|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Last month, Steven Ward delivered a letter to King Charles III and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stating they have violated the rule of law. By doing so they have acted unconstitutionally.
Using Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as the foundational documents for the rule of law in the UK’s constitutional arrangements, Ward explains to the two men why they have violated it. The violations centre around the covid so-called vaccines and allowing foreign influences to cause harm to British subjects.
In the case of Charles III, his violations of the rule of law also includes entering into arrangements with foreign governments and organisations, such as the World Economic Forum to initiate and promote The Great Reset.
Ward has called for them to both “stand down” as, constitutionally, they are untrustworthy and unfit to proceed with matters of the State.
The uncodified constitution of the UK is understood by few. And few will be familiar with the concepts raised by Ward in his letter. So, we have dived in and attempted to provide context and background that will help our readers understand Ward’s ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’.
It’s a long one folks, so grab a cuppa and then settle in.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Table of Contents
The UK Constitution
The UK constitution is a complex system of rules and principles that govern the United Kingdom (“UK”). Unlike many other countries, the UK has no single codified constitution document. The sources of the UK constitution are Acts of the UK Parliament, conventions, common law and authoritative works such as Albert Venn Dicey, a British constitutional lawyer and theorist whose works came to underpin the widely accepted doctrine known as “parliamentary sovereignty” (which Dicey saw as central to the UK constitution).
In his book ‘Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution’ (1885), Dicey also popularised the phrase “rule of law” but its use goes back to the 17th century.
According to Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales from 2017 to 2023, the rule of law has been a central feature of the UK’s constitutional arrangements since at least the late 1600s. Even though the rule of law has only been explicitly acknowledged as such in legislation since the Constitutional Reform Act (2005).
“The Act states that the rule of law is an existing constitutional principle, without defining what exactly it means. The courts have yet to be called upon to offer a definition or determine any of its components,” Lord Burnett said during a Blackstone lecture in 2021.
As Steven Ward understands it, Lord Burnett was correctly making a distinction between the UK’s constitutional arrangements and the UK’s constitutional principles, while noting that the rule of law had been part of the constitutional arrangements for hundreds of years before it was written into legislation in 2005 as a constitutional principle.
“Constitutional arrangements” is the term used to describe the collection of sources that make up the UK constitution. As previously mentioned, these sources include Acts of Parliament (legislation), common law (legal principles and judicial decisions or case law), the Monarch’s residual powers (constitutional monarchy) and conventions (unwritten rules and practices).
“Constitutional principles” on the other hand, are principles that shape the use of political power. They provide a framework for the functioning of the UK’s political system and the relationship between the state and its citizens. The four main constitutional principles that are recognised by the UK Supreme Court are parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law, democracy and international law.
The Rule of Law
The rule of law is a defining feature of constitutional democracies and a fundamental principle underpinning the British constitution. It prevents the abuse of state power, requires the law to be followed by all and ensures that legal rights are fulfilled in practice. It also underpins social functioning and stable economies by providing clear and legitimate dispute resolution mechanisms and facilitating the elimination of corruption. The rule of law alone is not sufficient to make a state democratic, but a state which does not observe it cannot be a healthy democracy.
There is no one universally agreed definition of the rule of law, but its core concepts include legality, legal certainty, equality before the law, protection for fundamental rights, judicial independence and access to justice.
What is the Rule of Law? The Constitution Unit
It is the contravention of the rule of law that forms the basis of a ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’ that Steven Ward delivered to King Charles III and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer last month.
On 18 September Ward, who uses the moniker Stong Aingel, sent a letter to King Charles III and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stating that neither were following the rule of law and so should stand down and consequentially, “Parliament(s) must be prorogued until lawful Elections are held.”
Ward points out that Charles III has contravened the “Rule of Law” in more than one instance and Starmer has contravened both the “Rule of Law” and the “rule of law” in more than one instance.
Ward labels the rule of law which forms part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements as “rule of law” in lowercase format. For the rule of law as a constitutional principle, Ward labels it in the proper noun format, “Rule of Law.” By doing so he is distinguishing between the rule of law that applies equally to all and the Rule of Law that shapes the use of political power. This is the same nomenclature that is commonly used. For example, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy states:
The phrase “the Rule of Law” has to be distinguished from the phrase “a rule of law.” The latter phrase is used to designate some particular legal rule like the rule against perpetuities or the rule that says we have to file our taxes by a certain date. Those are rules of law, but the Rule of Law is one of the ideals of our political morality and it refers to the ascendancy of law as such and of the institutions of the legal system in a system of governance.
The Rule of Law, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
As Lord Burnett said, the rule of law has been in use since the end of the 1600s. An internet search reveals that the concept of the rule of law has its roots in medieval England, particularly in Magna Carta (1215) and the Bill of Rights (1689). While the exact phrase “rule of law” was not used until the 16th century, the principles underlying it were established centuries earlier in Magna Carta.
It’s not possible to put an exact date on when the use of the rule of law in England began as it evolved gradually over time. The phrase “rule of law” first appeared in an English text around 1500. However, it was not until later in the 16th century that the concept gained prominence. England’s Glorious Revolution led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights (1689), an Act of the Parliament of England, which further entrenched the rule of law and protected individual rights. And as mentioned above, in the 19th century, A.V. Dicey wrote extensively on the rule of law, emphasising its importance and describing it as the “unwritten constitution” of England.
Individual Rights Determine Constitutional Arrangements, Not the Other Way Around
In his 2021 Blackstone lecture, Lord Burnett defined the rule of law by referencing Lord Bingham’s book ‘The Rule of Law’ (2011). Lord Bingham defined the rule of law as comprising eight sub-rules, which include accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law, and the law must apply equally, as well as the protection of fundamental human rights and the provision of fair adjudicative procedures.
Dicey described the rule of law as acting in three ways: the predominance of regular law over arbitrary power, equality before the law and the idea that constitutional laws are the consequence of individual rights rather than their source.
The last action of the rule of law “constitutional laws are the consequence of individual rights rather than their source” is an important concept to understand.
Many believe that the constitution determines what our individual rights are. This may be the case for countries where the constitutions are codified but as Dicey argued this is not the case in the UK and it is, in fact, the other way around.
According to Dicey, individual rights are not explicitly stated in a written document but rather are developed and refined through the ordinary law of the land, as interpreted and applied by the courts (common law). This process of judicial decision-making and common law development ultimately gives rise to the constitution. At the beginning of this article, we mentioned that common law (or case law) is one of the sources of the UK’s uncodified constitution. In short, the UK constitution is developed around individual rights.
It is generally accepted that Magna Carta (1215) and the Bill of Rights (1969) are the two documents that played a pivotal role in the development of the rule of law in England. And it is within these documents that a clearer picture of the rule of law begins to emerge.
Both documents support Dicey’s concept that constitutional laws are a consequence of individual rights. Both Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights limit the powers of the Monarch and Parliament while reinforcing and confirming individual rights. What it seems to boil down to is that the rule of law relates to the limitation of the Monarch/Parliament’s powers so the Monarch/Parliament do not encroach on our inalienable rights and freedoms.
Origins of Our Constitutional Rights
While often referred to as a revolutionary document, Magna Carta built on existing rights and liberties rather than creating new ones from scratch.
A 2019 essay written by a law graduate at the University of Alabama stated, “Magna Carta … is not the origin of our liberty-loving rights. Magna Carta is rather a later stone placed upon an Anglo-Saxon legal foundation started by Alfred’s compilation of laws, the Doombook.”
“King Alfred compiled these laws toward the end of the ninth century. He consolidated longstanding customs and practices from the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and added Biblical authority,” the essay noted.
A 2015 British Library blog stated that the earliest surviving Anglo-Saxon law code was actually issued around the year 600 by King Æthelberht of Kent. These Anglo-Saxon laws emphasised the importance of fairness, justice and equality before the law. And it was the Bible that provided the model for good kingship.
The Ten Commandments were a particularly important model for the drafting of Anglo-Saxon law codes. They are referenced in the laws of Alfred the Great (r. 871–899) and formed part of the preface to his law book, grounding the secular laws in biblical precedents. God’s law is also specifically referenced in the longest Anglo-Saxon law code, which begins with the line, ‘I desire that justice be promoted and every injustice suppressed, that every illegality be eradicated from this land with the utmost diligence, and the law of God promoted’. This was issued by King Cnut (r. 1016–1035) with the advice of his counsellors.
Bringing our medieval manuscripts to life, Medieval manuscripts blog, British Library, 29 March 2015
Rather than instruct what people can do, the Ten Commandments instruct people what they cannot do. These laws apply equally to all; everyone is equal before the law. If it is not forbidden in the Law of Moses, or more correctly forbidden by God, then it is an inalienable right. It is God’s law that gives us our inalienable rights, our fundamental freedoms that cannot be taken away or transferred from one person to another. It is these God-given inalienable rights which are embedded in the UK constitution and its rule of law.
Introduction to ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’
Ward’s letter uses a lot of legalese so is not easy to read or understand. We are not lawyers and we are even less so constitutional lawyers. We will do our best to interpret what Ward is saying in his letter to Charles III and Starmer. To do so we have taken a deep dive into the constitutional documents Ward references in his letter. Needless to say, we are not able to assess whether Ward is constitutionally correct but his letter opens up the topic for public debate.
Images of Ward’s letter can be found on his Twitter profile HERE. We have concatenated the images from his tweet into a single PDF file and attached it below.
The letter begins with a description of on what basis, the “matters,” the letter is being served.
Ward then explains why Charles III as the constitutional monarch and Keir Starmer as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Lord of the Treasury are being served the ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’ starting with the distinction between the constitutional arrangements and constitutional principles.
“This Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements and the constitutional principle over the realm are separate matters,” he explained.
Referring to Lord Burnett’s 2021 Blackstone lecture Ward wrote, “The former Lord Chief Justice correctly separates subordinate constitutional arrangements, i.e. rule of law Liberties, and the constitutional principle Rule of Law.”
We must confess, most likely due to our limited understanding, that we can’t explain why Ward has said the constitutional arrangements are secondary to the constitutional principles. The transcript of Lord Burnett’s lecture only uses the lowercase “rule of law” so no clues as to Ward’s meaning are available from this lecture alone.
By “Liberties”, Ward is referring to the Charter of Liberties, also known as the Coronation Charter, which was a written proclamation issued by Henry I of England upon his accession to the throne in 1100. This charter aimed to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials and people. One of the Liberties was the protection of rights; it confirmed the rights of the Church and the people of England. You can read Henry I’s Charter of Liberties HERE.
The Charter of Liberties is believed to have Anglo-Saxon origins, with the first surviving example being that of Henry I in 1100. This type of coronation charter would later influence the drawing up of Magna Carta in 1215, also known as Magna Carta Libertatum or the Great Charter of Liberties. While both charters aimed to limit royal power and establish law as a power in itself, Magna Carta was more comprehensive and far-reaching.
Ward’s letter then moves into an explanation of the Spiritual Constitution, Temporal Constitution and the Covenant, starting with Magna Carta (1297).
King Edward I’s Confirmation of the Charters
Magna Carta has been issued several times since its initial signing in 1215 by King John. The first reissue occurred in 1216, shortly after the death of John, when his nine-year-old son Henry III was crowned. According to David M. Rubenstein, this version would stay in effect until 1225 when Henry III, on the official assumption of the throne at age 18, issued a shorter version.
Eighty-two years after it was first issued, in 1297 King Edward I (Henry III’s son) reissued Magna Carta by an act known as the Confirmation of the Charters. The Confirmation of the Charters adopted the text of King Henry III’s 1225 issue of Magna Carta. It is Edward I’s 1297 version of Magna Carta that was entered into the official Statute Rolls and is currently recognised as law in England and by extension, the UK.
Several words of Edward I’s Confirmation of the Charters (1297) have since been repealed. But what remains is a confirmation that “the Charter of Liberties … which were made by Common Assent of all the Realm, in the time of King Henry our Father, shall be kept in every point without breach.”
What is equally important and should not be overlooked, Ward points out, is the words written immediately before the confirmation of liberties. King Edward I declared:
EDWARD, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guyan, To All those that these present Letters shall hear or see, Greeting. Know Ye that We, to the honour of God, and of Holy Church, and to the Profit of our Realm, have granted for us and our Heirs, that the Charter of Liberties … which were made by Common Assent of all the Realm, in the time of King Henry our Father, shall be kept in every point without breach. [Emphasis added]
Confirmation of the Charters (1297), Legislation, UK Government
This introduces the spiritual element of the UK constitution. As Ward noted in his letter: “by the grace of God” confirms the “Spiritual Constitution,” “to the honour of God” confirms the “Covenant,” “by Common Assent” confirms the “Temporal Constitution” which refers to all people who believe in the name of Jesus Christ.
In the context of Magna Carta, “Temporal” refers to the worldly, secular domain, which was distinct from the Spiritual realm governed by the Church.
King Edward I Reissues Magna Carta
According to Ward, Magna Carta contains three definitive sections for the rule of law by the Rule of Law. In other words, the rule of law (constitutional arrangements) that politicians must abide by according to constitutional principles.
The long title of Magna Carta (1297) states: “The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest; confirmed by King Edward, in the twenty-fifth year of his reign.”
The 1297 Magna Carta’s confirmation of liberties affirmed the spiritual and temporal intention of the covenant when it included the words from Henry III’s Magna Carta (1225). Magna Carta (1297) states:
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 our faithful Subjects, which shall see this present Charter, Greeting: Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls of our Progenitors and Successors [Kings of England,] to the advancement of 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 [Freemen] of this our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever. [Emphasis added]
Magna Carta (1297), Legislation, UK Government
The liberties mentioned in Magna Carta are “to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.” “For ever” does not mean until another monarch decides these liberties should be revoked. Nor does it mean until Parliament decides to replace or override them.
Magna Carta issued in 1215 contained 63 clauses. You can read a copy of Magna Carta (1215), originally written in Latin, which has been translated into English on the National Archives website HERE. Magna Carta issued in 1297 contained 37 clauses. You can read a copy of Magna Carta (1297) translated into modern English HERE. Since it was issued in 1297, 34 clauses have been repealed and, presumably, placed into other statutes. However, 3 clauses remain to this day:
- I Confirmation of Liberties
- IX Liberties of London, &c.
- XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice
As well as Magna Carta’s long title and the three clauses, the words of enactment and signatories’ names at the end also remain. This end section is titled ‘General Saving. Observance of these Liberties. Subsidy, in respect of this Charter and Charter of the Forest.’
To make it easier for our readers, we have copied the text from Magna Carta (1297) that remains as UK law below:
I Confirmation of Liberties.
FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
IX Liberties of London, &c.
THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs [which it hath been used to have]. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.
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 other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [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.
General Saving. Observance of these Liberties. Subsidy, in respect of this Charter and Charter of the Forest.
Reserving to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Templars, Hospitallers, Earls, Barons, and all Persons, as well Spiritual as Temporal, all their [free Liberties] and free Customs, which they have had in time passed. And all these Customs and Liberties aforesaid, which We have granted to be holden within this our Realm, [as much as appertaineth to Us and our Heirs, we shall observe; and] all Men of this our Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal, [as much as in them is, shall observe the same against all Persons, in like wise.] And for this our Gift and Grant of these Liberties, and of other contained in our Charter of Liberties of our Forest, the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Knights, Freeholders, and other our Subjects, have given unto Us the Fifteenth Part of all their Moveables. And We have granted unto them on the other part, that neither We nor our Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the Liberties in this Charter contained shall be infringed or broken. And if any thing be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shall be had of no force nor effect. These being Witnesses …
Magna Carta (1297), Legislation, UK Government
Remember the last sentence “if any thing be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shall be had of no force nor effect” for later in this article.
The UK Parliament website states: “These clauses remain law today, and provided the basis for important principles in English law developed in the fourteenth through to the seventeenth century, and which were exported to America and other English-speaking countries.”
Further reading: Magna Carta Key Facts, Britannica
Bill of Rights 1689
Another pivotal document in English constitutional law is the English Bill of Rights, also known as the Bill of Rights 1689.
Signed into law by William III and Mary II in 1689, it established specific constitutional and civil rights, limiting the power of the monarchy and affirming Parliament’s authority. It purported to introduce no new principles but merely to declare explicitly the existing law.
The Bill of Rights restated and expanded the principles outlined in Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and other earlier charters. Like Magna Carta, it played a significant role in shaping the concept of the rule of law in England.
It established certain fundamental rights and liberties, including the right to a fair trial, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and the protection of property. It firmly established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech within Parliament, which is known today as Parliamentary Privilege. It also includes prohibiting the Monarch’s right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement, freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just treatment of people by the courts.
The English Bill of Rights created a constitutional monarchy in England, meaning the Monarch acts as head of state but his or her powers are limited by law. Under this system, the monarchy couldn’t rule without the consent of Parliament.
The English Bill of Rights was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights (1789). Its influence can also be seen in other documents establishing people’s rights, such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British
Charles III and Starmer Have Contravened the Rule of Law
To remind ourselves, in Ward’s letter, as is the convention, “rule of law” denotes the rule of law found in the constitutional arrangements (written and unwritten) and includes supremacy of the law and that all are equal before the law. The “Rule of Law” denotes the rule of law in the constitutional principles which provide the framework within which politics takes place.
In contravention of the Rule of Law and the rule of law, Charles III and Starmer have committed dereliction of duty and misconduct in public office, Ward notified the two men in his letter.
Concerning experimental vaccines, both men have encouraged, nurtured, manufactured and distributed harmful products that are capable of destroying life. These products were procured “on the part of foreign voices,” Ward wrote. By doing so, unwarranted distress and injury on “subjects of or on the land” has been caused.
Additionally, Ward wrote, foreign influence has been allowed to enter “the fold” on their terms. “The fold” is a reference to the Spiritual Constitution. Ward uses the Vulgate’s (Latin version of the Holy Bible) The Gospel According to John, chapter 10, verse 16 to define “the fold.” For the King James Version please read HERE.
The last accusation in Ward’s letter to Charles III and Starmer also concerns foreign influence by “adopting contrary arrangements and agreements with foreign governments and persons, without Referendum and or effective, diligent consultation,” and racketeering. Ward gave an example of the racketeering:
E.G. “donations” made to The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which body was aware in October 2020 a “high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs)” was imminent. However, propaganda otherwise was voiced at the lawful.
‘Upon the following Matters’, Letter Upon Constitutional Principle, From Steven Ward to Charles III and Keir Starmer, 18 September 2024
Specific Accusations
At the end of his letter, Ward describes accusations specific for each of Charles III and Starmer.
Charles III has contravened the Rule of Law by remaining silent while foreign influences “call[ ] from within and without Crown premisses.” Charles III also contravened the Rule of Law by adopting arrangements and/or deadly agreements with foreign governments and other foreign influences without “Referendum.” Indeed, Ward noted, Charles III has “made a virtual address (2020) promoting The Great Reset plot of an unelected, unaccountable body (World Economic Forum) that harbours individuals boasting of eugenics and similar unnatural ethics.”
Starmer has contravened the Rule of Law as he is an accessory and abettor of foreign influences. Starmer has also contravened the Rule of Law by “arranging contrary arrangements and or deadly agreements with foreign governments and other foreign influences without Referendum.”
Because he has contravened the Rule of Law (constitutional principles), Starmer is “wrongly holding authoritative position” over the land of the English people. As such, Starmer is a “stranger” in the land or “premises.” As Magna Carta, which is UK law to this day, states: “ … if any thing be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shall be had of no force nor effect.”
We weren’t able to establish what “premises” means in the context of Magna Carta. However, we could infer – since the document primarily focuses on establishing liberties, rights and limitations on the king’s power, particularly regarding the English Church, nobility and commoners – that the concept of “premises” incorporates property rights, liberty and customs, and allowing the Christian church to operate freely and independent from royal interference.
Note: After publishing our article, a reader commented that the word “premises” means “the (necessary) basis of the aforementioned (rules/stipulations/rights).” In other words, the reasons why the text of Magna Carta was written. The sentence containing “premises” was lifted from the words of enactment, at the end of Magna Carta (1297). So, by “aforementioned” our reader is referring to Magna Carta’s text.
In the context of logical reasoning, premises are the underlying assumptions or facts that lead to a logical conclusion. Wikipedia notes that in logic, “premise” can also be spelt “premiss.”
In the case of legislation, a proposal’s underlying assumptions, principles and justification would be rooted in premises (propositions or statements) that establish the need for regulation. In an Act of Parliament, the logical form of premises (or premisses) is used to establish the foundation for a legislative proposal, such as a bill or amendment. In an Act of Parliament, premises are often written within the text of the Act, either explicitly stated or implied.
This would mean “premises” refers to the underlying logic and justification for which Magna Carta was established; the premises (or premisses) which are explicitly stated or implied within Magna Carta’s text.
Finally, Starmer has been engaged in the tort of deceit from which he has wrongly financially gained, Ward said. The tort of deceit, also known as fraudulent misrepresentation, is a legal cause of action that arises when one party intentionally deceives another, causing harm or loss. In this case, Starmer is contravening both the Rule of Law and the rule of law.
Charles III and Starmer are Untrustworthy and Unfit
In light of the specific accusations against them, Ward said, Charles III and Starmer are “untrustworthy” and “unfit” according to the word of the King of kings (Spiritual Constitution) under which they rule or arrange rulings (Temporal Constitution). Consequentially, they are unentitled and not permitted to proceed with matters of the State and should “stand down.”
Ward gave Charles III and Starmer 30 days from the date of his letter to stand down. If they did not, lawful proceedings would be initiated:
I. We require CHARLES PHILLIP ARTHUR GEORGE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR and KEIR RODNEY STARMER to stand down, that we may rearrange the realm according to the Rule of Law, that rule of law upon the premises may be rectified as necessary, and the constitutional principle restored for the benefit of all subjects of and on the land.
II. CHARLES PHILLIP ARTHUR GEORGE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR and KEIR RODNEY STARMER will be permitted a full 30 days to review LETTER UPON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE from the date upon (it): And we pray, CHARLES PHILLIP ARTHUR GEORGE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR and KEIR RODNEY STARMER stand down as required of them. Corollary, Parliament(s) must be prorogued until lawful Elections are held.
Failure to acknowledge and uphold LETTER UPON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE Requirements I and II, as set out above, will result in lawful proceedings being initiated, in the Public Interest, within the appropriate jurisdiction.
Letter Upon Constitutional Principle, From Steven Ward to Charles III and Keir Starmer, 18 September 2024
We are now more than 30 days after the Ward delivered his letter. As of yet, there is no update on either Ward’s Twitter profile or Substack page.
Featured image: Copy of 13th century Magna Carta, Getty Images (left). King Charles III, Wikipedia (middle). UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Wikipedia (right).
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
I guarantee both of these “men” think they are above any law.
There contempt of the British People is on show.
Definition of royalty, to be above truth, history and the law. Symbolism for the covenant, where truth is chaos, law is order and history is the organization. So, to climb the fraternal orders and become royalty means that you’re above that.
Rule of law is also the law of commerce, and it is what they refer to by ‘waters’. Waters of commerce. In that, there is no such thing as involuntary servitude, it must be voluntary. Also, you control what you survey, hence all seeing eye, and Odin’s eye symbolizing incorporation.
By your description, Charles III may be considered above the law but Starmer and Parliament are not.
They are WEF puppets and following orders.
Judges won’t touch them as corrupt as the MSM.
Laughable B S!!
If that was true the Magna Carta and Parliment would not exist!
Same problem in America. They shredded the Constitution of the US, turned it into toilet paper. The laws of liberty are just in the way.
Klaus Schwab proudly boasts that his protégés are placed in most world governments, e.g. Canada/Trudeau where he claims half the cabinet are WEF members. Given Starmer’s recent preference for Davos over the UK, surely we’re looking at more than asking him to stand down? Imposing unelected outside influences to the detriment of the UK electorate can only be treason IMHO. Maybe someone with the necessary understanding of treason might want to seriously investigate this?
It’s all the foxes watching the henhouse. Spins around and around, goes no place.
We have no power to ask him to stand down
Democracy is a shame.
Starmer is in to finish off the job.
Next government will be a one world government.
Certainly looks likely but we must wake up everyone we can in time to stop a One World government. Many are shifting to the right side of things but we must be quick
People still don’t know enough about Schwab and theWEF…it’s appalling.
Rhoda,
That was worth reading, thankyou.
But, where is it all going? This is the grand question!
Any right thinking person after reading this must surely see the importance of Holy Writ in shaping the English/British constitutions throughout the history of what we call the UK which Charles lll & Starmer are now finally trampling underfoot? They are just the public faces representing what the Bible calls the mystery of lawlessness. (2 Thessalonians 2:7) which has been long and silently at work.
I quote, “there is no one agreed definition of the rule of law…”
Big problem!
Only God in Christ’s theocratic law will prevail upon His return (Habakkuk 2:14).
Hi Islander, pleased to see you remained true to your word 🙂
“Where is all this going?” I would hope a revival in large swathes of populations following God not man. But the truth? Only God knows …
Rhoda,
Speak every man truth with his neighbour. Ephesians 4:25.
If we don’t at least try to live by this, then we aren’t true Christians, are we?
Many people, even professing Christians don’t grasp the importance of constitutional law as upheld by God’s written word.
I have studied the Westminster Confession of Faith, and others, including the Anglican Thirty Nine Articles (based on Scripture). Why? Well, how do we know who to trust if we don’t? We well know the apostate state of todays church? Confessions aren’t constitutions, but godly men (kings of old) have been moved therefrom to perform righteous actions in all they do.
I did read through your excellent article (not that I clicked on every link), I think it “excellent” because I hope those who read it will study it and see God’s hand in this once most blessed of nations-now otherwise! But, alas, our attention spans are so short.. Far better than trying to figure out whether a nanobot is in this or the other vaccine!
As for “revival in large swathes of populations..” Being a historic premillennial believer of the Return of Christ (you might like to look up this term), I am sorry, this will NOT happen.
On another note:
Reading the online BBC News tonight, how many that visit this ere site would disagree with what was written on the placard of the now deceased ‘rioter’ Peter Lynch?
This poor man got sucked in by a staged ‘riot’ planned by TPTB.
Hi Islander, what was written on his placard?
news/articles/cpw5w8nl5ezo
Hi Islander, there’s something strange about the image in the BBC’s article. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but my instinct tells me it has the look of an AI generated or heavily doctored/superimposed image.
Rhoda, I think you could be right, how would I even know such a man even existed?
Back to constitutional law, I quote “it evolved gradually over time”, and layers were added on to it designed to confuse the ordinary man so we need constitutional lawyers to interpret it for us, when in essence it ought be inherently simple, as it really is!
Over the years I have tried to read and understand many a legal document, though written in English, I have always found the phraseology and words baffling! You needed to be schooled in the dark arts to write such documents and also to answer them(imho), so I would hire a lawyer.
So it will be with the coming antichrist-
And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. Daniel 8:23.
Hi Islander, I think Peter Lynch was alive and has now died – it’s BBC’s depiction of him in that image that’s questionable. BBC’s depiction in its text is, of course, is a narrative building PsyOp to bolster the many lies BBC have told for years and to cover their butts should anyone point the finger at them for playing a part in his arrest which led to his death.
Back to the law. Every specialised field seems to have it’s own lingo. Have you tried reading a science paper?
As regards the law, I don’t get too concerned by all the jargon because I only follow one law. If we follow God’s law (Natural Law) we will not be breaking the law. And if man made law (positive law) does not align with God’s law I consider it unlawful. So for me, the law is a relatively simple matter.
It follows that in my mind, unless you’re a lawyer or a judge who needs to use it in courts etc (i.e. the language of positive law courts), trying to understand legalese is pretty pointless.
[…] The UK Constitution […]
They’re are in league with the WEF who are intent to control food supply. This shows they are willing to let millions die from starvation or whichever jab they impose on the public. Whichever way you look at it, they are not working to improve the lives of the UK’s population.
Amen
Charlie twat is not king! He was never crowned king. He was crowned emperor. He is not even the true king. Ivan is the rightful heir:
https://www.ivanparty.org/
https://www.paulstramer.net/2024/09/international-public-notice-legislative.html
https://www.paulstramer.net/2024/09/international-public-notice-treaty-of.html
Keep your filthy language to your dirty self .🤨
United Kingdom and Great Britain are ONLY corporations. They are not countries. The physical actual countries are England, wales Scotland, Ireland. Countries are made of trees, rivers, animals roads, buildings, man woman all physical things. So right there this letter fails as it is addressing paper things- legal fictions and so will have no standing and will be ignored!
Cesspool mouth 🤮
I’ve only read the first sentence and realised there is a gross misunderstanding of the situation we are in. It precisely this incorrect use of words that continues the mess we are in
I’ll read it anyway and I’m sure it was well intended
Just saw a report on YouTube that Princess Ann and Prince William are making moves against Charles and and Camilla. Don’t know much about them, but it may fit in with this article.
Whoa. Maybe they’ll like throw them in the Tower in the Dungeon.
Rule of law!!
Rule for the globalists and its puppets and a Rule for the rest…
Judiciary, police are rotten to the core.
If you are hoping to be saved by the legal system you might as well line up for another Covid booster…
[…] La Constitution du Royaume-Uni […]
“Premises” here means on the (necessary) basis of the aforementioned (rules/stipulations/rights).
Hi Dave, thank you. As I type, I am adding a note to my article to say as much …
Hi Stuart James, democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy
If there is no democracy it is a failing of the people or the general population. It means the people are not getting involved in the governance of their country. Getting involved doesn’t just mean turning up to vote in elections every few years. The people are you and me. Have we made the error of not bothering to get involved in how our countries are run and so the politicians have taken over while we looked the other way?
Instead of admitting the people’s failings, you should be encouraging people to stand on the powers vested in them and to get involved. The success or failure of democracy depends on us, not the politicians. It is only when we, the people, do not actively participate in the administration of our country’s affairs that democracy does not exist.
This is the BIG problem!
“When we, the people, do not actively participate in the administration of our country’s affairs that democracy does not exist.”
I ask, why don’t the people “actively participate”?
You well know the answer-they have been suitably dumbed down through the BBC’s and all other medias endless entertainments, soaps and what have you..
Not only can I clearly see for myself that democracy was prophesied to fail in the Scriptures’, but why are the great majority not “involved” as you replied to Stuart?
Nevertheless, democracy DOES exist!
In bygone years, weekly, I used to watch BBCTV shows headed up by the likes of Robin Day (remember him?) to try and figure out what was going on, but back then I trusted “the Beeb”.
How different now!
Both men think they can do as they like – their arrogance is breathtaking!
It was long ago reported but not reported here, he converted to Islam in Turkey. He has no right to be on the throne. Treason by he and all who know it who are public figures here.
Irrelevant discussion! Who really cares? A distraction from this…
I just want to know, what happens to the British and French nukes AFTER the muslims take over!
If you can get this lot to confront the law and realize They are not above the rest of us — Than you are kings – The savoir of worlds<3
THE LIMEY THINKS THERE ARE LAWS. PFFT.
YOU ARE RULED BY A GANG OF RAPIST BABY KILLERS THAT PRINT FAKE MONEY. YOU ARE A SLAVE. GET SOME SILVER COINS AND TIP THE WAITRESS. LUCK CAN BE CULTIVATED BY THE PRACTICE OF HONEST CHARITY. FAKE MONEY CANNOT BE USED TO PRACTICE HONEST CHARITY BECAUSE IT WILL NOT MAKE YOU LUCKY. ONLY THE LUCKY GET TO BE BRAVE BECAUSE ONLY THE LUCKY CAN TAKE RISKS.
Limey😯 that’s an old word! You must be a hundred years old!
While Baroness Hallett, geriatric superstar of the UK’s seemingly interminable UK Covid Inquiry pantomime, swishes merrily away with the whitewash brush, the Biden administration is being prosecuted for their nefarous role in the global Great Covid Cull.
One would hope, for the sake of our American cousins and everyone else infected with the lab-made Sars-COV-2 bioweapon or injected with the even deadlier “cure” – the GMO pseudo “vaccines” – that the US judicary is less corrupt than their UK equivalents.
Don’t hold your breath!
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/biden-admin-accused-of-murder-treason
Britain is the biggest colonial thief in the History of the World. It violated the Magnar Carta, The Rule of Law, Human Rights and Freedom in the colonies around the world for over 350 years. Disgraceful.
[…] took a deep dive into what the rule of law is in the United Kingdom. You can read our article HERE. Unlike the UK, Ireland has a codified constitution. While the rule of law is not explicitly […]
[…] în profunzime ceea ce este statul de drept în Regatul Unit. Puteți citi articolul nostru AICI. Spre deosebire de Marea Britanie, Irlanda are o constituție codificată. În timp ce statul de […]
[…] took a deep dive into what the rule of law is in the United Kingdom. You can read our article HERE. Unlike the UK, Ireland has a codified constitution. While the rule of law is not explicitly […]
[…] took a deep dive into what the rule of law is in the United Kingdom. You can read our article HERE. Unlike the UK, Ireland has a codified constitution. While the rule of law is not explicitly […]
it would/should really be up to ‘we the people’ to do what is necessary to get back to english principles , culture and repair what is going on …
so no chance then as the electorate are generally stupid … voting puppet autocrat uniparty (tory labour libdem green especially) or arguably worse, abstaining and that is ontop of being any of divided, obtuse, apathetic, greedy, selfish, ignorant etc … all of which allow all the machinations against the country and its people to be sustained.
what is astounding is when one looks at what is going on (and has gone on) similarly (fake climate crisis, facilitated [illegal] immigration, extortionate cost of living, no real democracy, open borders, poisoned water and food systems, corrupted health care, etc) , in lock-step almost, in most white heritage western based nations .. it is not organic is it … must be a plan ! If the perpetrators didn’t intend it all to be as it is, then what would they have done differently.
the Bill of Rights (1969) or the Bill of Rights (1689)?
I have already written very comprehensive letters to the late Queen on the 12th June, 2018, the 4th November, 2021, the 2nd August, 2022 and to King Charles III on the 24th January, 2023, regarding the matters you raised in this article, but got no response from either of them. With the exception of the Queen regarding my letter dated 12th June, 2018, where I asked for her help to protect me from corrupt Police. This I believe she did by placing me ABOVE THE LAW for four and a half years till she died. Still, getting NO RESPONSE from either of them means they have broken their Coronation Oath to us and therefore must be removed from their positions (with the exception of the Queen who has been removed already).
[…] (*Note: Last year we published an article which demonstrated that Magna Carta, one of the sources of the UK constitution, confirms the Spiritual Constitution and the Temporal Constitution of the UK. In other words, constitutionally, the UK cannot exclude spiritual affairs from politics; if the British State were to do so, it would be acting unconstitutionally. For the sake of clarity: The Spiritual Constitution is represented specifically by the Christian Church and only the Christian Church. To find out more, you can read our article HERE.) […]
[…] (*Notă: anul trecut am publicat un articol care a demonstrat că Magna Carta, una dintre sursele constituției Regatului Unit, confirmă Constituția spirituală și Constituția temporală a Regatului Unit. Cu alte cuvinte, din punct de vedere constituțional, Regatul Unit nu poate exclude afacerile spirituale din politică, dacă statul britanic ar acționa în mod neconstituțional: Constituția spirituală este reprezentată în mod specific de Biserica Creștină mai multe, puteți citi articolul nostru AICI.) […]
[…] (*Note: Last year we published an article which demonstrated that Magna Carta, one of the sources of the UK constitution, confirms the Spiritual Constitution and the Temporal Constitution of the UK. In other words, constitutionally, the UK cannot exclude spiritual affairs from politics; if the British State were to do so, it would be acting unconstitutionally. For the sake of clarity: The Spiritual Constitution is represented specifically by the Christian Church and only the Christian Church. To find out more, you can read our article HERE.) […]
[…] (*Note: L’année dernière, nous avons publié un article qui démontrait que la Magna Carta, l’une des sources de la Constitution du Royaume-Uni, confirme la Constitution Spirituelle et la Constitution Temporelle du Royaume-Uni. En d’autres termes, constitutionnellement, le Royaume-Uni ne peut pas exclure les affaires spirituelles de la politique; si l’État britannique le faisait, il agirait de manière inconstitutionnelle. Par souci de clarté: La Constitution Spirituelle est représentée spécifiquement par l’Église Chrétienne et seulement l’Église Chrétienne. Pour en savoir plus, vous pouvez lire notre article ICI.) […]
I am appalled that so many people agree with the Climare & Nature Bill. They will not even look into the freedoms we will lose if this corrupt Bill passes. How can I wake them up?
[…] Read more: Charles III and Keir Starmer have violated the rule of law and must step down […]
[…] It’s not only his questionable beliefs that should make us question whether Charles III is fit to be the British monarch. We previously published an article about a letter sent to Keir Starmer and Charles III accusing them of breaking the rule of law and as a result demanding they step down from their roles. You can read this article HERE. […]
[…] rule of law and as a result demanding they step down from their roles. You can read this article HERE, which explains Charles’ role and limitations regarding the UK constitution, both the spiritual […]