You Pledged — Did Mr Hodder Meet the Challenge Criteria Where Is the Evidence — Part 2

PeaceKeepers advances a constitutional framework grounded in rule by law, not rule by power. The people hold plenary authority; those who govern do so only as trustees, exercising conditional and derivative power in service of the public. Authority is fiduciary, not proprietary. Rooted in the historic law of the land, this framework recognises that prior to 1066 all held equal dominion as stewards, bound by purpose, obligation, and accountability. Following the settlement, force ceased to justify rule; authority depended on custom, continuity, and lex terrae. Justice is owed ex debito justitiae, as of right. Equity ensures none stand above the law. The State is an instrument of administration, accountable to conscience, custom, and lawful authority. Fiat justitia ruat caelum — ex debito justitiae — lex terrae et equity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2 follows DDJ Blitz’s judgment from paragraph 58 through to summary judgment and the pledge/fund issue. The central question is: Did DDJ Blitz preserve the actual contractual question, or change it step by step? Paragraph 58 is the key starting point. DDJ Blitz said evidence is information that tends to support or refute “a particular matter.” PeaceKeepers says the court then had to identify that particular matter. It was not generic parliamentary power or proof that statutes exist. It was whether Parliament can lawfully, as legislatively defined in the Act of Settlement 1700 as an individual’s birthright, create an obligation binding any individual or group. This video tests the judgment against three legal foundations: Case of Proclamations — source discipline. Custom, common law and statute are distinct legal sources. The Challenge Criteria asked for expressed legislative evidence, not commentary, judicial authority, or a general essay. Entick v Carrington — positive authority discipline. If a legal power, route, or consequence is asserted, lawful authority must be shown. It cannot be assumed, created by habit, usage, convenience, or “close enough” reasoning. Ashby v White — reason and remedy discipline. Law is not an isolated quotation. The judgment must show the reason connecting source, issue, evidence and consequence. At paragraph 59, DDJ Blitz accepted that argument, interpretation and commentary were not of the same exact nature as evidence, but held that their similarity in context was sufficient. PeaceKeepers asks: sufficient for what? What legal authority converts commentary, judicial authority, or statutory examples into expressed legislative evidence? At paragraph 60, DDJ Blitz said the issue was “substance, not form”. PeaceKeepers says the source-form was part of the substance. The offer asked for written publicly available expressed legislative evidence. At paragraph 61, DDJ Blitz said PeaceKeepers could have drafted the challenge more narrowly. PeaceKeepers says the limiting words were already there: written, publicly available, expressed, legislative, lawfully, Act of Settlement, birthright, obligation, and binding individuals. At paragraphs 62 to 64, summary judgment followed. PeaceKeepers says the real contractual question was not whether Mr Hodder submitted evidence of some kind, but whether he submitted the required source-specific evidence of the required particular matter. At paragraph 65, DDJ Blitz used statutory examples such as tax, theft, jury service and public health legislation. PeaceKeepers says examples of statutes do not prove the full lawful source proposition required by the Challenge Criteria. The video ties this back to Mr Hodder’s 29 July submission, where he understood the Act of Settlement source-text route, and contrasts it with his 3 December submission, which became an aggregation of constitutional statutes, judicial authorities, statutory examples, commentary and conclusion. Finally, Part 2 connects the evidence question to the pledge/fund issue. DDJ Blitz relied on the September wording that “the people who have pledged once they see the evidence then they will be good to their word.” PeaceKeepers says that depends on people seeing the evidence and deciding for themselves whether Mr Hodder performed. If, after reading the documents, you believe Mr Hodder met the Challenge Criteria, email PeaceKeepers with your reasoned view and include: “I consent to PeaceKeepers forwarding this email and my contact details to Mr Hodder.” Do not send money or bank details to PeaceKeepers. PeaceKeepers is not collecting money for Mr Hodder. Do not contact DDJ Blitz, Mr Hodder, court staff, witnesses or third parties. Read the documents. Check the source. Evaluate the reasoning. Public power must show its working. © Marc Horn / PeaceKeepers — original educational framework. Unauthorised reproduction prohibited. https://peacekeepers.org.uk/copyright