Having come under tremendous attack by a subversive group within Roman Catholicism (every religion has subversive groups) that threatened to destroy our ministry under official channels please find our latest reply to the Charity Commission & their unconstitutional approach to equality and diversity. 07/01/2015 09:27:07 Ms Claire Parris, Investigations and Enforcement Development Officer, The Charity Commission PO Box 1227 LIVERPOOL L69 3UG Dear Ms Parris It seems to be a case of our Laws versus Your Laws and which ones are higher! A Full Parliamentary Enquiry is What’s Required! Joshua 24:15 King James Version (KJV) 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. From your reply Ms Parris there seems to be a choice between the laws you quote of changeable modern extraction and the Constitutional Acts of the nation which have stood for centuries, have brought our nation wealth and stability and protected the country from over-regulation we all suffer from today for reasons we outline in this letter. Allow me to illustrate: You say: Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their religion or belief (or because they have no religion or belief). There is a broad definition in the act of Religion and belief in line with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We say: there is major question in Great Britain over the role of the European Convention on Human Rights, our Constitutional Acts strictly forbidding any involvement in such a Convention. Even in contemporary political conversation the present Government is looking to remove itself from these claws of foreign interference. A simple reading of the 1534 Act of Supremacy shows an obligation to repress foreign laws and foreign authority so you have a choice which law to choose remembering of course the centuries the 1534 Act (re-instated 1559 by Queen Elizabeth I) has been British Law and the likelihood your law has of being removed from the processes of the Commission. Similarly you say, The consideration of equality and diversity is an integral part of everything that we do and forms part of our public law duties. In April, 2012, the Commission published a new Equality and Diversity Strategy. Our corporate values are contained within the Strategy and these underpin all that we do and govern our external and internal behaviour. Within these values is a commitment to fairness in which we state that “we must always act in an independent way with integrity and free from any bias, real or perceived. We value diversity and treat each other and our external stakeholders fairly.” The strategy has two principles at its core – the relevant one here being promoting equality in regulation; in practice, this means the fair treatment of those that we regulate or otherwise come into contact with. Fine words they look but when we put these words into scrutiny we see the word “new”. You see these values are “new” yet the values of those who founded Charities in Great Britain have stood the test of time, your strategy has yet to be tested! You see you may say that this strategy is law and has to be adhered to but even the Ancient Greeks realised that there were higher and lower laws so if we find this strategy is inconsistent with the history, heritage and custom of the nation then it is clearly unenforceable for the Monarch promised in her oath that law to be law has to come together with that which is customary. We cannot emphasize to you too strongly that you cannot have a “new strategy” when it comes to charities. The old principles of Shaftesbury, Barnardo, Booth, and Wesley have to be maintained high above anything that is “new”, it is this we go by, the principles that made Great Britain great, we proving here that what is coming in is far away from this base and must be repressed. I have looked into our Constitutional Acts to see if the values you mention in your “new strategy” are consistent with the Ancient Landmark of our Constitutional Acts that have the Monarch’s Oath aligned with them. Proverbs 22:28 King James Version (KJV) 28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. I have to say to you that I am struggling to find your modern term “equality and diversity” in these acts, indeed quite the opposite seems to be the case. Instead of “equality” I find an exclusivity of “Christ’s Religion” to which there is obligation to increase the virtue of, and instead of acceptance of diversity we find an obligation to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, enormities and abuses! This is followed in this Act of Supremacy on the obligation to repress foreign law and authority. Are you going to write back to us and say we are not to uphold these Constitutional Acts anymore in favour of “new strategies” as you put it? The “new strategies” you quote are seemingly completely at odds with the old values so which are we going to choose? The problem is Ms Parris, that the laws you bring to our attention have not stood the test of time and seemingly are at odds with our great Constitutional Acts that have seen Charities grow from humble beginnings not having to bow down to the new protocol. The customs of our nation are very important in that which the Monarch promised God in her oath. These must be maintained and whilst it is important in the oath to apply law with “law and justice in mercy” to all peoples, there is equality there but a special place is given to one religion that is a protest against Roman Catholicism and in our case with you, it seems you have not understood this. It is our view that you have overturned the oath with your “new strategy” whilst we have stood on the ancient oath to God that has stood the test of time. Indeed you mention in your letter seemingly in the name of the “new strategy” rather than the Constitution that you find it OK to have a person monitor our activities connected with Roman Catholicism, not only in the World but particularly in Wales! This is within the context of trustees having been threatened from those from within a subversive group attached to that religion, who by text threatened “to destroy us through official channels.” There is therefore in your modern term “conflict of interest” which needs to be declared. Ms Parris, you see your “new strategy” has not been seen to deal with issues like our ancient acts have and to dismiss them in favour of something “new” and shakey is indeed folly in the extreme. Now Ms Parris we will be monitoring you and your organisation to ensure you keep the ancient landmark, indeed if you read the Coronation Oath you will find that special rights and privileges have been given to Protestant clergy to do this so there is no equality with other religions there. You cannot repeal an oath of a Monarch or sign it away to foreign authority as we have proven. It is all this we will be presenting to a Parliamentary Enquiry. When it comes to Charities – what no Charity Needs is “Letter of the Law” Application You see Ms Parris it is our Constitutional nature to resist “ letter of the law” application particularly of modern law which is shaking all around us away from our Constitutional rock. 2 Corinthians 3:6 King James Version (KJV) 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The Pharisees wore phylacteries around their head failing to understand that words of God are contextually absolute and that the wrong application of law can bring death rather than life. It is with the same application of modern law that we are illustrating to you can bring death, destroy foundations and place people under so much stress that you actually kill them. During the course of your enquiry I went through massive stress, became extremely ill and nearly died in hospital, the Commission in the view of trustees failing to appreciate the immense stress the trustees were under having been threatened by a subversive group threatening to destroy us “through official channels”, the Commission becoming one of those channels applying law by the letter rather than the spirit. This is what we present to you as being illegal under British law, this letter looking to show beyond all doubt that this is the case here! It would be hypocritical of us however to look to destroy you and your staff by similar “letter of law “application so instead we intend to “apply law with law and justice in mercy” which is the demand of our Monarch. The context of this is that your whole enquiry began as a result of complaints into the Commission about the way this charity is run. This followed a series of documented threats by text into us threatening to destroy us. These threats we know are linked to an organisation that embraces secret oaths against the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by law. The ultimate insult is to have a leader of the enquiry team who is linked by family relationship to the Roman Catholic Charismatic movement in Wales, a simple look at our websites proving the Charity’s stand in upholding the Monarch’s oath, that we expose such organisations – thus the reason for this attempt to destroy us through official channels. This is major conflict of interest which you have failed to deal with in your reply. The question too of the anonymity of the complainers we also raise – for the context here is that the trustees had been put under threat, and that the Charity Commission has been used to destroy us as intimated in those threats by text. Even your modern laws can see this is “conflict of interest” and so we look to raise this in a Parliamentary enquiry. Needs to be seen by the highest authorities in British Government At this stage I ask you therefore to pass on this report to your highest officials for we intend to push strongly for a full Parliamentary enquiry where these questions can be answered for it is our strong view that under this scrutiny the Equality and Diversity strategy you mention will fall particularly in the context of Britain’s rejection of foreign infiltration into our legal and political processes. It is with the heart of the Constitution that our complaint looks to put the Commission’s dealing with us in context, the Constitution and indeed the Bible being contextually absolute as opposed to the absolutist approach with modern law which we believe is proven to be illegal. We believe we prove a severe weakness in the way the Commission operates. Surely your very name must mean something to you, charity mean love, agape love and as with our case you are dealing with trustees who get no pay, trustees who have over years put their lives on the line for the cause, we cannot as a nation allow these “letter of the law” approaches which as in the case here can bring people to the point of death. Indeed, it will be our contention to Parliament that we have found the fundamental flaw in the way law is being applied in 21st century Britain. Surely the core value of “love” must be the value by which you operate, getting beside trustees who have given sacrificially, trustees under threat of a subversive group, trustees who have entered dangerous war-zones for the sake of others, trustees who need encouragement and support rather than endless bashings of legalism and massive legal and accountancy fees. Can you not see that what the Commission has done is wrong and not in line with the heart of our Constitution? A Monarch cannot make an oath to God to keep the laws of God and then have a government that make laws which are fundamentally opposed to the relationship of Christ and his Church. We are witnessing daily government bodies like your own applying apparent laws that bear no relation to the Christian heritage of the country and the way law has traditionally been applied. Like Paul contended his constitutional rights before Caesar this Charity will be contending its Constitutional rights before the Monarch and her Parliament. It is clear from your reply that you have not grasped this! Parliament must know and so it is our role in this Charity to bring this understanding of freedom to the nation as a whole. This is not a political ambition, but a constitutional one. Being a Charity that has at its heart the continuation of our Christian heritage and Constitution, it is our desire to be charitable to your organization and offer our Bible College of Wales Continuing courses on these acts to which it would seem your organization is without understanding. There is absolutely no point in pushing us to keep to modern legislation if the foundations of Parliamentary acts are completely ignored by your Commission. Psalm 11:2-3 King James Version (KJV) 2 For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart. 3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? REMEMBERING THE FOUNDATIONS Following on from this are major constitutional questions for if your organisation is not upholding the Monarch’s Oath, why are you hitting us with regulations and procedures in line with Acts of Parliament that have the Monarch’s crest upon them? Are you aware that the sessions that brought about these acts beginning with Protestant Prayer and the highest court in the land still has the title “Spiritual and Temporal” in its name so are you maintaining all of this in your application of law? Are your staff trained in this? We are saying to you that it is clear that they are not making your organisation “not fit for purpose” which was outlined to you in a recent Parliamentary enquiry. We are very serious about this for undermining the spiritual undermines the very fabric of society. You cannot hit charities with regulation if you are not keeping to the foundations of those regulations. What therefore can we do? By keeping to the foundations of law, moving then to producing law in line with those foundations, observing the Constitutional demand that there has to be no foreign interference with our law making whatsoever (Act of Supremacy 1534 re-instated in the Elizabethan Settlement 1559) then you will produce regulation to successfully grow charities in line with the nation’s Protestant heritage. Instead you demand that laws are kept outside of those foundations and the Monarch’s oath to God with those of the religion that the Constitution is fundamentally opposed to actually standing over us to ensure we keep in line with laws alien to our heritage and Constitution. In this context we have issued complaint against charities openly exposed by Daniel Hannan MEP that have accepted European grant funding on the basis of putting in support for the European political ideal. We need to know the reason why the Commission has done nothing about this. Is this because of your adherence to a philosophy different to that of the Coronation Oath? That is our contention. We expose it, declare it and say there is stronghold here alien to that of our Constitution. In all of this your enquiry has virtually destroyed us, taking our time in keeping in line with your many demands, paying for high legal fees and increased accountancy costs and in addition to all of this we have brought in Peninsula Business at considerable cost to monitor our procedures and policies. All very good you may say but none of this hits the fundamental reason why your organisation and our Charity is in existence. We are here because of our heritage. Fundamentally the Charity Commission is the “Commission of Love”, charity meaning “love” in the Bible the Queen promised to uphold in her Coronation. Are you representing this? We say “no you are not!” You seem to have another policy in the name of “equality and diversity.” This again is the fundamental point of our complaint. It has to be remembered that before foreign interference into our legal processes, clearly coming out in your deliberations with us, that Charities began in Great Britain with a Protestant Christian ethos which we say you are attacking rather than upholding. Wilberforce would never have freed the slaves it he had been held back by your investigations, Dr Barnardo would never have saved the children with the time consuming and stressful approaches of your modern organisation and John Wesley would never have pioneered Methodism if his time had been taken in the procedures and policies of your organisation rather than the Word of God. It is this that it at the heart of our complaint. It is the view of trustees therefore from your reply on behalf of the Commission that that there is a missing of the fundamental point, and that there is a major conflict of interest here and that conflict of interest relates to the very Constitution of Great Britain which if ignored places the very regulations you look to place us under as being illegal. You cannot have law if the foundations of that law are destroyed, there being protection under our Constitutional Acts for trustees of charities like our own who passionately have given into the cause, who have on occasions put their lives on the line for the sake of others (this is charity by the way agape, which is at the heart of Christianity), and also have given wholeheartedly with sacrifice resources into the cause that has included the massive additional burden the threats and your consequent enquiry cost. In reality, those who stand for Traditional Values are being placed into a corner bring far from Equal in a Diverse Society. It is therefore vital to remember the foundations. These foundations are at the heart of law making which is why we are looking now for support from Members of Parliament for a full Parliamentary enquiry into this case. We believe it is a matter of life or death to charities in our nation whether we can get the Commission back in line with its roots for without these it is in no position to apply modern law which the Monarch said on oath “would be applied with law and justice in mercy” in line with the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by law which is the foundation constitutionally of the nation. SPECIFIC POINTS: i) OUR ACCUSATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST versus your DECLARATION OF EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY Your response goes to the narrow point of what you seem to perceive as being a personal complaint against Rachael Sueref. We are not taking part in a personal complaint against her but rather the system of the Charity Commission that would place someone with associations to the Roman Catholic Charismatic movement in Wales in a country whose Constitution fundamentally opposes Roman Catholicism (1534 Act of Supremacy, 1689 Act Establishing the Coronation Oath, 1159 Elizabethan Settlement, 1700 Act of Settlement.) In the Parliamentary Enquiry we intend to see occur, will Parliament now say that the Monarch’s oath no longer applies in favour of your “new strategy?” We do not believe so therefore your letter cannot be line with the said Constitution. Let it be clear, Rachael was extremely courteous to us, friendly to us and in no way are we attacking her. It is to protect her as well as us that we complain vigorously that you should place her as head of an investigation team looking at our affairs. ii) You mention Legal Tools at the Commission’s Disposal as Sector Regulator: There is no mention in your reply in relation to the nation’s constitution, no mention in relation to the way law is to be applied and no addressing of the way you take up complaints and the way subversive groups can meet their destructive objectives through your “legal tools.” iii) The Monarch’s Role Today: It is good that you have researched the website of the British Monarchy, however this website is not the Coronation Oath itself which demands that “all law be applied with law and justice in mercy” and it is in the area of application of law and disregard to its foundations that our complaint is based. Also, the website cannot remove the Monarch’s oath to God in upholding the Protestant Reformed Religion, it being nonsense to have those connected to groups out to destroy us overseeing us in this context or are you saying the Monarch has forsaken her oath in favour of the “new strategy” of “equality and diversity” you seem to have placed your whole operation on rather than the Constitution of the Nation. Ms Parris, you need to make a choice between the Constitution and your intimated “new strategy.” There has to be understanding that we as clergy of the realm have an obligation to ensure the Constitutional Acts are kept to and new philosophies and mantras of the present era be repressed. Indeed in this we are prepared to offer our services free of charges. As trustees of this Charity we make no financial gain, our gain comes by teaching the foundations that our nation was built, not in “equality and diversity” but in the religion the Monarch is oath bound to uphold. Not in the quoting of foreign courts and authorities but having a nation at peace with itself under a Constitution that gives freedom of choice to all peoples within the laws of God, but not under laws that are inconsistent with what the Monarch is on oath to God to repress. iv) Commission’s Accountability: Again you emphasize following relevant frameworks and policies, however this is not the attitude of a Commission that fully understands its constitutional obligation which is to be a Commission of love that acts according to the Monarch’s oath in applying law “with the law and justice in mercy” the Monarch’s oath demands. The emphasis on “letter of the law application” is completely at odds with our heritage, the history of Charities in Britain, our Constitution and instead of giving public trust and confidence over the way charities are run in Great Britain, it is our view that you are destroying the lives of those who have given their lives for the sake of others. This too is what we are looking for a Parliamentary Enquiry to look at. FINALLY – very important to us is that you understand this ……. Again we emphasize: our complaint to Parliament will not be one of personal attack, as trustees we have offered hospitality, love and understanding to them including Rachael. As trustees we are fundamentally spiritual beings. We have our quorum in the Spirit and operate in a theocratic rather than democratic way. All trustees are encouraged to open their hearts and go forward in God together. This is so important to us, and way above the winning of narrow debating points. It is very easy to us to win this point over the Constitution. It’s been there for centuries and withstood the test of time whereas your modern jargon and modern laws will go out as the decades go by. There is a final factor we bring before you. It is important to trustees that you understand this as we were hit with secular models of operation by your investigation team. However with charities this is not appropriate as these models fail to understand the context on which our nation is run constitutionally. It is also why the term “Spiritual and Temporal” is related to the House of Lords, the highest court in the land. Who understands this these days? Whether or not you understand it, it is law and our quorum comes to us all having witness in the spirit, by hearing from God himself and acting accordingly. This is why Protestant prayer begins every session of Parliament so that the Spirit guides proceedings in line with the Word of God. Is this understood by the Charity Commission? Is this understood in Parliament or are the prayers simply vain reputations rather than the seeking of God himself? Perhaps this will come out in the Parliamentary enquiry too. You see the operations of our Charity are deeply rooted in the heritage of our nation, our laws never changing unlike those you present to us as having legal clout when in reality when placed alongside the nation’s Constitution look very small indeed. Our nation is coming into a time of major uncertainty, the apparent membership of the EU is under great question, the EU itself with its laws and regulations being highly rejected throughout Europe particularly in UK. It is entirely inappropriate therefore to hit us with “new strategies” for to overcome the challenges of the modern era we need to maintain our British traditional stand of a Monarch under God, and the nation being obedient to God and his moral code that does bring about an equality but not in the way your strategy dictates. During the war in Sri Lanka our missions teams entered the warzone to help all peoples, we did treat everyone the same when it came to humanitarian care and love and so in one sense there is equality. The love of God goes out to all people whatever race or creed and indeed we all stand equal before God as sinners affected by the sin of Adam. In this we are all equal but those who accept Christ Jesus are lifted up to a higher place, high above the troubles of this world and Ms Parris you have the choice today – to be equal with God, a joint heir with Christ so we do have a Equality policy! This policy however is not “new” but the “ancient landmark” the nation has stood on for centuries. This policy has not been affected by modern day protocol which is looking very shakey indeed in an ever changing world. This is why we have the Constitution we have, one of stability in Christ Jesus to benefit all, rather than ever changing regulations that puts stress on people to such a degree that I can tell you that your investigation and the threats around it nearly killed me. It did not and our Charity has grown enormously spiritually but because of your approach has had to drain the resources we did have at our disposal. Your approach in misunderstanding what a quorum really is overturned the decisions of trustees who were one in spirit. Your Commission in its lack of understanding of its spiritual heritage nearly destroyed us. It is to save not only us but the whole nation that we are so strong in making the stand we have. We ask the Commission to reconsider its ways and come back to the heritage on which charities were built rather than hitting us with modern protocol. It is this we look to present to Parliament. Yours in love on behalf of trustees Revs David P Griffiths E M Lindsay Griffiths Brian Mason
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:16:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015