An Interview With Marc Horn - Peace Keepers

[@darryllever9827]

Keep up the good fight,you are a true light in a very dark world…you woke me up 2 years ago..thank you..

[@Jimmy-ew2xe]

Abundance creates time to think and plan long term thus a nature of nurture. When we are all secured with a home and food abundance we thrive in a higher vibration of calm and harmony. When the emotion of love is in control then human nature becomes sharing and caring. This is what creates the rational mindset in the many.

[@Jimmy-ew2xe]

Human nature is decided by the collective emotions of the overseeing powers in control. It has recently been the existing scarcity based monetary system creating the hoarding instinct within the human collective mindset. When we have no time to think we cut corners to maintain our status quo and manage our immediate needs.

[@IceBradleyHeal]

Exceptional ❤

[@msmrepo3271]

Great interview 👍

[@NatNay-cu3uv]

Try telling this to the police whilst they are kicking your door in

[@IceBradleyHeal]

@@NatNay-cu3uv Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy ❤️

[@winbig1]

Then you get them after

[@NatNay-cu3uv]

@@winbig1 do you. ? Where at their mates place The court.

[@IceBradleyHeal]

@@NatNay-cu3uv evidence and leverage duties, right and or obligations

[@Miles_Ahead547]

@@NatNay-cu3uvyep, it’s happening now

[@thesecretpeople3842]

Marc, just a small comment about what you said regarding Parliament not having the authority to impose legislation on the People. Our Constitution as developed in England alongside our evolution as a People can be reduced to a simple principle phrased 'the English are freeborn and self governing by consent'. The original intention of our governing ourselves is that, to remain a free People we must take part in the legislative process, consenting or withholding consent to proposed legislation that in some way might bind us or diminish a Right in some way, thus if it is beneficial we consent, and if it is harmful or injurious we do not. As you know (but others may not) to be legitimate all legislation must have the common consent of the Realm/People. My point is that this principle of self governance, though not perfect is a good system for the self determination of our country, and this process HAS been agreed to over the centuries so much so that it has become a core principle of our Constitution. Agreement by the King's via their Coronation Oath, the Earls and Barons etc demanding their consent to the King's demands, to those with property and wealth claiming the same Rights, and those of the lower classes some of whom lost their lives at Peterloo protesting for their equal Right (the Right of which was eventually confirmed) to take part in the legislative process. What we have never consented to is to send a 'representative' to Parliament to enact legislation as they think fit regardless of the Will of those that sent them. That in of itself defeats the principle of self determination by self governance. This is I think what you are arguing, whereas what I have pointed out above can be considered agreement, or contract between the People and so in it's form as originally constituted no terms are broken, therefore higher authority would be required because the House of Commons is in essence the People enacting legislation for themselves. I think it worth pointing out the original principles because most people won't be aware of how and why this principle of self governance developed and that what we are now experiencing is it's subverted form. So Constitutionally Parliament do have the authority to enact legislation that we are obliged to be bound by because we would only consent to good agreeable legislation in that Parliament. Your argument as far as I can see does not seem to take this into account. Or if it does, I don't think I've heard you explain how.

[@jeffbarrett1787]

I’m intrigued with your comment, and could you expand more as I believe you have a good point.

[@thesecretpeople3842]

@@jeffbarrett1787 There are lots of references that describe our the foundation of our English Constitution and Common Law in detail. The internet archive website is a very good source for these texts owing to the great age of the archives that provide the best information untainted by modern subversion's. It would be almost impossible to acquire original hard copies of these books and the information that they hold due to the rarity and costs involved. Common law reports are also a good source as they show the history of the English People from the perspective of the law. One such case regarding the Right to vote in elections describes perfectly the principle of the English Peoples Right of self governance and how it is achieved. “This is the proper remedy which the plaintiff hath pursued, being supported by the grounds, reasons, and principles of the ancient common laws of England. For first, which is to show the plaintiff hath a right to give his vote at the election of parliament burgesses for his borough. It is very well known that always the Commons of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, without whose consent no tax can be imposed nor law enacted, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so established in the original constitution that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves and those who sent them.” - Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby vs White & Others (1703): The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others (page3). In this scenario you are voting for a like minded person from your own community to represent you and your interests, and not for a political party, and if enough people voted for that person then he himself would sit and vote in Parliament on your behalf. This means that if enough of those individuals sitting in Parliament vote positively on legislation as per the wishes of those that sent them then that legislation would have the common consent of the People, who would then be obliged to be governed by that legislation. It is highly unlikely that the people would vote in favour of oppressive legislation or legislation harmful to their Rights and Liberties, but only positive beneficial legislation which they themselves consented to. Which is the point I was making to Marc.

[@10tendogsdonie]

Yes correct marc, you've got the blank canvas & your filling up the space with facts, which is more beautiful than a Moet, & by the the way Moet is simplicity in its beauty,

[@10tendogsdonie]

Truth = justice is conscience, 👌

[@Beliefisthedeathofintellect]

Truth is not a true word

[@godislove8740]

@@Beliefisthedeathofintellect like qualification

[@andymail118]

excellent video 😍

[@xdc1776]

Still waiting on the answer for as anyone won against the council for council tax 🤷 if so I would like to to see case law on this then i can move forward thanks 👍

[@u2kjib4cjkqn]

It’s never happened .

[@Theblissfuloddball]

If there was case law then council tax would stop.. it’s a fight on an individual level.

[@jeffbarrett1787]

I’ve been fighting CT for 6/7 years and I’ve still not paid one penny, not because I don’t want to contribute to society all I’ve asked is a simple question which they have refused to answer. I do not consider I’ve won anything until they give up or answer my questions.

[@zenjohnson6120]

NEED ADVCE PLEASE. have got carers allowance 2 months ago, and who im caring for got AA from January 2024. I am a live in carer for many years, the person I care for has been paying tow persons council tax for many years, I want to apply for the non person status as a live in carer but the council on the phone saying there's a limit to how backdated they can go saying only couple months .. I read that I dont have to have been getting carers allowance to be a carer , so I want to know if I can force them to back date the deduction ( and get the cash back) for me being a live in carer to this person for maybe 10 years ? is there a way to force them to refund ten years worth ? when they tell me I can only back date few months ! any advice would be amazing ! .. im doing it because the person I care for has paid thousands per year to these criminals ! PLEASE HELP

[@scousepie2]

Who are CABI ?

[@carolinecblackburn]

Community Assembly of the British Isles - John Gilbert.

[@jeremymott7582]

Hi Marc, well done with the revocation of the liability order, I await to hear more. You might also be aware of the US Supreme Court case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo handed down on the 28th June overturning of a 40 year old case known as Chevron, which had granted radical powers to federal agencies. This sounds not unlike the powers English Council's consider they have restricting the defences that defendants are able to raise (i am not really sure how that fits in with 'justice'), and not allowing defendants to attend court in person (using Covid as an excuse which is no longer a 'thing'), and those courts effectively being administrative in nature (which is illegal) and run by the council. If raised, I wonder whether Loper Bright Enterprises will be considered of persuasive value by the English and Welsh Courts? What do you think? Regards, Jeremy.