The Acts of Union and its Legal Nature 

The Acts of Union were put in place, with the Scots asking to join England after bankrupting themselves in South America, specifically in the Darian Gap, where the indigenous population fought back against Scottish colonisation in the late 1600s [01:08].

The Acts of Union, consisting of two separate acts in 1706 and 1707, were a treaty and not a law, despite being enrolled into the House of Commons or Parliament [02:00].

The Law of Treaties states that a treaty is sovereign to sovereign, not sovereign to subject, and the Acts of Union were between the ruling classes of Scotland and England [02:21].

Legal Systems in England and Scotland

The English common law jurisdiction was brought into England in 1536 [02:44].

Scotland has a separate jurisdiction called Roman law, which differs from English common law.  The English system is based on the idea that everything is allowed unless forbidden, while Roman law is the opposite.  Roman law lists everything that is allowed and anything not on the list is prohibited [02:57]

The English Constitution and the Concept of a “Dog King”

The English system historically allowed for the election of kings and social mobility but this has been lost. Moore refers to the current system as a “dog king” where the king no longer represents the people [03:58].

The English constitution is based on the separation of powers, which is crucial for people to understand, and some, like David Starkey, have misunderstood this concept [04:30].

“David Starky got it completely wrong,” Moore said. “That’s because he’s not a legal historian he’s just a historian. He talks about kings and queens and going back a thousand years. I’m not looking at that. I’ll look at the law the constitution and what is written.”

Related: Starkey ‘filled with horror’ at guide to constitution, The Telegraph, 23 July 2006 and 800 years of democracy is unravelling before our very eyes: Distinguished historian DAVID STARKEY on how our self-satisfied politicians have launched a coup over Brexit, Daily Mail, 17 March 2019

The English Bill of Rights and its Significance

The English Bill of Rights is part of the English constitution, which exists despite claims that the UK does not have a written constitution [04:54].

[Note: It is commonly stated that the UK does not have a single, codified written constitution.  Instead, its constitution is comprised of various written and unwritten sources.  This is not the claim that Moore is disputing; he acknowledges the English Bill of Rights is only part of the English constitution.  As always, the devil is in the details.]

The English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689, and it contains inalienable rights that were also given to Scotland through the Claim of Right. “because they asked for it,” Moore said [05:19].

[The Claim of Right was passed by the Convention of the Estates, a precursor to the Parliament of Scotland, in April 1689. It affirmed the supremacy of Scottish laws and customs, rejecting the notion that the English monarch had absolute authority over Scotland.]

The Prince of Orange landed in Brixham, Devon, on 5 November 1688, with a 3,000-man army, including English exiles, to take the country back from the tyrannous King [05:59].

The 5 November is an important date to us, not because of Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up the Houses of Parliament, it’s an important date “because that’s when the [William III] Prince of Orange landed in Brixham in Devon with a 3,000 man army,” Moore said.

The Declaration of Rights (written into the English Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Reasons (a declaration in September 1688 by the Prince of Orange to justify his invasion of England and the overthrow of King James II) are still enrolled in the Houses of Parliament, as they were the original contract between the subjects of England and the Crown [06:20].

The Crown took two oaths: the Coronation Oath and the Accession Oath, and breaching these oaths is a serious offense akin to treason [06:35].

Historically, kings who breached their oaths apologised to the people and perjury of an oath was punishable by severe penalties, including death [06:52].

The English Bill of Rights declares several rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be repealed according to Section 2 of the document [08:02].

“The right to keep and bear arms is still your right today,” Moore said. “It cannot be repealed.”  This is because the English Bill of Rights states that its provisions cannot be repealed, using phrases such as “forever” and “in all time to come” [08:22].

Further reading: English vs British, English Constitution Society

The English Bill of Rights and its Disregard

The Judiciary and Parliament ignore the English Bill of Rights, with Parliament claiming sovereignty despite being limited by the constitution [08:49].

The people are sovereign, and members of Parliament should be constitutionalists, recognising the limitations of their power imposed by the constitution [09:07].

The English constitution is not taught in bar exams, resulting in judges being unaware of constitutional rights and common law, with this information being removed from the curriculum in the early 1970s [09:32].

“I am a constitutionalist,” Moore emphasised. “Parliament is limited by the constitution, that is factual. They never teach you that in school. And you know when they removed it? Do you know when they removed it from school curriculums? Do you know when they removed it from the bar exams so judges don’t know what your constitution is? …  They took it out of the curriculum in the early 1970s” [9:14].

He continued: “Anyone here guess why they did that? The European Community Act (1972) was unlawful, it was unconstitutional, it was ultra vires. And the reason they removed it is because they knew it affected every one of your sovereignties. There was an argument with Ted Heath and he literally stopped everyone [from] understanding exactly what the constitution meant. They kept their mouth shut. They committed treason. To subvert the English constitution is to commit treason against the English” [9:28].

“I am an Englishman,” he said. “When I talk of my country I talk of England. Britain is an island. We share this island. It’s called Great Britain for a reason; it contains three nation states that are independent of each other. The Acts of Union created a political union. Political unions are a stepping stone to the new world order. It started a long long long time ago” [10:26].

[Note: The Acts of Union refer to two Acts of Parliament passed in 1706 and 1707, which merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, and then later, in 1801, Ireland, into a single Kingdom of Great Britain.]

The Act of Settlement and its Importance

The 1701 Act of Settlement, specifically Chapter 4, states that the laws of England are the birthright of the people, and it is their job to pass on the eternal flame of freedom to the next generation [11:02].

The Act of Settlement is a crucial constitutional document that outlines the hierarchy of the King and peers, and what they can and cannot do, but parts of it have been repealed, which they shouldn’t have done. [11:52].

Three Whips in Parliament and the Role of Members of Parliament

A three-line whip, or three whip, in Parliament is considered unlawful and is a coded system. A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party’s position with serious consequences for non-compliance.  Members of Parliament are supposed to represent their constituents, not the King, Lords or a political party [12:03].

Many politicians, including Nigel Farage, are unaware of the constitution and the history of America, including the story of Benedict Arnold who betrayed George Washington and so became a traitor.  Arnold is an example of treason [12:54].

“Everyone turned their backs on [Arnold]; the Americans turned their back, the Canadians turned their back because they knew what treason meant. Treason is when you betray your nation,” Moore said. “We should never betray this nation.”

The End of Slavery in England

The English stopped slavery, not the British, and this is an example of how people have been misled about their history [14:11].

Ancestors of the English people were taken as slaves, with examples including the “stolen village of Baltimore” in southern Ireland, where the entire village was enslaved, and the taking of Irish and English people to slavers in America, a fact not commonly taught in history [14:22].

The English defeated slavery through cases such as Somerset vs Steuart in 1772, where a barrister stated that no one could be a slave and breathe the air of England, as it was too pure for any slave to breathe free [15:07].

Following this case, black people came to England to be free and were looked after by white people, with many flocking to St George’s Square in London [15:42].

Modern Betrayal and Misinformation

The English people are now being betrayed by those who have been convinced that the system is about English racism, when in fact the racism comes from the British Empire [16:07].

The same people who told the public that the covid injections were “safe and effective” are also telling them that they do not have a constitution and that they are British, not English [16:27].

Legal Cases Against King Charles III and Police Officers

A group of people, including Moore, are taking King Charles III and four police officers to court under universal jurisdiction and have already been through the process [17:19].

The English stopped torturing people in 1640 and previously used to rendition Englishmen to be tortured in Scotland until 1708 [17:33].

A new law, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 134, allows for the prosecution of torture, and a case is being brought against King Charles III for torture in Texas [17:51].

The police are being brought to court for torturing people on the streets of London, with one member, 23 years old, being completely passive when attacked by police officers [18:21].

[Note: Moore published a video update shortly after his speech at the Heritage Party Conference.  You can watch his update on Rumble HERE.]

Cases of Torture and Universal Jurisdiction

The Royal Dutch Shell company was involved in a case where they ordered the torture and murder of 11 Nigerian eco-warriors who were trying to protect their village, and the family of the victims tried to bring the case to the High Court of England but was rejected, and they eventually got a massive out-of-court settlement in New York under universal jurisdiction [18:51].

The problem lies in the British system, which is part of the new world order that needs a way of controlling nation states, and this is achieved by creating a union that sits above the nation and is controlled by foreigners [19:46].

The English Bill of Rights and other documents prevent independent interference with a nation, so a union is created to control the nation from above, as seen in the cases of the USSR, the European Union and the United States of America [20:08].

The American Revolution and its True Nature

The battles in America were about a confederacy versus a Roman federal centralised system, and it was not about slavery but about control [20:40].

The Texans adopted the English common law and the English constitution as part of their state constitution in 1836, making them more English than the English, and this is why cases can be brought to Texas [21:13].

The Peterloo Massacre and the Fight for Voting Rights

The British attacked unarmed men, women and children at Peterloo in 1819, killing 19 people, and this event led to the working class demanding the right to vote [21:39].

The British repealed parts of the English Bill of Rights unlawfully and buried it in legislation without informing the public, taking away people’s rights bit by bit [22:18].

To take back rights and achieve real solutions, it is necessary to void the Acts of Union and the Balfour Declaration, which would have no authority, and to have constitutionalists who are knowledgeable about the law [22:35].

The Distinction Between English and British Identity and the Erosion of National Identities

Moore emphasised the distinction between being English and being British, with Moore identifying as English first and stating that the British brought in two Acts of Parliament [23:01].

He said the British Nationality Act of 1947 and 1981 were significant events, with the 1981 act erasing the identity of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish men, replacing it with the term “British.”  Moore compares this to the actions of Joseph Stalin in the USSR [23:12].

Being called “British,” he said, means having no rights, as rights are associated with being English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish [24:01].

Challenging the British Establishment, Juries, Common Law and Sovereignty

The British establishment and ruling class can be challenged by understanding the constitution and individual rights [25:40].

Moore discussed the importance of juries and common law rights, with the Chief Justices attempting to erase juries and install administrative law, similar to the European Union’s legal system [26:00].

He explained the concept of sovereignty, with people being sovereign apart from Parliament, and Members of Parliament not being allowed to call themselves as such because they are not members of the true Parliament [26:33].

He also discussed the relationship between the Crown, Parliament, and the Government, with Parliament belonging to the Crown and the Government being part of the Crown [27:00].

He mentioned the court system, with the implication that people need to understand their rights and the system to navigate it effectively [27:10].

A jury in England, once sworn in, operates under their own conscience and has the power to nullify all law, including common law, the King’s law, and parliamentary law, making them the only people in England with this authority [27:28].

When a jury delivers a “not guilty” verdict, it is final and cannot be appealed, although a misdirected jury can be appealed [27:55].

As members of a jury have the power to nullify all laws, it makes them sovereign, a right that comes from England’s ancestors and should be passed down to future generations [28:16].

The English Constitution, Race, and Social Justice

The English constitution does not mention colour or race, and the English are not racist, but they will stand up for their nation and laws [28:50].

The common law of England is considered the number one social justice system in the world, which is why communists seek to defeat it, as stated by Karl Marx [29:05].

Marx mentioned that every communist revolution has been “shipwrecked on the rock of England,” specifically referring to England rather than Britain [29:18].

The Importance of English Identity and the English Constitution

Moore again emphasised the distinction between being English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh or British, encouraging people to identify as English rather than British [29:32].

He stressed the importance of Englishmen understanding and standing up for the English constitution [30:09].