The Lawful Hand Grenade That Ends Domestic Terrorism

What if the power to end police predation has been concealed because discovery threatens to set you free?

The connection between the pups Napoleon the pig raises in Orwell’s Animal Farm and the modern police force is far more revealing than the conventional claim that Animal Farm was simply an allegory for communism.

Orwell was describing something much more fundamental: the creation of coercive force through belief in political authority, creating both the psychological permission for coercive power to exist and the means to identify and groom a loyal force to terrorise the population into submitting to the will of the self-selected ruling class that political parties shield and serve.

Napoleon takes the pups away from their mothers and keeps them separate from the other animals, feeds them to cultivate their loyalty to him and then unleashes them as his personal coercive force.

Politicians prefer prospective police recruits with a psychological predilection towards subordinating their moral compass to obedience as a selection criterion and therefore configure the intellectual quotient range to favour that outcome.

Successful candidates are then removed from their families and communities during basic training, where they undergo the political curriculum sold as law. In the process, recruits are inducted into a new family, which becomes their new identity.

Once that process is complete, they are deployed as an organised paramilitary coercive force against the very people from whom the resources sustaining that force are extracted.

You cannot recognise the sheer magnitude of your own abuse when you’ve spent your entire life believing that the relationship between you and those occupying the public institutions you inherited, whose conduct intimately affects your daily life, is inherently proper, while more and more of what little remains of your freedom disappears with each passing day.

While the existing relationship remains cordoned off from scrutiny, the natural outcome is to interpret abuses within the existing arrangement as isolated misconduct, thereby creating a psychological shield against recognising overt criminal behaviour.

This is where knowledge of the Common Law Trial by Jury Constitution contained within Magna Carta 1215 becomes indispensable, because understanding the organising principle that ensures right relationship provides the means to see through the cunning deception that has left you lost at sea in a storm without a rudder, freeing your mind from the accepted lie that stable society requires rulers exercising coercive power over the ruled.

Below are the principles that restore the moral clarity necessary to recognise how these relationships are supposed to work.

From there, the inversion becomes easy to spot, as does who benefits from that inversion, and how the immense resources entrusted to public office are used to preserve the lie that your safety is dependent upon “public servants” ruling over you.

The Right Relationship of Public Trust

What has been abused is the relationship of trust between the people and the individuals entrusted with public responsibilities.

The legitimacy of the nation state rests upon people entrusting individual members of their community with different responsibilities for the purpose of serving that community.

The legislature is entrusted with the temporary rule-making function. The constabulary is entrusted with organised protective force to protect the people’s inherent rights and preserve peaceful coexistence. Judicial officers are entrusted to facilitate the administration of public justice so that the Law remains firmly in the hands of the people. Hence the term “public servant”.  

These are three different functions of public office that serve Law. That Law is Natural Law. The Constitution is the social arrangement through which the community organises itself in accordance with Natural Law.

A legitimate constitution need only express the non-negotiable principles that protect the rights of the individual in order to preserve social cohesion and advance the quality of community life.

Anything beyond those principles, expressed in unintelligible language that requires a “professional” class to interpret it, is a fraud.

That means no role in public service gives the individual office-holder a superior moral status to the people they are entrusted to serve.

The office does not transfer ownership of the Law to individuals occupying public office, nor does it grant them authority to concentrate power into their own hands.

Their responsibility is to see to it that the people’s innate freedoms remain protected in their daily dealings, not to convert public trust into a licence to dominate and extort with impunity.

The proper relationship is therefore simple:

The First Abuse: Legislation as the Source Of Supreme Authority

Legislation is a temporary rule making instrument that can be repealed and amended by future parliaments, so to call it Law is a very effective mind trick that still has the population in thrall to this day.

The first abuse occurred in 1216, when the incumbent head of state misappropriated legislation to exceed his delegated responsibility. He created a reissue of the charter as a means to dismantling the mechanism by which the holder of the highest office remained directly accountable to the people under Common Law.

This was the beginning of the restrictions that progressively reduced participation in the jury to wealthy landowners with a vested interest in the concentration of power.

Over the centuries that followed, successive concessions progressively weakened the originating constitutional arrangement.

By the late 1600s, members of the legislature who had themselves exceeded their delegated responsibility under the Common Law that bound them to act in service to the people engineered a political coup to remove the incumbent head of state.

They then used legislation to further reverse their relationship with the people by asserting Parliament as the supreme sovereign authority over them.

The temporary rule-making function entrusted to serve the community was thereby transformed into an instrument of personal ruling power, enabling individual legislators to impose their will upon the people while shielding themselves from the very accountability that binds everyone else.

The consequences are seen in the ever-increasing violations of the people’s wealth, liberty and dignity.

The Second Abuse: The Constabulary

The second abuse occurred when the constabulary reversed its relationship with the people.

To understand the nature of that inversion, you first need to understand the tree of oaths that binds public office.

The oath of the head of state sits at the apex of that tree because it establishes the highest-level public responsibility within the constitutional order. Yet the apex of delegated public office is not the apex of moral authority.

The head of state is itself bound by oath to preserve the existing laws, liberties, customs, peace and justice.

Every subordinate public office therefore operates within that same lawful order. The constable’s oath begins by acknowledging that relationship: “I will … serve the Queen/King in the office of constable”.

The constable then swears to uphold fundamental individual rights, accord equal respect to all people, cause the peace to be kept and preserved, prevent offences against people and property, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office according to Law.

The oath does not create a separate moral order for the constable. It places the constable within the same constitutional order to which the head of state is already bound.

The constable is therefore not entrusted with organised protective force so that legislators can impose their will upon the population.

The constable is entrusted with that force to preserve the peace and protect people and their property from offences while remaining bound to the same Law that binds every other member of their community.

The legislature’s temporary rule-making function does not sit above that lawful order merely because legislation has been produced.

The constable’s role is to stand between anyone attempting to exercise coercive power and the people threatened by it, not between the legislature and the people as the legislature’s enforcement arm.

That responsibility applies regardless of who is holding office and attempting to leverage their position for the purpose of exercising coercive power.

It means protecting people from criminals, even when those criminals are other constables, legislators or judicial officers, and protecting people from anyone occupying public office who abuses the responsibility entrusted to them.

The inversion is therefore complete when the constable ceases to understand the oath as a subordinate responsibility within the constitutional order and instead treats obedience to the legislative institution as the controlling obligation.

The protective force entrusted to preserve the people ‘s rights has then been converted into the coercive force used to impose the will of those claiming power over the people.

The Third Abuse: The Collusion Between Legislators and Constables

The third abuse occurred when members of the legislature exceeded the function entrusted to the office and began seizing the levers of power that belonged to the people, while members of the constabulary ceased performing their distinct function in favour of protecting the legislature from the people while simultaneously imposing the will of politicians upon the people.

The abuse became self-protecting when members of the legislature leveraged the public’s inherited belief in their claim that whatever was passed into legislation held supreme authority over the people, exploiting that belief to legislate immunity for themselves and the remaining spectrum of public offices subsequently legislated into subordination to the legislature claiming the power to immunise itself.

The public indoctrination made the arrangement appear legitimate, turning the inherited belief in institutional supremacy into the psychological shield through which conduct that would otherwise attract accountability was treated as an exercise of public authority.

This produced the collusion through which one group of officeholders seized control over the levers of public power while another repurposed its protective force to defend that seizure from the people.

The legislature supplied the claimed authority for the coercion and the protection from accountability, while the constabulary supplied the organised force through which the legislative will was imposed upon the people.

The resulting relationship was:

To this day, the claim by members of the legislature that their command is ‘law’ does not alter the moral character of the act, and the constable’s obedience to that command does not transfer their individual responsibility for the harm they inflict to the people who issued it.

Each remains personally accountable for what they do with the responsibility entrusted to their office.

The Fourth Abuse: The Destruction of Equal Moral Accountability

The fourth abuse was the destruction of equal moral accountability by creating a hierarchy of moral status between those occupying public office and the people they were entrusted to serve.

The spectrum of public service roles is distinguished by the different duties assigned to legislators, constables and judicial officers in fulfilment of their shared responsibility to ensure that the people remain stewards of their own justice by participating in examining the rupture, discovering truth, determining responsibility and resolving the rupture to restore integrity.

Their different duties do not give them different moral realities. The individual remains subject to the same objective moral order regardless of the office they occupy, the uniform they wear or the delegated duties they are entrusted to exercise.

The destruction of equal moral accountability occurs when occupying public office itself is treated as a source of moral immunity, allowing conduct that would be recognised as harmful when committed by an ordinary member of the community to be exempt from moral scrutiny when committed under the cover of public service.

This is the moral inversion that allows public office to become a shield against the consequences of personal conduct.

The responsibility entrusted to an office can never become a licence for the individual occupying it to violate the very underlying moral structure of reality that the office exists to serve.

Article 39: The Boundary Around Public Power

This is where Article 39 of Magna Carta 1215 becomes the wrecking ball that tears the artificially constructed playhouse down.

It draws a non-negotiable red line that public servants are not to cross. To cross that line is to cross over into criminal behaviour, for which each officer is accountable to the people in their own name.

The red line is as follows: No free man was to be seized or imprisoned, stripped of his rights or possessions, outlawed or exiled, deprived of his standing in any way, or subjected to force by the officers of the Crown.

The only time public servants can breach that red line is through the lawful judgement of social equals, through the established customs and traditions of the community to which the accused is a part.

What makes the present inversion so profound is that, over generations, the people have been progressively separated from their awareness of the structural manner by which human beings can organise themselves into large communities in alignment with Natural Law.

Natural Law establishes the conditions of life from which no human being is exempt.

Constitutional Law provides the human structure through which those conditions can be respected within a community so that each individual is left free to decide the course of their own life so long as their decisions leave others equally free to do the same.

Instead, what is accepted as law is the language, offices and procedures of public “authority”.

The result is that generations have been conditioned to perceive the exercise of coercive force by so-called public servants as the natural starting point of the relationship, rather than asking the question Article 39 requires: by what lawful judgement of equals is the individual being subjected to force, and is the force being exercised upon our social equal in alignment with the tried and tested customs and traditions of the community?

Considering that question has been removed from public consciousness for centuries, the inherited coercive model is assumed as the neutral standard that defines the “rights” protections the public service is entrusted to provide.

The office-holder remains subject to the Law, while the person upon whom public power is exercised remains protected by it. That is the relationship Article 39 preserves.

The Fifth Abuse: Qualified Immunity, the Initiatin Strike in Double-Tapping the Victim

The fifth abuse occurred when the relationship of accountability was deformed beyond recognition to ensure that the brutal and in some instances deadly force police officers have been permitted to inflict upon the people remains protected from direct accountability.

The police officer is empowered to exercise coercive violent force that brutally violates natural-born rights while being shielded from the consequences of doing so, leaving you as the victim to take your grievance to the institutional gatekeeper in the judiciary that protects the offending officer from direct accountability for the harm caused by their actions.

Police Prosecution: The Ritual Mockery of Your Orchestrated Plunder

If you’re reading this in disbelief, here comes your “fact is more perverted than fiction” moment.

Police, as the physical violators of your inherent rights, are granted the institutional entitlement to prosecute you for your innate protective response to being violated.

Sit with that for a minute and reflect on how many people are rotting away in the concrete dumpsters called prison for what police routinely do to innocent people on a daily basis.

The people empowered to brutalise you are the same people who prosecute you to make you pay dearly for doing what comes naturally.

Instead of being protected from such behaviour by the judicial process, the judicial officer’s role is to empower the culprits to punish you for reflexively protecting yourself from the crimes committed against you by police officers.

Below is the grotesque perversion of justice stripped from the psychological shield:

The inversion turns that relationship on its head. When the individual exercising coercive power carries state issued badge and gun they protected from the person over whom that power was exercised, while the victim is required to carry the cost, burden and ordeal of seeking redress for the harm done to them.

Should you choose to pursue your grievance, your only option is through the gatekeepers. This process is created to ensure that you bear the cost, burden and ordeal of seeking remedy for the harm caused to you.

The entire gatekeeping process is designed to be so agonising as to demoralise you into learned helplessness.

In the correct constitutional order individual moral accountability cannot be outsourced to the institution.

Now compare the stark reality of what you endure today to the correct social arrangement sealed in perpetuity within Magna Carta 1215 that is a reflection of the common law coronation oath sworn by the incumbent head of state dating back to the Saxon kings.

Recorded and sealed in perpetuity the Constitutional Common Law expresses the people’s natural position of being in authority over their public servants, with veto power over decisions made by their servants that violate inherent individual freedoms.

The office-holder therefore remains directly accountable to the people for how they exercise the duties entrusted to them.

The spectrum of public service roles is distinguished by the different duties assigned to legislators, constables and judicial officers in fulfilment of their shared responsibility to ensure that the people remain stewards of their own justice by participating in examining the rupture, discovering truth, determining responsibility and resolving the rupture to restore integrity.

Article 40: The Right to Justice and Remedy

Article 40 states the principle in unmistakable terms: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay, right or justice.”

Now consider the relationship described above. The person who suffers the harm is required to carry the cost, burden and ordeal of pursuing a remedy, while the person who caused the harm remains protected behind the office they occupy.

Justice has therefore been removed from the victim of the violation and placed behind the very gatekeepers sworn to protect their fellow perpetrator from justice.

That is the precise inversion that knowledge of the non-negotiable conditions of genuine justice, expressed in Article 40, exposes. The injured party is never to have their right to justice inhibited in any way whatsoever by the institutional process.

Right and justice are not privileges granted by the office-holder to the injured party. They are conditions that ensure the people receive remedy from injury so that their dignity is restored.

The proper relationship is:

The Truth That Needs To be Spoken

The individual police officer cannot hide behind the position they voluntarily chose to occupy. The decision to apply for the role is a voluntary one. The selection process deliberately favours prospective recruits with a psychological predilection towards subordinating their moral compass to obedience, and the training exposes them to immoral actions they are permitted and protected to commit.

By the time training is over, each individual knows what they are entering into. They remain free to leave at any time. Those who continue therefore make an informed choice to accept the position and the violations of individual dignity they are expected to commit.

Every violation of the people’s individual rights thereafter remains an individual choice.

The uniform, the legislation and the training do not make the choice. The individual officer does.

The existence of legislative permission to inflict harm upon innocent people therefore does not transfer responsibility for the consequences of that harm from the conscious, sentient being who chooses to perform it.

The Cleverly Orchestrated Double Bind of “Resisting Arrest”: The Knockout Strike That Completes the Double Tap

The depth of depravity you are forced to endure goes to the next level when your reflex response to being brutally violated is itself made punishable, transforming your inherent right to self-defence against aggravated assault into a crime.

The cleverly orchestrated double bind of “resisting arrest” means that upon being subjected to coercive force you will almost certainly be punished for instinctively resisting that force.

The first act of coercion therefore creates the pretext for a second: the moment you resist the force being imposed upon you, your resistance is recast as a further offence for which you are subjected to additional coercion and punishment.

The depravity becomes still more apparent when the politicians’ private army of physical violators of your inherent rights is entitled to prosecute you for your innate protective response to the violation.

In this perverse arrangement, your abuser becomes the accuser, while their colleague prosecutes you for instinctively protecting yourself when your integrity is violated.

Your natural protective response to wrongdoing is criminalised.

Article 61: When the Public Servant Becomes the Offender

Article 61 addresses the question that remains when the person entrusted with public responsibility becomes the person violating that responsibility.

The constitutional relationship is fundamentally different from the gatekeeping structure the people encounter today.

The people are not supposed to be trapped inside a hierarchy of offices where a complaint against one public servant must pass through the very people or offices implicated in the wrongdoing before the transgression can be addressed.

The people have a direct line of contact with the head of state, who carries the highest level of responsibility to the people when any individual entrusted with public responsibility transgresses against the people their office was created to protect.

Article 61 demonstrates what that hierarchy of responsibility actually does.

The subordinate officer swears a duty. The officer transgresses that duty. The people bring the transgression to the head of state. The head of state is duty-bound to see that the subordinate responsibility is honoured and the wrong remedied.

This is not a hierarchy of superior and inferior human beings. It is a hierarchy of entrusted responsibility.

The subordinate officer is accountable to the head of state for fulfilling the responsibility they have sworn to perform, while the head of state is accountable to the people for ensuring that those entrusted with public responsibility remain within the bounds of their sworn duty.

If a public servant transgresses their entrusted responsibility, who is responsible for ensuring that the transgression is remedied?

The constitutional relationship itself provides a direct route from the people to the head of state, whose own sworn responsibility requires the transgression of subordinate officers to be addressed and the wrong remedied.

The principle is fundamental: the person entrusted with public power is not placed beyond accountability merely because they occupy public office.

The very fact that they hold the office creates a responsibility to the community, and breach of that responsibility gives rise to a means through which the community can demand redress.

Article 61 therefore completes the constitutional relationship exposed throughout this article. Article 39 establishes the boundary around public power. Article 40 establishes the obligation not to sell, deny or delay right or justice. Article 61 establishes the accountability relationship through which a public servant who breaches that responsibility can be called to account and the wrong remedied.

The three principles belong together: protection from arbitrary power, access to justice and accountability of the person entrusted with power.

I invite you to pause and sit with that for a minute, then reflect on how many innocent people are rotting away in the concrete dumpsters called prison for what police routinely do to the communities they live within on a daily basis.

The people empowered to brutalise you are the same people who prosecute you to make you pay dearly for doing what comes naturally.

Instead of being protected from such behaviour by the judicial process, the judicial officer’s role is to be the gatekeeper that empowers the culprits in costume to punish you for the crimes they commit against you.

If you’ve ever been horrified after seeing stories about the grotesque, savage behaviour of police presented on mainstream media every so often after being caught on camera, and you still tell yourself that it’s just a few bad apples because there are some in every bunch, it might be time to stop, pause and reflect on the extreme tear to the moral fabric of reality you’re condoning and enabling by still believing that.

Where Do You Go From Here?

If what you have just read has caused you to question assumptions you have carried for years, don’t stop at the question. Use it as the starting point for finding out what you were never taught.

1. Start With the Frequent Q & As

You will probably have questions. Good.

The Frequent Q & As were put together to address many of the questions that arise when you begin looking beneath the surface of the relationship between the people, public office and the Law.

It covers the history of Magna Carta 1215, questions concerning how to assert the Law that constables are sworn to uphold when dealing with police officers who are in open defiance of their sworn duties.

What you’ll uncover here is the myriad of misconceptions about the Law that the overwhelming majority still believe as truths due to the fact that ideologies generated by members of legal institutions are accepted as the neutral reference point of reality.

Once that becomes clear, you start asking better questions and follow the answers wherever they lead.

Explore the Frequent Q & As

2. Put Your Knowledge Into Action: The Police Letter Campaign

Understanding the relationship is one thing. Putting that knowledge in front of the people occupying public office is another.

The Police Letter Campaign provides the letters, questions and supporting material you need to communicate directly with police officers about the responsibilities attached to the office they have been entrusted to occupy.

The campaign has been designed to make participation straightforward, with downloadable materials that empower you to begin standing in defence of the Law constables are sworn to defend.

You don’t need to wait for someone else to act on your behalf. Read the questions. Understand what you are putting forward. Then decide what you are prepared to do with what you now know.

Explore the Police Letter Campaign

3. Go Deeper: The Constitutional Foundations Reading

Most people remain powerless to affect change because they remain occupied with what has already happened. They become highly skilled at identifying, documenting and responding to the symptoms while remaining oblivious to the reasons for their suffering.

Once you understand why you are powerless, you are no longer confined to asking:

“How do I protect myself from police?”

“How do I challenge council rates?”

“How do I get this particular injustice remedied?”

You begin asking:

“What is producing these effects in the first place?”

That question takes you beyond the effects and towards the cause. This is where the power to affect change lives.

If this article has made you realise how much of the constitutional relationship was never taught to you, this is where you go next.

The MC1215 Reading collection brings together material on Magna Carta 1215, Natural Law, trial by jury, constitutional law and the historical development of the relationship between the people and those entrusted with public responsibility.

It includes detailed works intended to take you well beyond the introductory level and give you the opportunity to investigate the claims for yourself.

Find out the concealed power of the correct constitutional structure, how it was displaced, why it was concealed and how knowledge of that structure reveals where your power to affect social change actually lies.

Explore the Constitutional Foundations Reading