Posted originally on Sep 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |

The entire English Legal System has abandoned everything that once made Britain the beacon of human rights and liberty in the world. There is absolutely nothing left for Britain even to hold its head upright. This man, pretending to be a judge, ASSUMES what he said is racist, without acknowledging that the immigrants are NOT all of a particular race. Then he PRESUMES that those words instigated someone else to violence with ZERO evidence of that being the case at all. This is NOT the rule of law, and when that crumbles, the ONLY solution becomes revolution and violence, for there is no court of law that can ensure that society remains civilized.

Perhaps this “judge” who is obviously violating the English Bill of Rights should turn to Confusus. His legal doctrines are far better than this nonsense. Even Jesus Christ addressed a gathering of Jews and told them: “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Not in Britain. The truth will get you tax-free living in prison for 7 years.

The most famous trial where a jury stood up refusing to find the defendant guilty in the face of a corrupt government was that of William Penn  (1644-1718), the founder of Pennsylvania. Penn was the leader of the Quakers in London, and you can see why people fled to America. The sect was not recognized by the government and was forbidden to meet in any building for the purpose of worship. In 1670, William Penn held a worship service on a quiet street, which a peaceful group of fellow Quakers attended. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested for disturbing the king’s peace and summoned to stand trial.

As the two men entered the courtroom, a bailiff ordered them to put their hats, which they had removed, back on their heads. When they complied, they were called forward and held in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on. Penn discovered that contempt of court is a personal prerogative of the judge and an infliction of punishment by a judge who becomes the legislator, jury, and sentencing judge.

Penn demanded to know what crime he was being charged with preaching – the cornerstone of Due Process. The judge refused to supply any information as to his crime and instead referred vaguely to common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment (NOTICE), he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury and confined in an enclosed corner of the room known as the bale dock.

Penn could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him. Several witnesses testified that Penn had preached to a gathering, which included Mead, but one showed some hesitancy as to whether Mead had been present. The judge turned to Mead and questioned him directly. In effect, the judge became the prosecutor, as he asked Mead if he was guilty. Mead invoked the common-law privilege against self-incrimination, which provoked hostile comments from the judge. The court then sent Mead to join Penn in the bale dock out of the sight of the jury and witnesses.

Finally, after the testimony, the court concluded that the judge had instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty as charged, dictating what verdict he had expected. Penn tried to protest but was silenced and again sent out of the courtroom. The jury, for its part, proved sympathetic to the two defendants and refused the judge’s command to find the defendants guilty.

At this point, the judge became so enraged, as I would expect from Judge Juan Merchan, and sent the jury back to reconsider their verdict. When they returned with the same verdict, the court criticized the jury’s leader, Bushnell, and demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco…We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”

After that, the jury was sent back three more times but returned with the same verdict. Finally, the jury refused to reconsider. The judge then fined each jury member forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid. Penn and Mead went to prison anyway, held in contempt for obeying the bailiff’s order that they put on their hats.

Later, the jury members won a writ of habeas corpus and were released from prison. Penn and Mead left England after their release from prison, having a taste of English justice, and sailed to America. (Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p. 113-115). Thus, Pennsylvania was founded. This was the Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006, a famous English decision on the role of juries and that they possessed the independence to decide the validity of the law being prosecuted.

Where is the Magna Carta Right to a Trial by Jury of Your Peers?

This guy is forced to plead guilty to a non-crime because if he dares go to trial and the Judge refuses to allow the jury to nullify this insane Starmmer law, then he will be given the maximum time of 7 years+ for demanding a fair trial.

Britain is No Longer a Free Society!

I will NEVER go to Britain ever again!

Posted originally on Sep 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

Posted originally on Sep 23, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

Thailand has become a case study for the use of biometric data in every facet of life. Every banking transaction is monitored and scrutinized. Any perceived discrepancy is flagged as fraud and punished without due process. Regulations have overwhelmed the system, resulting in a full-fledged banking crisis. Over three million Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning as a result of government overreach.

Transaction denied. You contact your bank to see why the payment failed only to learn that your account has been frozen–all of your accounts, for that matter. The bank is investigating you for suspicious activity and potential money laundering or fraud. There was no warning call or letter and there is no clarification as to what transaction was flagged. You’re completely locked out of your accounts and have lost the ability to purchase. You cannot fill your gas tank, you cannot purchase groceries, you’ve been completely removed from the financial system, and do not know when or if you’ll regain access to your funds.

This is the reality for millions of people banking in Thailand. The Bank of Thailand (BoT), with the Cyber Crime Investigation Bureau and the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, began an excessive crackdown on perceived fraud and streamlined the process under the premise of safeguarding the banking sector. Thousands of accounts are frozen each week. Panic has ensued. Retailers are no longer accepting cards, demanding payment in cash as they, too, are worried that they will be removed from the banking system.

Assistant Governor of the BoT, Darunee Saeju, publicly stated that the central bank is working to “immediately unlock wrongly affected accounts.” Saeju insists that new measures will enable the banks to verify accounts in under 48 hours. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system evaporated. People rationally fear that their account will be targeted next, without warning. Government overreach has backfired, and the people are removing themselves from the banking system entirely.

This phenomenon is not limited to Thailand. Vietnam recently erased 86 million unverified bank accounts. Governments are demanding banks track every transaction, tracing each account back to individual citizens using biometric data. The government believes these provisions will prevent capital from leaving the radar and, therefore, taxation. Instead, governments are propelling the cycle amid this private wave, as the people cannot possibly trust the current financial system.