WHEN HEALING CANCER BECOMES A CRIME
DEFENCE WITNESS STATEMENT
(C J Act 1967 s9: MCA 1980 ss5A(3)(a) and 5B: Criminal Procedures Rules 2005 R27.1)
Statement of : ANDREW HARRIS. Age: 50 Years. Occupation : RETIRED.
This statement consisting of 4 page(s) signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and i make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i have wilfully stated anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I Andrew Harris am a Sovereign Subject; I am also the Original Sole Founder of http://www.triamazon.com
I am a victim of crimes by various New Labour Government Agencies namely: Unlawful Detention, Kidnapping, Restriction of Free Trade, Criminal Damage, Theft, Racial Discrimination, Personal Injury, Character Assassination, committed against me while receiving services from the NHS, DWP, MHRA and a private company namely GlaxoSmithKline.
I am also a victim of the Daily Mirror newspaper and treasonous government ministers known and not known to be drug company shareholders.
I and many of my fellow Sovereign Subjects are the Victims of the private company policies commonly known as (Acts & Statutes of Parliament) enforced upon me by Alistair Maclean Darling (born 28 November 1953) who is currently trading as a private for profit business commonly referred to and known as the New Labour Party.
In answer to the unjust charges brought against me, my defence relies upon article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215.
Lawful Rebellion.
Some one recently asked me the question; what is Lawful Rebellion?
Rebellion in itself has a number of different meanings and is in fact quite close to another word that seems to be on everyones lips; Revolution. Defined meaning of Rebellion; Refusal to accept some authority or code or convention. An act or show of defiance toward an authority or established government.
Defined meaning of Lawful; Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent. (The lawful refusal to conform to the authority that is unjust)
Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly.
Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us and this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of this simple constraint.
Article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that being quite simply us the people; we have Sovereignty not any Parliament and nor can this be taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have taken the peoples Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed by a Parliament to remove the power the people possess, or to remove the power from the point of constraint we invested the power in, is invalid as it falls outside of the constraint laid down by Common/Constitutional Law.
This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms to be removed or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute and subsequent law or legislation formed by these actions, that effects our freedoms asserted to us, is quite evidently unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal.
By invoking article 61 we are quite clearly stating that we feel we are being governed unjustly and after giving the head of state (Her Majesty) 40 days to correct this, if this is not corrected, then we can simply enter into lawful rebellion and we do this under the full protection of our Constitutional Law.
Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse; Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country. Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard. To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breached the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61. Above are listed the three main ways we can as a people rely upon article 61 and what this allows for.
The British people were given over 700 years ago a Law to use as there recourse when faced with either a Parliamentary dictatorship, or a Sovereign trying to rule by Divine Right, which amounts to the same thing. We have a right, and a birth right at that, to be governed properly under our birth right law and no other and certainly not by laws introduced on the pretence of being British Law, when in fact all laws passed since 1973 have been European laws in the guise of British law. We have a right to freedom within our true law and no Parliament can remove this for they were not present in its implementation nor did it need any Parliament, or any Parliament involvement, this was quite simply a deal struck between the people and a Sovereign, a deal which can never be broken.
The traitors that reside in the Parliament of this country only fear one thing and that quite simply is us the people and they know that they can never defend themselves, or defend their treasonous actions, lies and deceit against the power of the people, asserted by and given by, the founding document of our Constitution Magna Carta 1215. They realize, as many others do, that once the British public grasps the power of Magna Carta in both hands and start to use it in their defence; their game is quite simply up.
What does Magna Carta stand for?
In stands for freedom, that the people have Sovereignty that cannot be removed by anyone and it stands for the only real true rule of law; that no one, without exception, is above the law.
What does Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 (Lawful Rebellion) stand for? You have Sovereignty, realize it, and use it.
When i was first convicted under The Cancer Act 1939, i told the Magistrates that i wanted to be tried by jury at Crown Court, immediately after entering my plea of NOT GUILTY, I was denied my right to a fair trial when the case was heard on a later date by ONE district judge, all by himself he Declared me guilty as he represented the Department of Justice which by the way has a County Court Judgement registered against it and it is a private for profit business registered as trading just like everything else that passes itself off in a deceptive manner as a Public Authority.
The Bill of Rights was an Act of re-enforcement and re-statement of the Common Law of this land.
The Bill of Rights was enacted by Parliament in recognition of the conditions contained within the Declaration of Rights its preamble document.
Parliament itself has provided evidence of its own responsibility to uphold Common Law. FACT!
So for an example of their blatant disregard for the Common Law of this land; the clause that says That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegal and void. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. So any court of law that denies your right to a jury, is acting outside of its lawful duty to uphold the Common Law of this land and this should be maintained by all those swearing the Judicial Oath of Allegiance. Please note a jury is the most powerful element in any court of law for they have the power to null a case and even to go against the law if they feel the law is unjust, hence why juries are being denied in the courts; even more evidence of the power of the people!!
Lets take for another example the MPs Oath of Allegiance and their blatant disregard for the Oaths they swore and Parliaments conduct over the past 100 years. All Statutory and Parliamentary Acts of law must adhere to one simple rule all Statutes/Acts of Parliament must only be for the strengthening and preserving of the Common Law of this land. Any Statute/Act of Parliament to the contrary is not valid as proven by. That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holdenand observed as they are expressed in the said DeclarationAnd all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in alltimes to come.
So all Ministers who have swore allegiance to Her Majesty are required by Common Law and by the evidence of their sworn oath, to maintain the format of Government in accordance with the terms of the Coronation Oath, an Oath taken by the Queen to regulate the Government in accordance to the laws and customs of the people entrenched in the Common Law of this land. Any minister who breaks this oath has removed his legitimacy to his position within Parliament by his own actions and the evidence of his none legitimacy is in the above.
As Major and Straw have both said on past occasions Parliament is without the authority to require the Queen to break the terms of her coronation oath.this, quite simply, says it all.
I urge the Judge dealing with this case to personally issue an order and to oversee the order carried out in its entire completion for the immediate commencement of Criminal Investigations with all crimes reported in this statement including the offence of Treason committed against this country and its people, as to NOT do so would bring into question the integrity and oath of office and the committing of an offence under law by the readers of this document who hold a position of lawful authority.
Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous