The Great Reset abolishes the US Constitution & English Bill of Rights

Author: Philip Ridley

Covid-19 is cover for the Great Reset, which knowingly overthrows the US & UK Constitutions & the fundamental principles of Common Law.

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) “Great Reset” is being organised on behalf of the United Nations, led by Klaus Schwab. He has written the book on how Covid-19 can be taken advantage of to implement the Great Reset. This is why any debate about alternative approaches to solving the pandemic fall on deaf ears and it is why they are dragging this out far beyond any reasonable sell by date.


The Great Reset claims to replace Capitalism with Stakeholder Capitalism, which is the over-riding of national sovereignty by United Nations global governance, for and by their state, corporate and NGO partners, who are the sole Stakeholders of Stakeholder Capitalism.

This is the opposite of liberal democracy and free markets, you and your small business do not have a seat at the table, we are not consulted, we have no vote or veto. The UN principle is that their decrees are law if no objection is received within a reasonable time and no methods are given for us to object.

The current push by WEF demonstrates that global corporations, many of which are larger now than many nations, are now firmly in the driving seat, with Communist China taking a leading role. This is also an attempt by the WEF and DAVOS to position their corporate partners at the helm of Global Governance. Imagine Monsanto designing school lunches, Bill Gates providing your healthcare, General Motors designing your transportation policies, completely absurd but they are giving it a go, meanwhile we are busy discussing a pandemic.

The Great Reset is also a marketing strategy and propaganda decoy that aims to sanitise, re-packages, re-market and distract from the real agenda, which is to implement the world order that was set out in Article 29 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of “Human Rights”, (UDHR) back in 1948, which ironically is a mirror of 1984 and the year that George Orwell’s 1984 was published.

Articles 1 to 28 of the Declaration provide positive rights that appear beneficial on the surface and that gave hope, particularly for countries that never had a constitution or bill of rights. However, any pretence of altruism is blown out of the water by Article 29.

UDHR Article 29(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

UDHR Article 29(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

These two articles place the positive individual rights described in Articles 1 to 28 into context with a “community” that they declares we must live within or else be anti-socialist outlaws with no rights. Such a system ensures that individual rights will ultimately be over-ridden by the tyranny of the majority and the powerful when we become an irritation. In this case the Community is the United Nations and its State, Corporate & NGO Partners. You must comply with but have no control over the UN’s Stakeholder Community.

UDHR Article 29(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The kicker is Article 29(3), which authorises the UN to suspend or remove ANY right or freedom and presumably due process of law that is contrary to their purposes and principles, which could of course change with the wind, with no mechanisms in place of any kind to check that power, they can simply do with you what they like, when they like according to this devilish Charter.

ICCPR Article 4. 1. “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the na tion (sic) and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, col our, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

Article 29 was expanded upon by Article 4 of the International Convention Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which came into force on 23 March 1976, around about the time that the English Constitution was removed from schools and Bar exams for Solicitors. This extends the tyranny franchise to nation states, literally allowing them to suspend any right of freedom simply by declaring an emergency, so long as that state of emergency is in tune with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. This is why we hear for example about the Climate Emergency. Whenever you hear this terminology, know that the corporate “stakeholder” community is defining new boundaries beyond which you have no human rights. Breach your carbon quota or exit your coronavirus bubble and you become outlawed.

WHO guidance states that nations should issue a State of Emergency when the WHO declare a Level 5 or 6 Pandemic, which is when there is “sustained community level outbreak”, thus triggering ICCPR Article 4. The WHO, in “Addressing ethical issues in pandemic influenza planning”, page 36, discuss the absurd concept of “Valid limitations on human rights”. They pretend that this allows nations to “suspend most other civil and political rights” and that “Thus, compulsory measures such as vaccination, treatment, or isolation would be permitted,”.

WHO’s Level 5 and 6 guidance and Pandemic Preparedness Publications set out clearly the steps that were desired in terms of social distancing measures. These have been followed and then expanded upon by national governments. The Level 5 and 6 guidance was written for but not implemented during the 2009 Swine Flu “Pandemic”. We were not consulted, nobody was made aware of these plans or the intention to roll them out worldwide in 2020, eleven years later. Whilst governments have gone further than WHO guidance with current unprecedented lockdowns, they have arguably not gone as far as the WHO propose is possible in their interpretation of ICCPR Article 4.1.

As with this “Pandemic” 2009 Swine Flu was fabricated, likely for the purpose of setting up lockdown policy for the next plandemic. The European Council investigated the WHO, in particular for the influence of pharmaceutical companies with their report declaring that “National governments, WHO, and EU agencies had all been guilty of actions that led to a waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.”

Nowhere in the guidance is there an attempt to provide any evidence or risk assessment because these organisations are only accountable to themselves. Article 29 of the UN Charter proposes no method for scrutiny or accountability.

The Weston A. Price Foundation is concerned about the social distancing approach to epidemiology because we question the viral theory of contagion as discussed in our 2020 Summer Journal. We believe that the solution is nourishing traditional diets, rich in the fat soluble vitamins A, D and K2, which happens to be the opposite of the low fat, high carbohydrate diet being promoted by the World Health Organisation, with the Great Reset working with Eat Forum to remove animal products from our tables.

Impact on the English and United States Constitutions

King Alfred the Great (848 – 899)

The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were first unified 12th July 927 by King Alfred the Great, making England the world’s oldest country in existence today, hence the unique importance of English law that forms the basis for US Law and all other Common Law Jurisdictions that are founded upon individual liberty and due process of law, two things that the United Nations seek to arbitrarily abolish.

The most important first step towards our modern Common Law system was the Assize of Clarendon (1166), This law was a re-issuance of ancient rights and customs during the reign of King Henry II that established for the first time a national Common Law system of courts with Habeas corpus and trial by juries empowered to strike out judgements and laws that are unjust through Jury Nullification, with court decisions forming precedents that allow for adaptation to changing circumstances. It is not uncommon for Parliament to re-frame or repeal laws in response to court judgements and under Common Law nobody including politicians or the Queen are above the law.

This dynamic system that allows feedback to the governors from the governed to deliver a relatively organic, adaptive and stable system that looks very different to the top down administrative legal system of the United Nations that reflects the Napoleonic Code and Roman legal systems of continental Europe.

The last court of assize was quietly replaced by Crown Courts in England and Wales in 1972, just prior to the UN’s ICCPR allowing nations to suspend human rights during a state of emergency in 1976.

Magna Carta (1215)

Chapter 39 “No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”

 Chapter 40 “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

The Magna Carta of 1215 is the most famous attempt to codify some of the principles of the Common Law and the first known law to have asserted that a King, at that time King John, is not above the law, thus the UN is certainly not above the law in any Common Law jurisdiction. It included Clauses 39 and 40 that guaranteed liberty and due process of law that Article 29 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights pretends to abolish.

Magna Carta (1297)

The 1215 Magna Carta was a treaty between the Barons and the King. It was subsequently re-issued into Statute law in 1297 by King Edward I, proclaiming in the introductory text, which remains the law of the land, that:

“these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.”

And in Article 1 that “We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.”

Magna Carta (1297) Article 29 (XXIX) “Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.” states that: “NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor deal with him [condemn him,]but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Chapter 29 (XXIX) of the Magna Carta is the most important law still in force in the UK and possibly the world. The United Nations will have been painfully aware of this when they passed their Universal Declaration of “Human Rights” in 1948 that seeks to abolish the Common Law when it suits them. Is this why the Article that pretends to abolish Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta is Article 29 of the Universal Declaration? If so, this is an indication that the UN Charter is a declaration of war upon all Common Law jurisdictions including the Constitution of the United States of America, which embodies the spirit of Article 29 of the Magna Carta (1297).

Article 29 of the Magna Carta (1297) remains the law of the land in the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies and its principles remain the foundation of all common law countries. It was confirmed to be retained in the Republic of Ireland by the Statute Revision Act (2007). It arguably remains law in Canada and Australia and remains on the statute book in New Zealand. The United States Constitution is entirely in compliance with this Chapter of the Magna Carta.

The road was not always smooth and grievances still occurred with various attempts subsequently made to reinforce and codify the liberties of Subjects. For example, the Liberty of Subjects Act (1354) and Observance of Due Process Act (1368) signed into law by King Edward III, both of which remain law in the UK today further reinforce protection of general liberties by due process. In particular, and relevant to Article 29 of the UN Declaration and all UN treaties that pretend to be able to suspend liberty and due process, the 1368 Observance of Due Process Act made Constitutional the ancient Saxon custom, that:

“if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary (of due process of law), it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Error”.

Therefore, any treaty, enacted or imposed upon a Common Law jurisdiction, certainly in the UK, that pretends to be able to suspend due process of law can be deemed null and void, not only henceforth but also retroactively. This is an unfamiliar principle for many places that are not Common Law jurisdictions and helps explain the hatred that is often expressed towards the Anglo Saxon customs, laws and people. Therefore those UN treaties that suspend our rights and due process of law are “void in the law” and should be “holden for Error”.

England did suffer a Civil War following tyrannous Stuart rule that saw the Petition of Rights (1627) with King Charles loosing his head in 1649. Finally, with the Glorious English Revolution, England produced the jewel in its the crown, the English Bill of Rights (1688), which established today’s Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy that remains in full force to this day. Its clauses are similar to the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution.

Many of the Bill of Rights Articles have been contravened by the Coronavirus Regulations including rule by decree and the suspension of laws by decree; the guaranteed right to political speech and to petition HM Government that extends to assembly, association and freedom of the press; domestic deployment of the Army without an Act of Parliament; the promise of fines before conviction and excessive fines and punishments. It should not go un-noticed that these infringements have been by a “Tory” government, that at the moment is anything but Conservative, because the English Bill of Rights was passed by the Whig Party against Tory Party opposition.

Whilst Article 29 of the Magna Carta speaks of rights in general terms, the Petition of Rights and English Bill of Rights describes and made constitutional specific rights as does the United States Constitution, all stemming from the principles contained within Article 29 of the Magna Carta. The English Bill of Rights remains constitutional law in the UK, was confirmed to be retained in part in the Republic of Ireland by the Statute Revision Act (2007) and Scotland has its own version, the Claim of Rights (1689).

The English Bill of Rights is often referred to as the Bill of Rights abroad, it remains in statute with constitutional status in Canada, Australia and also New Zealand, which recently bolstered its liberties with the New Zealand Bill of Rights (1990), that amongst other things prohibits forced medical procedures.

Article 29(3) of the Universal Declaration of “Human Rights is the specific clause that plunges a knife into the English Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. It may not surprise you therefore that when you divide 29 by 3 you get 9.666 reoccurring. Whether planned or by coincidence, finding the number of the beast in this clause is appropriate because infamous Satanist, Aleister Crowley, proclaimed “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” and so it has come to pass that Article 29(3) allows the United Nations to do as it wishes with this being the whole of the law.

In addition to most politicians committing fraud when they impose these false narratives, any imposition of United Nations treaties that suspend liberty and due process of law within a Common Law jurisdiction is void and in error and those who impose them are committing sedition or treason, given that the Great Reset seeks to overthrow our ancient, inviolable, unalienable customs, liberties, laws and constitutions. The Treason Act (1351), again from King Edward remains in force in the UK. It states amongst other things that:

“if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be proveably attainted of open Deed by People of their Condition,, And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, it ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty”

Article III of the US Constitution has a similar wording, it states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

In the USA the President swears an Oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Similarly in the UK, the Monarch swears a Coronation Oath from the Coronation Oath Act (1688), that applies also to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in which they, on behalf of themselves and their governments “solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same.”

The English Bill of Rights goes further, making it unconstitutional for the UK to be ruled by a foreign power, which places a cloud over our previous membership of the European Union, it states:

“I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”

“England appears to be the rock on which the revolutionary waves split and disperse and which starves the coming society even in the womb.” Karl Marx, (Cologne, December 31, 1848)


Leave a Reply