Direct Link to Latest News


Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System

May 20, 2011


" If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."


by Debra Siddons


For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH)
Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the
12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge
of attempting to "pervert the course of justice".  For those of you
less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the
Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect".  For more
details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please
visit the following links:-

There are two very important precedents that were established with
this case that need to be studied in detail.  There was a preliminary
argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and
the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based
on two distinct points.  The first point being she was knowingly, and
with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus
has never been lawfully crowned.  There are those who may wish to
argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden
did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony
because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years.
In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch's signature.  Which brings us to the second

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract,
before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to
maintain The Laws of God.  This she solemnly swore to do, with her
hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and
signing the contract.  Please note well that in The Law of God, found
in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly

The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of
man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the
British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect.
 To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT.  She is therefore
without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of
high treason among her other numerous crimes.

All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her
majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from
her.  All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which
means they are all brought in the name of the queen.  So if she isn't
really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the
jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else.  And neither do any
of "her majesty's" courts or judges.

Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own
cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth
could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty
of the monarch.  It is a question of their own authority, so they are
obviously not impartial to the outcome.  That is why the ONLY way the
question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by
a jury.  And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury
trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of

No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to
request a jury trial.  No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause.
That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do,
they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent
Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is
immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest.  The fact
that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular
point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.

That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case.  If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.

The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the
Laws of God.

These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the
start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.

To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces
of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.

Whilst E2  is committing treason, explained in full detail in the
Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.

Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked
awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but
didn't know. We know now.

For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we
aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you
really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand
for the British Accreditation Registry.  It doesn't matter whether it
is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR
association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head
of the BAR.

So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all
know a peaceful way to bring the system down.  If enough people ACT
and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this
insanity and injustice.  All that is required now is for YOU to spread
the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can
begin immediately.  Or you can watch the last remnants of your
freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into
bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order".

For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit:

By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of
this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this
simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second
precedent set during this landmark case.

While the official reason for this trial was to address this
trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to "pervert the course
of justice", the real reason for this trial was so the authorities
could punish John Anthony Hill for making the "7/7 Ripple Effect"
which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media
reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy
theory.  The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the
trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that
the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of people
who see it."  That's how powerful the truth really is.

This was the first time this information was shown at an official
proceeding and the results were impressive.  At least 83% of the
jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on
July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing.  For
those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the "7/7
Ripple Effect" to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of
correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the
outset of the first trial of the supposed "7/7 helpers" (who were also
found not guilty).

John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his
testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United
States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks.  He went on
to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the
Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001.  She
reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with
the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind
Jane Standley's left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had
foreknowledge of the event.

As a result of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" being shown to the jurors by
the prosecution and John Anthony Hill's testimony about 9/11, the
truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the
mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine
is now officially on record.

And the "Not Guilty" verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of
that official record.

This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new
beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren't just nice sounding
words, but a reality.  This could be heaven on earth instead of the
hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up
around us.  Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it
takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and
the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the
personal cost.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
-  Edmund Burke


Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System"

Tim said (May 24, 2011):

Henry ,thank you for the most enlightening website ,it presents some most amazing pieces of information that makes one pause for thought.
What does surprise me is the responses from the the legal beagles ,mainly the one Titled JD .I am not surprised at his attack after all one has to protect one's bread and butter which I consider making money off another's misfortune.JD obviously didn't even watch the videos presented which present compelling evidence to suggest that the power in this world comes from a very high place .

Mr JD may i be so bold as to say that obviously you didn't get your dinners in the right fashion and that perhaps your knowledge of the system you purportedly support is severely lacking. May I suggest a history lesson or two or three on the history of the Bar association ,this perhaps may enlighten you to the club that you are purportedly apart of.

Debra said (May 23, 2011):

To Michael - [below]

You said, "Please note that the living woman Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten actually has no jurisdiction or sovereignty over anything." - end of quote.

Not true, and is a lie.

Understood you prefer to fight mystical concepts ( Corporation ) instead of people directly, hence a reason you repeat the first and last name ( Debra Siddons ) four times in a relatively short comment.

If enough people joined together to fight E2, the Illuminati would topple like a frail stack of cards.

I am for Laws serving God, and made that clear in the article. The 'Con'stitution serves politicians.

Michael said (May 23, 2011):

Thank You for the article “Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System” However before publishing information from Debra Siddons, please make sure she knows what she is talking about.

I quote : “There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points”.

Please note that the living woman Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten actually has no jurisdiction or sovereignty over anything.


In addition, each of these titles is a separate corporation sole, with separate holdings, properties, etc You may see them at:

If the corporation sole “ELIZABETH THE SECOND, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND HER OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES QUEEN, HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH” does not require a certain stone in a certain ceremony, then there is nothing that anyone can do about it. The corporation sole makes the rules by which it operates, no one else.

The fact that Debra Siddons and the people involved in this litigation know nothing concerning trust law indicates that their lawsuit is frivolous and without merit. The Crown Temple has every right to prohibit commerce in its properties and no third party interloper has any standing to dictate procedure to a corporation sole.

Additionally, the alleged constitution that Debra Siddons is so fond of is actually a contract between states. No living beings are a part of it. That is why you get tossed out of “court” when you mention it.

WW said (May 22, 2011):

This brings to head another hairy issue, in that with this accreditation comes a grant of royal title, that of Esquire. All members of the BAR are entitled to the use of Esquire after their
name, whether they chose to disclose this or not.

This brings every said lawyer in conflict with the US Constitution as far as eligibility for public office in the United States.

Royal title is in conflict with eligibility for holding office in the federal government:

Article I, Section 9 -
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or
foreign State.

The War of 1812 was actually fought ove the original 13th Amendment which put teeth into Secrion 9 above--a whole other story...

Debra Replies said (May 22, 2011):

To Mike -

You are incorrect when you say JAH's Lawful Defence does not apply, at
all, to America.
This is explained further with clarity and specificity in my comment
posted to lawyer, J.D..

To J.D. -

Not uncommon for insane lawyers to think they are normal and others are crazy.

U.S. Lawyers have sworn allegiance to the Supreme Court of a given

State, and subsequently to the British Accreditation Registry which
oversees the whole judicial circus.

Each time you've been admitted to the B.A.R. you swore an oath of

allegiance to the Crown Court,

never questioning what the B.A.R. stood for, even after thirty-two

years. The B.A.R. has been right in front of your face all along.

You've said I'm a danger. I am a danger to lawyers, judges, the Crown,

anyone else supporting a criminal "legal" system.

No-one is, or ever was, permitted to make-up any rules/laws to rule people. IT IS Wrong. Period.

"Issues" are to be decided by a jury (community ), never / ever by a judge using made-up rules.

American judges having sworn the Judicial Oath before God, which is, to serve only God; thus an oath not Lawful and null and void if not
serving God. Associations with the B.A.R. effectively allows for both Exhibits 1 and 2, ordering God's Laws in the Courts. It's quite
simple; either you maintain the oath you took, or you must step down and allow the people to
practice their God-given rights.

I don't have to prove The Law. It is there and as a lawyer, B.A.R. member, you swore on a Bible.

Which is exactly the point. You are ordered to keep that oath "you" took, then swore to maintain.

The Bible does not command one must know God to follow The Law. Yet it is The Law.

Odd you are not aware of the oath you took, and apparently in numerous States, on Biblical Law.

Clearly you are threatened. God's Law is for humans. The Lawful Defence explains in detail,
needing to be read over and over till it sinks in, because the extent of a Rothschild brainwashing is obviously very extensive.

I understand you are threatened. Criminals usually are when caught red-handed.

To those claiming "too religious", nothing is more religious than the Coronation Ceremony itself.

Rino said (May 21, 2011):

In reference to Landmark Case, isn't it interesting? I have noticed on most websites that when someone speaks the truth, there is always and attorney keeping a watching eye on what is being written to the point that when the truth comes out to awaken people about facts, these attorneys jump in (as they do in any court scenario) and they either attack what has been presented or attack the one who is presenting the information, as delusional or frivolous.

However we know as fact that every lawyer speaks in a 'foreign tongue' (code) usually with marbles in their mouth and will most certainly attempt to profit from people's misery, a legal mercenary for hire. Everything an attorney or lawyer in court scenario presents is always hearsay, they never have first hand personal knowledge of any fact and for the most part present 'joint the dots' evidence. I would never want to take on this profession of being a lawyer, why?

Because it is one of only two professions that Christ condemns. When an attorney speaks out as something being rubbish or delusional then it is time to pay attention to what he doesn't what you to pay attention to. The other critical point to make is that in order to 'apply the substantive Law' you need lawful money, i.e silver or gold coin to pay any debt. While we use 'legal tender', currency, as money we deal in fictions only and trumped up charges, this, is the reality.

The Law cannot be applied when we use legal tender so now the attorneys deal in procedures only and make attempts to contract with any 'victim' by agreement of his or her default responses or conduct using construed/implied conduct that is taken under 'judicial notice' that a victim must have agreed with the prosecution because they either 'argued' or failed to respond to a 'charge' and therefore must be 'agreeing' to be guilty by their conduct.

Christ tells us how we can win these legal/fictional cases, 'agree with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him', in other words, they key is to come to an agreement in the private and then bring that into the court for ratification and not for re-deterimation. Information that you present here Henry in relation to this case is very important so that people can protect themselves from these vultures in the legal system who operate as Satan do, they accuse the angels night and day with trumped up charges! Thank you for this very revealing piece of writing.

Rod said (May 21, 2011):

Boys, J.D., a tad touchy on the subject aren't we? Obviously you are on the attack here as your livelihood could/would or may be, jeopardized.
Your over-the-top discrediting, ridiculing, and bashing is all too common-place when truth is presented and the curtain gets drawn back just a little.

Maybe, just maybe, even you have been kept in the dark as you proceeded up the "legal" pyramid to get you to your lofty perch. Why don't you seek to remove the pole from your own eye before attacking someone who is looking for freedom for all. You may represent what we have been brainwashed to accept as "legal" but that doesn't make it "lawful".

To answer your question as to "where" the Bible says about law(s) it is in (KJV) Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." So now you have heard it. God's "command" to His people Israel (12 tribes, of which 2 are jews, and the other 10, that include the british commonwealth nations and the USA).

Your sidetracking about taxes confirms to me that your issue is about money. Isn't that just what your "legal" is all about. Certainly not justice for all. And that is what exposing this imposter queen is all about.

Mike said (May 21, 2011):

I feel that the article is badly in need of clarifying because Debra kind of butchered her explanation of the situation and has offered a poor reflection of a very important topic. Perhaps its even worth putting some of the following directly at the end of the article, instead of as a comment, so people actually understand the situation. The comment is:

"I've been following the trial of Muad'Dib/JAH for some time and know the situation clearly. Whilst I do agree that this is potentially a landmark case, which could be used to seriously disrupt the UK/Commonwealth courts (and thus much more), the jurisdictional argument used by JAH was NEVER designed to be used in America. He explained that many times, so Debra is stretching things.

To clarify the situation for everyone, as it shows/proves on JAH's website, Elizabeth made with the British people where she promised to "maintain the Laws of God" to the utmost of her power ( If you watch the BBC footage of the coronation, it is made extremely clear during her coronation that the "Laws of God" are written in the Bible, not parliament ( watch the first 1minute 20seconds of the video--note well 1:10 into it). Elizabeth is handed a Bible and told that in it is the Royal Laws of God, which is what she swore to uphold. This is done so that there is no doubt what the "Laws of God" are. At this point, it doesn't matter whatsoever if someone is christian, atheist, or satanist. No one's personal beliefs change the FACT that Elizabeth swore to uphold the Biblical Law. The evidence JAH collected shows video, audio, and paperwork proof of her making this contract, and what the terms of that contract were. Other people's personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with this.

In the Biblical Law which Elizabeth swore to uphold, Deuteronomy 4:2 says: "Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it"

So, Elizabeth made a legally binding contract which says she promises not to make new laws. This means that the very first time she gave "royal assent" to pass new legislation in the UK, she was in breech of contract, as that would add more laws, when she swore NOT to do that.

Since the contract Elizabeth made is what entitles her to the "crown", and the authority of that position, when she broke that contract, she lost her crown and therefore her power to legally and lawfully bring criminal cases against people.

This is extremely simple contract Law and JAH kept it very simple so as not to confuse people. You have a contract with very clearly identified terms, and Elizabeth broke it. Since that contract is what gave her authority over the courts, she's broken the contract, she has no authority, and thus she had no jurisdiction over JAH.

THAT was the case, pure and simple, and because its so bullet-proof obvious, the court couldn't argue against it.

What "Paul" said makes sense in the US although it will never take down the awful system, which is what needs to be done. "JD"'s ego-based rant and talking about the Bible like he knows what it says when he doesn't, isn't helping anything. Debra has confused the matters and wrongly extended its scope. I hope the explanation above clears things up."

Paul said (May 21, 2011):

Speaking as someone based in the United States, I don't know whether challenging the jurisdiction of a court based on QEII's coronation oath, or lack thereof, or on whether the B.A.R. is really the "British Accreditation Registry", etc, is going to meet w/ much success. Most courts and magistrates here would look upon claims of this nature as being more akin to "kooky" conspiracy theories and litigants must always bear in mind that the #1 purpose of going to court is simply TO PUT ON A GOOD SHOW.

Litigation, and the administrative maneuvering that invariably precedes litigation, is nothing if not show business.

However, speaking from personal experience, I can attest that a rationally argued counterclaim, challenging the jurisdiction of a tribunal, will almost always end in success. Again, I don't know what people in British Commonwealth countries, or in Roman civil law jurisdictions (i.e., the rest of the planet) do, but in the United States it's quite clear and obvious: the sovereignty is vested in the People, and the People -- owing to the fact that in America we have no "King" -- are therefore the holders and rules of court.

When you file legal paperwork with a court in America, don't go in there claiming that you're a "U.S.citizen" or a "Sovereign State Citizen" or a "resident of such-and-such state or county".. All these "statuses" are simply corporate, legal fictions and all this does is give the administrative tribunal jurisdiction over your person. Instead, simply make the claim that you're one of the People of the "jurisdiction" in which you're appearing and reason rationally therefore.

I was recently in traffic court on a quasi-serious misdemeanor charge. I raised about four or five distinct, cogently-reasoned out challenges to the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal in which I was appearing, and I filed my paperwork before appearing. Paraphrasing my experience at the arraignment hearing (which, for traffic court, is a room full of hundreds of people in major city I live in), the magistrate was basically yelling and screaming at everyone who was there in line before me, then when I appeared before the magistrate, she simply smiled and ask: "Mr. XXXX, what is it that you would like me to do for you today?" and I replied, "Well your Honor, I would very appreciate it if the court would dismiss these charges".. to which she answered (paraphrasing): "Your wish is granted.. these charges are dismissed".. As I was leaving the room, I heard her (again) yelling and screaming at the next person in line behind me.

The key is HONOR: You must HONOR their process before you can expect them to honor yours. You must (in the language of the New Testament) "give to receive".. Nor is it necessarily "easy".. You do have to have your wits about you. I didn't just cut-and-paste random patriot mythology I slopped off the Internet: rather, I spent several weekends in a row, all weekend, in the law library doing real legal research putting together real legal briefs to submit to a real court. But it is effective, it did work. Challenges to jurisdiction, if cogently and rationally argued, almost always do.

The late Bill Cooper has a series of lectures out on YouTube where he talks about the importance of challenging jurisdiction. To paraphrase Cooper: if you don't challenge jurisdiction, you're almost guaranteed to lose.. if you do challenge jurisdiction, it's almost impossible not to win. The present-day Master of this subject is Bill Thornton down in Orange County, Calif. I invite your readers to explore his Web site and audio lectures at: His Web site is a bit rough around the edges (in terms of presentation and navigation), but it's packed w/ some of the best legal information you'll find anywhere.

J.D. said (May 21, 2011):

I've never read such delusional, unabashed lunacy in fifty-six years of life.

This woman is simply loony. She imagines that lawyers aren't really admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of a given US state, but they are registered with the B.A.R., the British Accredation Registry. I guess that thirty-two years ago, they just forgot to give me my UK registry card at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And that each time that I've been admitted to the bar of another court, my British papers must have gotten mixed up. When I passed the Illinois Bar Exam, they must have erased my memories of questions concerning English law by mind control. I should wear an aluminum foil cap if I take another bar exam. When I got admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court, they must have just forgotten to collect my British Registry dues. She's a danger to herself to any fool, desperate for some way out of a pickle, who'd take this seriously.

She doesn't know a damn thing about the law. Conflict or not, it was the US Supreme Court which decided the issue of whether the initial imposition of the income tax, including upon federal judges, impermissibly and unconstitutionally reduced the salary of federal judges during their tenure in office as textually prohibited in the Constitution. The justices admitted the inherent conflict but expressed the doctrine that when it was necessary that someone decide the issue and no one without such a conflict existed, that jurisdiction would vest notwithstanding a conflict of interest because of necessity, and held that the tax was not unconstitutional. Federal judges pay income taxes as a result of that decision by interested federal judges on the Supreme Court. Yes, every judge has jurisdiction to determine his or her own jurisdiction. In fact, in our federal courts, which are all courts of limited jurisdiction, the question is present in every case, must be proven, and is determined in every case. That's a pretty basic principle familiar to any first year law student. I'm telling you that this lady is nuts.

She asserts that the Law of God is what is announced in the first five books of the Bible. But she never proves that, or even tries to prove it. It's a pretty controversial statement to a believer, let alone what an atheist or deist (like Washington or Jefferson or Lincoln) or agnostic would make of it. Maybe some sect of Judaism believes that, but I've never met a person who'd agree. God's law, to a Christian, means more than that. This lady is an arrogant, errant fool.

She claims that God's law says that all human law is without legitimacy. Where is it that the first five books of the Bible say that??? Not a passage I've ever heard. St. Paul says quite the opposite, and Christ had no problems suggesting that taxes be paid. The lady is bonkers.

Shame on you for giving her a platform.


J. D. Obenberger and Associates
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
3700 Three First National Plaza
70 West Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60602

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at