Lord Kilmuir letter to Edward Heath

Letter from Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor to Edward Heath.Explanations to the implications to Lord Kilmuir's comments are printed in red.

In answer to a letter from Edward Heath written on the 30TH November, Lord Kilmuir, the Lord
Chancellor, makes it plain that there are real problems with the constitutional limitations imposed
on government which prevent our joining the EEC. He goes on to mention some ways in which the
constitution will conflict with Heath’s plans but also indicates ways of subverting the conflict. The
comments in red, interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government were
prepared to commit acts of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we
do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir and therefore Heath’s questions are
unknown. However it will take little imagination to guess what they were!


My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our
becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. 1Ihave now had an opportunity of considering
what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree
with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty,
but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general
observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European
Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears
from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that
does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that
we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional
point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind
that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty.This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our
Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced
by the convention which says:
(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern
unless we have been defeated in war).
And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action insurrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal
because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The
Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings were not
vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three
ways:-
Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the
community;Answer as above.The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those
organs of the community;The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the Sovereign cannottransfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own parliament because they are not the
incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they only hold those powers in trust for those who follow
on.Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming
subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of theSovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts
not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.The Position of ParliamentIt is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of
could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force)
make
regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in
fact become for us part of the law of the land.
There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be
implemented:-It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to takeeffect as law in England. This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire
1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations
requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither
itself not its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if
Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative
proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament
passes British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament
of Canada, in this respect Parliament here has substance, if not in form, abdicated its
sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an Act of Treason under the 1351Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, an Act of Treason under the 1559
Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.It would in theory be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which
would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the
appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond
the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever
experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the
House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in
theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that
we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable,
we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to
repeal us own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of
Westminster. In short. Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other
appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the
whole of a very important field.There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to atotal abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an
Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, and
Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.Treaty-making PowersThe proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some
extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and
O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I
should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign that, by signing the Treaty of
Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council's
approval. But to transfer to the council or the Commission the power to make such
treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition.
There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of sovereignty
involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers
and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these
powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state's treaty-making powers on an
international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of
confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would
necessarily carry us very far in this direction, hut it would be a most significant step
and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of
sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know
although the treaty-making power is vested in the Crown. Parliamentary sanction is
required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of
taxation (to lake two examples and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament
consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must
surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the
Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and aPraemunire, under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy
and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.Independence of the CourtsThere is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions
of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication
of ‘refer’- to accept that court's decision. You will remember that when a similar
proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong
objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country
would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the
independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must
emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignly involved are serious ones
and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade
Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to
under-estimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be
brought out into the open now because, if we attempt lo gloss over them at this stage
those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly
seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said this, I would
emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be
given their lull weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not
for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the
scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to
make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see
exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss
would be.It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of law to the domination of a foreign courtoutside of Her Majesty’s control.

BRITAIN IS NOT PART OF THE EU

When he signed the European Communities Act (ECA72) in 1972, Prime Minister Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully tricked, deceived and betrayed the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU under the pretence that they’d be joining a European common trading agreement. The underlying intention was to surrender Britain’s sovereignty.
There can be no doubt that he deliberately lied to the nation. “I will only sign ECA72 with the will of the people, the will of Parliament and there will be no loss of sovereignty.” As we know the people were never consulted. Having twice lost the vote on ECA72 in Parliament Heath made the final crucial vote, a vote of confidence. Faced with bringing down the Government, the Conservatives reluctantly voted by NINE votes to pass ECA72. So much for the “overwhelming support of Parliament”.
As to the loss of sovereignty, we fortunately we have a witness in Lord Thorneycroft who was present in Heath’s private office when Lord Kilmuir’s letter was delivered. Heath had asked the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir whether the ECA72 was contrary to English Constitutional Law. The advice was clear. It would be. Heath read it and went as white as a sheet. He folded the letter, put it in his pocket and said, “No one must see this, least of all the Cabinet.” Heath went ahead anyway and signed the ECA72. It was an act of treason.
For that reason alone under English Law, the ECA72 is void and of no effect.
Heath’s was the most calculating and grievous High Treason in British history. He knowingly gave away his country. Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become lawfully binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. You cannot make law by breaking the law. His then treasonousgovernment immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful and has no legitimacy.
No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to reinforce Heath’s outrageous pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly consented to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had such authority and their actions are treasonous contrary to English law for acting against the nation’s known interests, intention to surrender its sovereignty, using wilful deception to deliberately betray the nation and for acting in the political interests of a foreign power. It is effectively to declare war on the British Crown and the nation and is thus treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly. With no legitimacy and in knowingly committing the most evil act of treason against their own people, each has invited and imposed foreign rule over their own country for others’ political purpose.2Since 1972, not one British parliament has acted within the law. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to serve and protect Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they persist in deceitfully concealing the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has long been known that the British people would never accept it and would object most violently were they ever to find out.
But they are finding out. Parliaments’ history of treason and corruption is a matter of public record with an increasing number of research documents, newspaper and magazine articles,
TV documentaries and an overwhelming amount of Foreign and Commonwealth Office documentary evidence released to the public domain. Over 600 pages of it can be downloaded and read at http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-relateddownloads/ and this evidence is also verified in Hansard with a full and complete record of politicians’ statements.

  No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly.
English law therefore, stands as it was prior to signing of the ECA72. Thus Britain is not and can never have been part of the European Union as every Act, EU Treaty and every statute since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent, is treasonous, unlawful, null and void.

Not one has the force of law. In any case, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a signatory power may abrogate any treaty unilaterally where corruption can be demonstrated in respect of procuring the Treaty in the first place or in respect of any dimension of it's implementation. This means that the known and proven treason by Heath and his successors and the widely recognized and often reported deep corruption within the EU render every EU Treaty “signed” by Britain, invalid.
The European Union has no legitimate influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. Their authority exist only in the minds of certain politicians in furtherance of the European Union political agenda. Britain may lawfully walk away at any time without a second thought as she is not a part of it anyway. Moreover, the supremacy of English law in Britain automatically intercedes and strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The deceit, pretence and false enforcement of Britain’s “European involvement” is none other than parliamentary make-believe and pure theatre designed at the highest levels to deceive and subjugate the people to foreign rule against their will for others’ political purpose contrary to Common Law. It is WILFUL TREASON.A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally and without mandate, wilfully and criminally import and impose upon their own people, foreign rule and influence that has no authority in Britain.English Constitutional and Common Law is beyond parliamentary reach to alter or repeal and cannot be ignored. Parts are, in any case, by contract directly between the King and his people. Thus Parliament is not a party to those arrangements and can have no input.
Importantly, this English law is immutable and in perpetuity, written specifically to forever protect the British people from despotic governance.
Even Her Majesty the Queen cannot change or ignore these laws as she is herself subject to them. She cannot surrender Britain’s sovereignty that she holds in trust from the British people, for her successors. Neither can she relinquish Britain’s independence and freedom of self determination to a foreign power. Her solemn obligation is to protect and preserve the United Kingdom for her successors, as she received it. What she cannot do, her servants in Parliament ALSO cannot do.3A succession of British parliaments has since 1972 attempted to do the very things the Queen cannot. In so doing, each has placed themselves above the Queen which is to imagine her death. Each of these acts is the most serious treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.
Thus their treason is compound in plotting and attempting to give away their country and in considering themselves above the Queen whose death they casually assume.
The Common Law imposes strict and enduring duties upon every British subject from birth.
Every British subject is duty bound in allegiance and loyalty to the nation and in the reporting and prevention of treason. These obligations are absolute and inseparable wherever one may be around the world and cannot be resigned except by renouncing British nationality.
They far pre-date the Bill of Rights 1689 which protects Britain from all foreign influence or rule by any power or authority: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.”Britain’s pretend EU membership is contrary to (among others) the 1351 Treason Act, the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. These laws, remember, are beyond the reach of Parliament to amend, repeal or to disregard and just because modern day lawyers are not trained in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that serious offences against them have not been and are not committed. Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, these English Constitutional and Common Laws are the birthright of the people and cannot be taken away.
The treason committed by Britain’s politicians is being reported by a growing number of angered people across the country, to the police for prosecution. The police have accepted the evidence as prima facie cases to answer with a view to further action being taken. Under English Common Law anyone who is aware that treason is contemplated or has or is being committed but who does nothing to report or prevent it, commits the equally serious offences of ‘Misprision of Treason at common law’ (knowing of treason committed but doing nothing to report or prevent it) and ‘Compounding (the) Treason at common law’ (any act or inaction which effectively condones, supports or allows the treason to continue). These are tried in court as the original treason. The legal obligation to report known treason extends to every British national. Treason continues to be regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation that it is still a hanging offence. Ignorance of the law is, of course, no defence.Lawful BritainBritain Is Not Part Of The EU 

Legality of EU treaties

 Legality of EU treaties with regard to Vienna Convention.

Article 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 1969 states: 'A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.'

Peremptory norm includes the removal of sovereignty and the removal of law not specifically repealed.

It is recognised that EU Treaties entail removal of National Sovereignty and abrogate National Law not specifically repealed which includes the Treason Laws. Parliament is sovereign except that it shall not diminish its own sovereignty.

As Parliament at various times has seen fit to transfer sovereignty to the EU, it is illegal under International Law and should cease forthwith including any procedures laid down by the EU for secession from the EU and withdraw unilaterally,

CROWN, POUND and DEMOCRACY

Pass to your MP
PLEASE SEND THIS TO THERESA MAY.    BL.
 
 

Speech by BOB LOMAS at "CROWN, POUND and DEMOCRACY" rally (Trafalgar Square, 21 April 2002) Bob Lomas is founder and Chairman of the MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY

Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters of the family of the United Kingdom, for if we are not a family we are not a nation. When I was a young man, I was a soldier. I did not have the opportunity to be an angry young man. Now I'm making up for it. I've joined the brigade of angry old men. No, we are enraged. It is said that old men should have a little dog to prevent them from becoming too angry. I have one. I have here a photograph. Can you see alright at the back? My friends, that is a much larger and clearer picture than Parliament showed this nation when our traitorous politicians took us into the new growing soviet in Europe. Many of us here today no doubt had ancestors at Trafalgar and Waterloo. They fought to prevent the Code Napoleon casting its dark shadow of oppression over this nation. My father fought in the Great War. He survived all the major battles, the Somme, Passchendale, Ypres and Vimey ridge. He lived to be an old man, but that dreadful struggle for democracy stayed with him until his dying day. I will not stand by, and allow treacherous politicians and cheapskate lawyers to betray the sacrifices made by my fallen comrades, my fathers fallen comrades, and my grandfathers and great-grandfathers fallen comrades. In 1953 Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in this ancient city, the capital of the nation, now, as Parliament would have us believe, a province of the EU. At the time of her Coronation the Queen entered into a contract with the people. She took a sacred oath, not to rule us, not to reign over us, but to govern us, according to our laws and customs. The sovereignty of this nation belongs to the people, and the queen, the official 'governor' of the nation and sovereign head of state, is the physical embodiment of the people's sovereignty. Any attempt to reduce, usurp or suborn, the sovereign powers of the queen, powers vested in her by the people at the time of her Coronation, is an act of treason. In 1972 Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome. According to the requirements of the Treaty of Rome, Heath did not so much sign a treaty, he signed an article of capitulation. Before he did so, Lord Kilmuir gave him strong warning that signing the treaty would lead to a surrender of national sovereignty. Heath signed regardless, and so committed an act of treason, for he sought to place the Queen in breach of her Coronation Oath. He sought to strip her of her powers as sovereign Head of State. Following that treachery, Parliament, by means of lies and deceits, forced through the European Community Act 1972, [ECA1972] an attempt to legitimise the treason. No lawful act can uphold an unlawful act, therefore the ECAct1972 must be ultra vires - unlawful. It follows that the ECAct1972 cannot merely be repealed, simply because it had no legitimacy in the first place. Following the Maastricht Treaty, forced through by John Major by some of the most despicable methods ever to disgrace the Commons, John Major boasted in the Commons that the Queen was now a mere citizen of the EU. More recently, in the trial of Steve Thoburn, charged, found guilty and made a criminal for trading in customary measures, as is his right under the protection of the constitution and the crown, Justice Morgan presiding made it clear that in 1972 parliament surrendered national sovereignty to the European Community, and that EU Law is now the supreme law in this land. Morgan was claiming that the crown had no legitimacy in that court. There can be little doubt that it was a toe in the water exercise for introducing political courts - illegal under the constitution. Major and Morgan were talking treason, for they dismissed the supremacy of the Queen as sovereign Head of State. Neither the statements of Major nor Morgan have been publicly denounced or dismissed, so we can only assume they were stating the view and position of Parliament. If this was so, it follows that in 1972 either the Queen abdicated or she was deposed, for you cannot have a sovereign Head of State of a country that is not sovereign. It also follows that as Parliament draws its legitimacy from the Crown and from 1972 on, Parliament has been without legitimacy - an elected dictatorship - and all the pageant and trappings of the state opening of Parliament has been a sham, a charade enacted to deceive the people into believing that all is as before, and that the Queen is still administering the supremacy of the Crown. Many thousands of letters and petitions have been sent to the Queen protesting at the takeover of this nation by a foreign power. The replies received state that the Queen is obliged to act on the advice of her Ministers - presumably even if that advice amounts to making her break her oath to her people, which is an act of treason, in legal terms, 'persuading the monarch to govern in a particular way'. They are attempting to persuade us that the queen is suzerain, whose job it is to rubber-stamp the dictates of foreigners. My friends, this we do not accept. Parliament has no powers other than those delegated to it on a limited basis, both in time and deference to the Monarch and the People. Parliament is no more than the estates of the realm, part of the Queen's dominion. Parliamentarians take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, just as the Queen took an oath of allegiance to us, the British people. Oaths that are designed to ensure that neither Parliament nor Crown can become a dictatorship. This excellent and long tested system was constructed to eliminate despotic kings. Now we suffer a despotic Parliament. Where formerly it was Parliament and the People versus the Crown, now it is the Crown and the People versus Parliament. Parliament must be brought to heel. We must put our weight behind the Crown and insist that Her Majesty instructs her Ministers and the Judiciary to conduct a full Judicial Review of the parliamentary procedures and doings that engaged us in the European Community. I am confident that the majority of us gathered here today are in no doubt that the Queen and the Country have been betrayed, and that treason has taken place. Under the law of misprision of treason, any person who has a suspicion that treason has taken place, is obliged by law to report that suspicion to an authority of the crown, who in turn is obliged to inform a higher authority. Failure to do so makes one complicit with that treason, should it eventually be proved. Some of us have already engaged in this process. If from what I have told here today, or from what suspicions you formerly had, you suspect that treason has taken place, report it to your police station, report it to your member of parliament, report it to a magistrate - whichever. Ladies and gentlemen I urge you to do your duty. Shout treason long and loud, until it rings out in the streets, and across the counties and throughout the land. For if you do not, by tacit consent you will be inviting the shadow of tyranny to descend on this our most cherished land.

For those who might not realise

We have told Westminster and the police for years that the whole ECA1972 was indeed illegal but the police, Hogan Howe principally, have chosen to ignore it and thereby committed misprision of High Treason.

Now is the time for Government to draw a final line in the sand of the EU and start very quickly to tear up the illegal document 'ECA1972' - thereby pre-empting any necessity for action with respect to Article 50 of the illegal Lisbon Treaty.

This will finally send a message to the country that the Treason of Heath & Co has been purged (but not, that is, those who committed and compounded the treason and are alive to suffer the consequences). 

This will also send a message to the BBC and the rest of the people wishing to continue this illegal referendum, that it is finally over and done.

Mr Ian Duncan Smith will you please take up the reins of Prime Minster very quickly and start to put into place the necessary instruments to allow this country to go forward. 

Could you please appoint Lord Lawson to the treasury and remove ALL Remain MP's from any positions of power.

Following this can you please also enforce immediately the Denizens Act that makes it illegal for first and second generation foreigners to have appointments of any power in this country.

1. We need our immigration laws changed immediately and a stop on any more immigration in the immediate interim,
2. We must stop paying any more to Brussels immediately,
3. P45s to all those in Brussels (with a warning that charges of treason may still be laid at their door)
4. Order new destroyers to patrol OUR fishing grounds with notice served to other countries that they may no more fish our seas,
5. Common Purpose to be declared an illegal organisation with immediate effect,
6. No more foreign people allowed to use our Health Service without suitable insurance documents,
7. You will need to get the Remain MPs deselected else you will never get any bills through as the Labour Party will side with them - and the SNP.

I will forward this afternoons agenda of work later.

Nick Chance

.................................................................
 
As Britain has in law never been part of the EU following Edward Heath’s 1972 most grievous act of treason in British history (treason has no legitimacy), we cannot officially leave something we are not a party to.  The referendum was totally illegal and treasonable in that it obliged the British people to commit treason by voting whether or not to bring the end of their own country.  THAT is treason of the first order.  The clap-trap about “Britain being better off” ruled by a foreign dictatorship was shear scare mongering which is set to continue until HM the Queen finally puts an end to the present parliament and the criminally minded politicians who have illegally run her and the country for some 50+ years.
 
Britain’s proper course is very simple indeed.  As from today, ignore the shouting and screaming of the EU, stop throwing our precious money at it, ignore the European “laws” we have been wilfully saddled with  -  AND WALK AWAY.
 
The EU holds no lawful position over us and can do nothing to stop us now perusing (pursuing? - Stan) our own ENGLISH lives.  

The only thing stopping us at the moment is the wilful indecisiveness and clueless obedience of those who actually conduct Britain’s business with the rest of the world as they are still intent on our destruction within the failing disaster that is the EU.
 
Rex
 
 
 

Reveal Heath's treason, making all treaties void

Letter exchange:

David Davies MP 

The House of Commons

London

SW1A 1AA

21^st July 2016

Ref Brexit

I am enclosing my book on the English Constitution into which a considerable amount of research has gone, and a CD which you may already have had and binned. However if you read the book which should take twenty minutes no more you will discover our membership of the EU is entirely contrary to the common and constitutional law of England. I would recommend you get the legal eagles busy checking the facts in my book, there is a reading list at the back you will find I am right. You may even send them to my home I own the books mentioned and hundreds more. I will keep the tea and bacon butties coming for them.

The CD contains around 220 pages of government papers from the Heath era all marked secret, confidential or restricted liberated from the public records office. They tell the story of how Edward Heath set up a criminal conspiracy to subvert the constitution the major crime of sedition and at this level of sedition treason. And to hand this ancient Kingdom over to the EEC/EU the major crime of treason.

The report by Anthony Royal makes interesting reading as he openly boasts about the methods they used to commit these major crimes.

All it takes to get us out of the EU whose predecessor the EEC were complicit in this treason. Is to simply declare that Edward Heath, Norman Redaway and Anthony Royal conspired to commit treason and that Edward Heath lied to the Queen, Parliament and the people, so the 1972 EEC Act is void and every treaty signed on the back of this 72 Act is also void.

You will be naming three traitors all now dead so there will be no lengthy trials to pursue. And we are clear of the EU no article 50 no long drawn out negotiations just the application of English Law and the Vienna treaty on treaties.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

                                              ------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard Hogan-Howe 

Commissioner of Police

New Scotland Yard

10 Broadway

London

SW1H 0BG 21^st July 2016

Ref Islam and policy decisions

Sir

I have not yet received a reply to my letter of the 3^rd June 2016 apart from being bad manners not to reply it also fails to meet the Mets response time for replying to letters. May I remind you, you are a public servant and are required to comply with the rules laid down for your organisation? You might inform ADI Gail Granville Major Crime unit at Putney I am still waiting for her reply to my letter of the 12^th June 2016 and a major crime book number.

Now to the matter in hand I and a good many of her Majesty natural born subjects are sick to death of seeing Muslims parading and preventing her Majesty’s natural born subjects from using there right of free passage on England’s roads, as they congregate and make repeated death threats against the natural born subjects and those immigrants of other faiths or none who live and work here peacefully.

Threats to kill are I should not have to remind you, are major crime contrary to Sec 16 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which carries full powers of arrest.

It is my opinion that you have taken a policy decision not to arrest Muslims who make threats to kill or who impose Muslim patrols in order to enforce sharia law on the streets of England. These violent vigilante patrols constitute a threat to the Queens Peace. A peace you are on oath to preserve.

I would remind you that the comments of the three eminent Judges in Regina vs the Commissioner  of the Metrpolis ex-parte Blackburn 1968 were quite clear a policy decision not to prosecute a particular type of crime is illegal. I would recommend you take a good long look at the Judges’ comments and then do your job and apply the law of this Kingdom the way it is intended to be applied without favour, fear, malice or ill will in accordance with your oath before it becomes necessary to apply for an order of Mandamus. Which will I feel sure will be granted?

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

                                                  ------------------------------------------------------

The English Constitution Fact or Fiction?

What is this mythical thing called the English Constitution, what part does or should convention play in the constitution, what is custom or legal fiction? These and many other questions occur.

There is a fallacy that we the English do not have a constitution. What we do not have is a constitution written on one piece of paper like the American constitution. But that does not mean we do not have a very real constitution because we do. Indeed our constitution is so real and so good just about every common law country in the world has copied it, Talleyrand a French Bishop and diplomat who served Three French Kings and Napoleon Bonaparte said “When the English Constitution dies freedom dies” And for his entire life he was our enemy.

Constitution

So where do we find this mythical constitution of ours? Professor Taswell Langmede senior lecturer in Constitutional Law and History at University College London in his book written in 1871 said the English Constitution comprises Magna Carta 1215, the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights, I would add Habeas Corpus. These four things comprise the English Constitution. But they do not complete the constitution because Magna Carter and the Bill of Rights tell us what the King is not allowed to do; The Petition of Right is telling the King how we want to be governed. But there is nothing in any of these major pieces of constitutional law which tells the King or us what the King can do. This comes from the ancient Common Law of Kingship, this goes back to when we first elected the first King of the English and maybe much further back than that.

Custom and Legal Fiction.

So let us start there. The Anglo Saxons believed their Kings descended from the ancient God Woden. Who they dumped, when they converted to Christianity. Alfred the Great on being elected King of the English looked at all the laws and customs of the old Kingdom’s which combined to make his Kingdom. What is a legal custom? A custom is any law that has been in use from before time of memory with the approval of the people. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke ruled that before time of memory was any law older than 1197 when Richard the lion heart was Crowned 400 years before he was speaking. So any law over 400 years old becomes the Custom and Practice of England. As such it is beyond the reach of parliament so cannot be lawfully/legally repealed. What is a legal fiction? A legal fiction is a tool used by the courts to get over an impossible situation for example, your uncle dies and leaves everything to you. But for whatever reason you hated him and want nothing of his. His will says it must all come to you so by law you have to have it like it or not, so the court will invent the legal fiction that you died before your uncle so it is impossible to give it to you. It then goes to whoever follows you.

Kingship and Prerogative.

Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights impose limits on what the King can do but neither of these great contracts between the King and the people contains anything new. When they say the King cannot fine us or seize our property or send us to prison these things had been in existence since Alfred the Great imposed limits on what he as King can do. The King cannot on his own make or unmake law he does this in conjunction with Parliament. But what can the King do? The King can do anything which is legal, to do this we give him what is known as the Royal Prerogative. Government today say it is difficult to define the limits of the prerogative, this is arrant nonsense DESIGNED TO ALLOW GOERNMENT TO EXCEED THE PREROGATIVE POWERS OF THE KING WHICH THEY HAVE STOLEN. The King may use the prerogative to do anything which benefits his subjects. However if he does anything which harms even his lowliest subject this is an illegal use of the prerogative and must be withdrawn. Who can use the Royal Prerogative? The prerogative like everything else the King has was given to him by our ancient forefathers. And the King and only the King can use the Royal Prerogative; the King is refused permission by us the loyal subjects from letting anyone else use it. So what happens if the King is in a long term illness which prevents him working? The office of King must still function so we the people in discussion with the Kings family appoint a Regent to perform the duties of the King until he is able to carry them out himself. So the practice of government ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative is constitutionally illegal and treasonable.

To Diminish the King/Crown.

When our forefathers elected our first King it was decided by them the King must be visibly higher than his subjects, so they gave him vast tracts of land and lots of money and jewels. And they made the rule the King must live off the profits of what we now call the Crown Estates, and they gave him the Royal Prerogative on which they set limits. The King is forbidden by law from disposing of any of his wealth, or from giving or lending the Royal Prerogative to anyone else for any reason because to do so would diminish the Crown. And that is illegal under our Common Law of Kingship. Over the last 300 years Parliament in the form of the House of Commons has stolen the Royal Authority and like all theft it is illegal in this case it constitutes the major crime of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Common Law of Kingship

The King in Parliament

Parliament as we know it was formed by King Edward I in 1297. It comprises the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the King. Since 1420 the Commons has the right to initiate all legislation which then goes to the Lords who look at it and purely in line with their conscience they recommend amendments, reject it outright or give it their certificate as good law. When it has been passed by both houses it goes before the King who looks at it and depending entirely on the Kings conscience he will grant or refuse the Royal assent. If the King refuses the Assent there is no power on earth can overrule him or make him give his reasons.

Convention

Convention is an agreement that the Lords will not do certain things, in contravention to the will of the Commons. Conventions in this sense erodes the authority of the Lords and are constitutionally illegal.

Cognisance

Each House of Parliament has a common law cognisance to conduct their business in their own way and that includes the right of each house to decide who sits in it and who does not.

At least that is how our very intelligent forefathers set the system up with checks and balances. But since 1420 the Commons has been on a power grab in 1667 they demanded that the Lords could not amend a money bill in 1677 the Lords in a moment of madness gave way. In 1909 believing they could not amend they rejected the budget. Asquith put a bill forward to remove the authority of the Lords to reject a bill. On the threat of him putting 500 new Peers into the House of Lords who would vote for its closure. The Lords gave way and agreed they would not reject a bill. King Edward VII refused the assent stating it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. Asquith was ordered to go to the country he was returned and during the Kings speech King Edward said the only reason he was putting the Parliament Act forward was because his ministers said he had to. The King could still refuse the assent however shortly after this the King fell ill and died. King George V on becoming King was told he kept all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a minister. The power grab was complete the Commons had neutered the Lords and usurped the Royal authority.

Albert Burgess

albertburgess@hotmail.com

www.englishconstitutiongroup.org

T May article pulled from Telegraph

Reproduced in full below is a Telegraph article by Jonathan Foreman* headlined “Theresa May is a great self-promoter, but a terrible Home Secretary”, which was pulled after pressure from her campaign. It is excoriating…

In the run-up to the 2015 election, one of the handicaps David Cameron had to finesse was the fact that net migration to the UK was three times as high as he had promised it would be. 

Remarkably, none of the opprobrium this failure provoked brought forth the name of Theresa May, the cabinet minister actually entrusted with bringing migration down. Then, as now, it was as if the icy Home Secretary had a dark magic that warded off all critical scrutiny.

The fact that her lead role in this fiasco went unnoticed and unmentioned likely reflects Mrs May’s brilliant, all-consuming efforts to burnish her image with a view to become prime minister.

After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.

People find this hard to credit, because she exudes determination and strength. Compared to many of her bland, flabby cabinet colleagues, she has real gravitas. Few who follow British politics would deny that she is a deadly political infighter. Indeed, Theresa May is to Westminster what Cersei Lannister is to Westeros in Game of Thrones: no one who challenges her survives undamaged, while the welfare of the realm is of secondary concern.

Take the demoralised, underfunded UK Border Force. As the public discovered after a people-smugglers’ vessel ran aground in May, it has only three cutters protecting 7,700 miles of coastline. Italy by contrast has 600 boats patrolling its 4722 miles.

Considering the impression Mrs May gives of being serious about security, it’s all the more astonishing that she has also allowed the UK’s small airfields to go unpatrolled – despite the vastly increased terrorist threat of the last few years, the onset of the migration crisis, and the emergence of smuggling networks that traffic people, drugs and arms.

Then there is the failure to establish exit checks at all the country’s airports and ports. These were supposed to be in place by March 2015.

Unfortunately the Border Force isn’t the only organisation under Mrs May’s control that is manifestly unfit for purpose. Recent years have seen a cavalcade of Home Office decisions about visas and deportations that suggest a department with a bizarre sense of the national interest.

The most infamous was the refusal of visas to Afghan interpreters who served with the British forces in Afghanistan – as Lord Guthrie said, a national shame. Mrs May has kept so quiet about this and other scandals – such as the collapse of the eBorders IT system, at cost of almost a billion pounds – that you might imagine someone else was in charge at the Home Office.

[It’s not just a matter of the odd error. Yvette Cooper pointed out in 2013 that despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down.]

The reputation for effectiveness that Mrs May nevertheless enjoys derives from a single, endlessly cited event: the occasion in 2014 when she delivered some harsh truths to a conference of the Police Federation.

Unfortunately, this was an isolated incident that, given the lack of any subsequent (or previous) effort at police reform, seems to have been intended mainly for public consumption.

In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread over reliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

When considering her suitability for party leadership, it’s also worth remembering Mrs May’s notorious “lack of collegiality”.  David Laws’ memoirs paint a vivid picture of a secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful minister, so unpleasant to colleagues that a dread of meetings with her was something that cabinet members from both parties could bond over.

Unsurprisingly, Mrs May’s overwhelming concern with taking credit and deflecting blame made for a difficult working relationship with her department, just as her propensity for briefing the press against cabinet colleagues made her its most disliked member in two successive governments.

It is possible that Mrs May’s intimidating ruthlessness could make her the right person to negotiate with EU leaders. However, there’s little in her record to suggest she possesses either strong negotiation skills or the ability to win allies among other leaders, unlike Michael Gove, of whom David Laws wrote “it was possible to disagree with him but impossible to dislike him,”

It’s surely about time – and not too late – for Conservatives to look behind Mrs May’s carefully-wrought image and consider if she really is the right person to lead the party and the country.

There’s a vast gulf between being effective in office, and being effective at promoting yourself; it’s not one that Theresa May has yet crossed.
                                           

Brexit

OKTC, copied to my MP and IDS as a courtesy.

It should now perfectly clear to everyone that Michael Gove was put up as a puppet leader of VoteLeave, with the support of the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office, to which the Electoral Commission reports.  (It is not independent - its creation was simply a device to transfer control of elections from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office).  I said as much during the campaign of course.  Even Blind Freddy can now see it. 

There is simply no other credible explanation for the failure of VoteLeave to emphasise the massive trade deficit with the EU27, the huge regulatory burden imposed as a result of our membership of the so-called single market and the massive costs of labour displacement due to the uncontrolled immigration into the UK of unskilled and semi-skilled EU economic migrants.   

Gove is playing a similar game with the Tory leadership contest. He has no campaign on the ground and if he gets on the ballot paper he obviously plans to lose, as he planned to to lose the EU referendum.  He has very obviously agreed with Theresa May that he will be Chancellor and she will be PM. 

The idea, equally obviously, is to subvert the constitution of the Conservative Party by having two MPs on the same ticket nominally opposing each other.  If  Gove were to succeed in blocking Andrea Leadsom, the conservative with most Parliamentary support, from the ballot, the 'contest' would be a farce, like a televised wrestling match, followed by a 'unity' Cabinet, which at best would include a token handful of Eurosceptics.

Remember that May was the author of those gratuitously offensive 'nasty party' remarks (apparently she has never forgiven me for taking up some of 'her' air-time that night with my speech to the Bruges Group).  Both May and Gove, sadly, appear with respect to be ruthless, unprincipled, centrist machine politicians.

More than that, each is obviously committed to continuing membership of the EEA Agreement, i.e. each supports uncontrolled labour dumping from Europe, regardless of the social and economic cost, and the likely loss of life, as the angry, displaced white working class take their revenge.

The uncontrolled immigration policy has clearly been rejected by the electorate.  It is not even clear that Article 50 would operate to terminate membership of the single market, i.e. bring UK membership of the EEA Agreement to an end.  It probably woudn't.  Thursday's vote was as much a vote against membership of the so-called single market as it was against EU membership.

It is understood that Germany is relaxed about our leaving the EU, provided that we can be forced to remain trapped inside the 'single market', so that we continue to be a dumping ground for EU, mostly German, exports, and EU27 surplus labour.  Cameron appears to have caved in to these key German demands as the European Council meeting. 

Chris Grayling is obviously being lined up as Home Secretary.  He is weak man, with respect, and would probably continue May's policy of not doing much to interrupt the distribution of narcotics inside the UK (May has been a failure when it comes to controlling the deadly trade in dangerous drugs). Since Germany's GO2 controls the two main distribution cartels in the UK this is another key German demand, although of course it can only be made in smoke-filled rooms as German control of the drugs trade, which costs about 30,000, mostly young, lives in the UK each year is covert.

I do not say that May as Home Secretary is aware that the drugs trade is controlled from Germany.  She is not that bright, with respect, is intelligence illiterate (so much so that she has probably never heard of GO2) and so far as I know has not read Spyhunter. She is a typical, "house-trained idiot", to paraphrase 'Jim Hacker', no offence intended.  It would not be difficult for Home Office officials to pull the wool over her eyes.

Eurosceptic MPs should clearly question Gove closely about his views on denouncing the EEA Agreement. I imagine they will find him evasive, as he was during the referendum campaign.  The reality is that he belongs to the Chamberlain/Heath/Major/Cameron wing of the party and is prepared to cave in to German demands, just as he would probably have supported our community partner Adolf Hiltler's demands at Munich in 1938.

The good news is that Andrea Leadsom has a good chance of being placed on the ballot.  Eurosceptic MPs should swing behind her.  If she becomes PM she will have a strong team and would probably go down the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties route. She has already made it clear that she will not accept uncontrolled immigration from the EU27 and that Europeans would have to take their chances like everybody else.   

European economic migrants already here should be given time to leave, parallel with the notice period, preferably the 12 month Vienna period. 

We do not need tariff-free access to the so-called single market and there is no need at all to enter into time-wasting negotiations with our community enemies.

Michael Shrimpton QC

Judge me on my record yes we MAY!

No way should May be PM...we will not tolerate yet another stitch up by those we elect to work for us.

  This woman voted to betray us, as Cameron et al did so she cannot be anywhere near our exit plans or Number 10

She said to judge her on her record, so let's do that.

  Allows Sharia Courts to operate in this country.

Responsible for the 2014 the passport fiasco.

Moaned about the Human Rights Act allowing suspected terrorists to continue living in this country under the clause that speaks of their right 'to a family life'. After complaining so much, actually did nothing to get that Act amended. 

  In charge of the Police she did no better. 

   Cutting their numbers and budget while the terrorist threat was at its highest and sat back doing nothing while in Leicester, Rotherham, etc police failed to stop the wholesale rape and sexual abuse of under-age white girls by Muslim men.
Also failed to intervene in the infiltration of schools in Birmingham by Islamic extremists.

  It was her job to reduce the number of immigrants from over half a million every year to tens of thousands. Strangely enough - it increased.  She blamed Shengen and the EU’s open borders rule but voted for Remain!  Go figure.

 Still think she should be PM?

 NO 'Remainian' should be PM that is a betrayal of 17 million people and we will not tolerate it.

Anon

We cannot allow politicians to decide

We cannot allow politicians to decide the fate of our nation and people; we did that before and look at where they led us! Therefore, we must make it very clear what the politicians MUST now do and it has been suggested that we create posters with the following information:

THE TREASON OF THE EU HAS BEEN EXPOSED

DUE TO THE TREASONOUS MANNER IN WHICH GREAT BRITAIN WAS SUBJUGATED UNDER EU RULE, ALL OF THE EU LEGISLATION MUST NOW BE THROWN IN THE BIN.

THE BRITISH PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN COMPLETE CONTROL OF OUR OWN NATION, WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS, WHATSOEVER!

WE MUST MAKE LARGE POSTERS OF THE EU TREATIES AND IMAGES OF THE TRAITORS THAT SOLD OUR COUNTRY OUT – ROME (EDWARD HEATH); MAASTRICT (JOHN MAJOR) & LISBON (GORDON BROWN) – AND THOSE POSTERS SHOULD BE FILMED BEING TORN TO SHREDS!

ALL BRITISH LAWS MUST NOW REVERT BACK TO THE POSITION THEY WERE IN PRIOR TO BRITAIN’S SUBJUGATION UNDER EU RULE, IN 1972. THIS INCLUDES ALL OF OUR RIGHTS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, EXPRESSION AND SPEECH.

ALSO, THE POLITICALLY CORRECT NONSENSE, INCLUDING HEALTH & SAFETY; POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION FOR MINORITIES; ANTI-WHITE AND ANTI-BRITISH RACISM LAWS, MUST ALL BE THROWN IN THE BIN, ALONG WITH ANY BUREUCRATS THAT INSIST ON IMPOSING THOSE UNFAIR AND ANTI-DEMOCRATIC REGULATIONS.

THE BORDERS OF GREAT BRITAIN MUST BE CLOSED WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND WE MUST NOT TRUST ANY POLITICIAN THAT WANTS TO ALLOW IMMIGRATION TO CONTINUE. REGARDLESS OF ANY DEALS OR COERCION, IMMIGRATION MUST STOP, NOW!

ALL OF OUR BORDERS, FERRIES AND AIRPORTS MUST BE MANNED BY BRITISH PEOPLE, TO ENSURE THAT THE CUSTOMS AND POLICE OFFICERS ARE ONLY ALLOWING IN THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE VISA’S. BRITISH SOLDIERS MUST RETURN HOME FROM FOREIGN WARS TO PROTECT BRITISH PEOPLE AND OUR BORDERS!

ROYAL NAVAL VESSELS AND TUG BOATS SHOULD PATROL OUR FISHING AREAS TO PROTECT OUR PRE-1972 EXCLUSION ZONE!

PRIORITY MUST BE APPLIED TO BRITISH PEOPLE IN BRITISH TERRITORY AND PUBLIC SPENDING MUST BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL PARTS OF BRITAIN, PER CAPITA – SO THAT MINORITY POLULATION AREAS ARE NOT TREATED ANY BETTER OR ANY WORSE THAN MAJORITY AREAS.

IT IS NOW UP TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE – AND THAT MEANS EVERY ONE OF YOU – TO SET THE RULES OF HOW WE ARE TO BE GOVERNED, AND SUCH RULE MUST REVOLVE AROUND OUR ANCIENT COMMON LAW.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; IF WE LEAVE IT TO THE POLITICIANS, THEY WILL LET US DOWN AND THEY MAY EVEN STAB US IN THE BACK, AGAIN!