of their community. This is the way in which the people define the liberties they wish to enjoy. The defining of the moral boundaries of our community is not something to be determined by a perceived authoritative government but by the people themselves - and this is achieved by a Natural Law tribunal in which the people define justice through their moral principles. We must return all our courts to Courts of Conscience as they were at the time our constitution was drawn up. You, ladies and gentlemen, are supposed to be the final arbiter of law; not government.

Article 61 of our ancient Common Law Constitution - Magna Carta, requires you to do two things when our 'governing' administration becomes unlawful. But it requires nothing more than what is already expected of you by the Universal Natural Law. It requires you to call out the lie and wrong-doing and stand in defence of truth. This means standing for those constitutional principles that limit the powers of our administrative government.

WJK - Friday 5th May 2023