King John III, Joseph Gregory Hallett, had better start acting right now if he doesn't want to lose the kingdom all over again - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Media/Media-Files/Gaelic-Gulag-Ireland-is-Now-Under-Marxist-Rule.pdf.
Not only Ireland, New Zealand and Australia (Victoria, Tasmania) gone apeshape in recent times.
Things do start to shape up
https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1326739/Royal-latest-news-Buckingham-Palace-protest-Prince-Andrew-paedophile-Royal-Family-video
The place is already empty.
I'm not going to quote it, but look all over Hallett's court docs and court writings. He talks about the court called Queen's Bench. Queen's Bench is the common law court of the UK, and probably is similar in Australia, NZ, and Ireland.
What does Queen's Bench have to do with it? QB is about property, any property ownership, and authorization-to-use all kinds of property, not just land. Also, when used properly, QB is the court that a man/woman uses to stand in, unrepresented, in fairness.
What's this about? Simple. Laws of fairness and laws of property ownership are the basic laws in British law. These laws state that all people are created equal. So, if you stand in QB unrepresented, your opponent must stand unrepresented, as well. This gets rid of all the barristers and attorneys... except as unofficial advisors. Also, private property can be proven up in QB, based on deeds and receipts, or on damage or injury of personal body property, or any other property.
The place in law where fairness has been decided on, is what is called the Maxims of Law. These are above all other laws in QB. They are reasonably easy to understand. One of the best sources for Maxims is Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary - https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml. Or, a person could look up Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=blackstone%27s+commentaries+on+the+law&t=ffab&ia=web for an understanding of how and where to use the Maxims best.
Basically, when one stands in QB, it's a [wo]man-to-[wo]man operation. The magistrate is a referee. The jury is the judge, except if the opponents jointly elect the magistrate to be the judge.
The point? None of the laws of the UK stand against a [wo]man in QB. In QB, the only thing that stands is (private) property (if there is no representation of the opponents by a barrister). In QB, a [wo]man can call out a [wo]man of Parliament for harming him/her with some law that was made, and get the law repealed for himself/herself. But if the people don't know about QB, or if they don't have the ability to think or feel, they give up their rights by default.
The above is how Hallett won his rights using Queen's Bench. The Queen didn't show up at court when he accused her, so he got a bunch of default judgments. It would have been similar in Australia, NZ, Ireland, Wales, Canada, and wherever else the UK has domination. The USA is easier.
In the USA, there is no Queen's Bench. Rather, it's called a Common Law Court of Record. The judge (magistrate) is a referee. The jury is the judge (except if the opponents agree that the judge is to be judge). And the opponents stand unrepresented, except that they may have unofficial representation... advisors speaking in their ear during the trial. Same basic thing as Queen's Bench.
