To: ________________________ (Doing business as

________________

_________________________).

From:

Sent by recorded post.

Date:_________________

NOTICE TO STOP
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Dear ____________________,

Whereas I, __________________________stand fully under English

and Commonwealth Constitutional law in defence of the Sovereignty of
our nation at this time, which is to my understanding the lawful truth and
duty of ALL English and Commonwealth subjects, and evidently so
since Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect on the 23rd
March 2001 (see exhibits A & B) and, that I have complied entirely
within the law with 'lawful excuse' with regard to this matter (see exhibit
C), that being in a peaceful and honourable manner thus far, by putting
you ________________________ on notice of the evidential facts in an
attempt to remedy this matter lawfully, and to inform you of your own
duties under English Constitutional law.

By pledging an Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the barons whom

invoked said article, it makes it my sworn duty to “distress” the present
regime in any way I see fit, and this I do by 'Royal Command'. To my
understanding it is entirely unlawful to aid and abet the crown or ANY
of its agents at this time. I therefore DEMAND that you do due
diligence on this matter and STOP any further proceedings against me
unless and until it has been evidenced that my understandings of the law
are incorrect.

I _______________________ has 'lawful excuse' to “distress and

distrain” the present regime as I see fit until present constitutional
wrongs have been remedied. Proceeding against me SHALL make you
personally liable for any torts or criminal acts committed against me,
which will result in a counter-claim for extortion whilst demanding
monies with menaces if you do not immediately stop further
enforcement actions against me, whilst blatantly ignoring the
evidenced facts herein/therein provided.

Let me remind you that it is THE LAW that imposes these

conditions on us ALL. You are therefore personally responsible for
your acts and omissions under the law just like everybody else! I have
the right and duty to arrest you myself for your harassment and coercion
to aid and abet treason, and I am quite willing and capable of doing so!

The fact is that it is UNLAWFUL to aid and abet HIGH TREASON

AT COMMON LAW and thus to adhere to the demands
of_________________________________at this time is UNLAWFUL.
Ignore the evidence presented at your own Peril.

If you continue to ignore the RELEVANT points of constitutional law

herein/therein previous Notices served, and continue to harass me, then
by your own stupidity and ignorance it shall be understood by all
interested parties involved in this matter that you do so as a traitor to this
country; are an outlaw with no protection under the law; that you are
derisive and hostile toward me and the facts in law, which I have stated
and evidenced, and are thus a danger to the public. And that any further
actions taken against me shall be considered to be extremely serious and
hostile criminal acts.

Any reply MUST be made on your full commercial liability and on

penalty of perjury however, the time for correspondence is now over.
Any further action taken by you against me shall be considered by me
to be an act of hostility within an evidenced war of aggression
against the Sovereign people of this Realm and, which may be
countered by myself and or others with the right and duty of self
defence, and in defence of the Realm.

Without any admission of liability whatsoever and with all my

inalienable common law rights reserved.

With extreme prejudice, written under duress and protest and on my

full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

Maxim: “Actusme invito factus, non est meus actus.“ – 'An act done by
me against my will, is not my act.' - Especially with regard to any hostile
acts which may be necessary in self defence and or defence of the
nation.

Signed ___________________

Date:

Witnessed by:
Witness 1.

Witness 2.

Witness 3.

ENCLOSED EVIDENCE:

Exhibit A: Daily Telegraph report on the invocation of Article 61 “Peers

Petition Queen on Europe”;

Exhibit B: The Barons petition 2001;

Exhibit C: Article 61 the entire translated text;

Exhibit A:

Daily Telegraph report on the invocation of Article 61 - “Peers

Petition Queen on Europe”. By Caroline Davies -12:00am GMT 24 Mar
2001:

“FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta

yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.

The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton

of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the
ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the
Charter's Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a
vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient
rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed
on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a
quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then
have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688
at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November
1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the
Queen's private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and
letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of
thousands of members of the public.

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair
in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has
40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's provisions, if the
Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage
war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have
redress.”

Exhibit B:

The Barons petition 2001;

A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61

of Magna Carta 1215. 7th February 2001. To Defend British Rights
and Freedoms;

“Ma’am,

as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:

1. The loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient
rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a
member of the European Economic Community (now the European
Union) in 1973;

2. The terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause
significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the
rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to the
European Union:
a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom,
without the consent of your Government;
b) to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free
expression of political opinion;
c) which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice,
abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and
allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers of
enforcement;
d) to create a military force which will place British service personnel
under the command of the European Union without reference to British
interests,and contrary to:

i) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,

ii) the Queen’s Commission, and;
iii) the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation;

e) which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in

British interests;

3. The creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental

Rights, which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights” at
will;

4. The unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to:

a) suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and
detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath Act,
1688;
b) subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the
ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;

5. Your Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the

precedent set by Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the
Realm in 1707;

WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to

withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts
to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United
Kingdom have given clear and specific approval; to uphold and preserve
the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in
Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign,
swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath
of June 1953.

We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.”

(signed).

Notes:
The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as
last September that Magna Carta, signed by King John in June 1215,
stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much on 1
October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsbury’s
Laws of England says: “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown
today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.”

The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000

includes:

Article 24 –transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to

enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all
member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority
Voting.

Article 23 -allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other

countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.

Article 191 –assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations
governing political parties at European level [ie: in the EU]” and
withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not
“contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction
of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two
particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and
the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Articles 29 and 31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation

(Eurojust).
Article 67 -allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by
QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on
the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and
prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the
deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of
Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280,
which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the
very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British
euro-realists.

Article 17 –establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU,
with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11
December 2000, that: “The entire chain of command must remain under
the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be
kept informed.” Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all
her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her Regiments of the
British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another
member of The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.
The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU “competence”,
including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade,
employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has
plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and
without further treaty negotiations.

Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.

Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will,

effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the
state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [ie:
those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not
only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of
Rights, 1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of

Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of
England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in
1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism
in England, and lost the confidence of the people. His act of abdication
was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee the country.

The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “Prerogative

is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their
prejudice.” (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the
sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation).

In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish
Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart
(pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning
with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt
to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be
successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against
the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the
sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.

Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic

meeting of both houses to mark the 300th anniversary of the Declaration
of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was “still part of statute law…on
which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy
rests.”
The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:

“…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament,

should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement
of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the
future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all
officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their
successors according to the same, in all time to come.”

Both Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between
the sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they
cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident
freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of
permanence.

List Of Signatories. Peers signing the petition:

Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard

(as Lord Oriel), Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the
petition at Buckingham Palace.

The petition was also signed by:

Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier &

Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord
Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord
Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth,
Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord
Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen),
Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed,
but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.

Letter To The Queens Private Secretary:

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB Principal Private Secretary to

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London

23 March 2001.

“You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany

our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It

directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of
loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered
merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown,
the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet
unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional

measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights
unused for over 300 years – clause 61 of Magna Carta, which were
reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the

transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed
without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or
indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be
revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it
be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any
Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence
(which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the
Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with
the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty's
Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty's ministers.
Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are
now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty's obligations under

the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the
peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament
agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also
swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain
to any of them.

From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty

would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of
view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister,

confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to
breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty's promise to her
loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers.
Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation
Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain
in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of
Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by
the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal

Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were
attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are,
generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogativa regis is
merely declaratory of the common law…

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are
reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his
dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance
and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and
laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed. We have
already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit
of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by
the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto
renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the Treaty
of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve
Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the
issue. The ex-government would then be faced with seeking elective
power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part
of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing
else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to
decide whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this
way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed, and the position, powers
and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our
petition, no such option exists.

As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and
foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and
never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of
Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction,
superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but
that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm,
forever.

So it is clear that no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor

government, nor people – may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or
surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We
inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them
in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or
diminish. Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation
on parliament’s power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial.

The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a

sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a
common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all
who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for
the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate

oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear
allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps
clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an
essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without
these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect
us from government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is
unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We draw
particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the political
freedom of Her Majesty's subjects.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing

political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or
prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to
forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech
and free political association. It also introduces two particularly
abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of
state sanctions to suppress public opinion. Our political freedom is
absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her
Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and
Lib. Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an

acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice,
but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which
purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights
would itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will

appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that
know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can
such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?
These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of
Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of

Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall
(This must include the Coronation Oath Act).
2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution
of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of
late is illegall.

4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of

Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other
manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall (This is further
protection of our common law rights).

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we
respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine
the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary
advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the
Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others – have
formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for
consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops ….until
redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects.”

Ashbourne, Rutland, Massereene & Ferrard, Hamilton of Dalzell.

The Reply

“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March

and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.

“The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is
well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such
as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her
Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As
I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it
has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom
this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”
Exhibit C:

Article 61 the entire translated text;

"61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and
for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our
barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should
enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to
them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and
twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be
bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be
observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them
by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs
or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone,
or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this
security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five
and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we
are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to
have that transgression redressed without delay.

And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of
our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it)
within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or
to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons
aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons,
and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community
of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways,
namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other
way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit,
saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and
children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their
old relations towards us.
And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the
said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters,
and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we
publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we
shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land
who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to
the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we
shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect
aforesaid.

And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed
from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would
prevent the aforesaid provisions being carried out, those of the said
twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place
according to their own judgement, and he shall be sworn in the same
way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is
entrusted, to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are
present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being
summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the
majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and
established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this;
and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all
that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we
shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any
part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished;
and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we
shall never use it personally or by another."