Reporting Heath's Treason (3)

In this instalment, Albert Burgess has something of a gloat at the expense of several police officers who had refused to progress his complaints of government-level treason in relation to joining the EEC in the 1970s. As with Private Eye's "Curse of Gnome", they have since met with professional misfortune. He assures me that the personal details are correct and in the public domain.

The campaign has widened to include more recent dealings with the EU - e.g. Maastricht - and other (in Albert's view) treasonable attempts to alter the British Constitution, such as Lord Berkeley's bill (covered on Broad Oak Magazine last month:  "Removal of Royal veto and a fishy smell from Fowey", 17 September 2013).

Referring to the list of complaints below, Albert explains: "Number 4 is where Jack wrote to the police telling them [that] by recording the treason allegations and prosecuting ministers they would be helping themselves over the cut backs. The other allegations up to 12 are concerning allegations against Major, Hurd and Maude over the treason at Maastricht, and Blair, Cameron and Clegg over the changes to the House of Lords. 13 concerns a bill going through Parliament which removes from the Queen the Royal Assent and [proposes] the theft of the Duchy of Cornwall from Prince Charles".

I have said to him, "Re 4: doesn't Jack's suggestion go against the bit [in the police officer's oath] about "without favour, fear, malice or ill will"? I have also commented in some detail on the English Constitution Group's aims document, which if it stands will condemn the group to remain tiny and tarnished with allegations of xenophobia, bigotry etc. This would be a shame, as the core concerns about Common Law and the British Constitution seem to me entirely valid. The document is under review.

As I have said before, the prospects of these complaints actually resulting in court cases seem slim to me, since I suspect the Attorney General would declare prosecution not to be in the public interest; but the attempts underscore the real importance of the issues: freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

After DCI Howard and his skipper had left, I wrote to Sarah Thornton the Chief Constable to ask her why her force would not apply the law. I received a reply from a DCS Tighe basically telling me to go away; this I declined to do.

I then wrote to Assistant Commissioner John Yates at Scotland Yard and submitted allegations against Superintendent Trotman, DCI Howard, DCS Tighe, and CC Sarah Thornton for individually neglect of duty and Misprision of Treason at Common Law, and collectively for Compounding Treason at Common Law.

AC Yates declined to investigate so I wrote to his boss Sir Paul Stephenson who also refused to move. But wait, it gets better; I have long said God is an Englishman and that God and I are mates.

The first thing to happen was Superintendent Trotman, now promoted to Chief Superintendent, was arrested by his own force and charged with arson and insurance fraud. Mr Trotman was reported as having an affair with a Barrister’s wife and it was alleged he set fire to his own car near her house, and when the boys in blue arrived and asked if he knew who might  have done this it was alleged he named the husband of his girlfriend. He was placed on trial and acquitted. However he was kept on suspension of other discipline charges and he no longer works for the police service.

Next to go was AC Yates; the newspapers called it “John Yates’ boob”. As a senior police officer, honest John Yates travelled the world at our expense to conferences on terrorism. Because of his rank he travelled business class, and received double air miles; these air miles are the property of the Metropolitan Police and are to be used to offset the cost of future travel. John Yates, who was also having an extramarital arrangement, was asked by his children to help them with their travel costs, which he did with the Met’s air miles. He was ordered to repay the money by Sir Paul Stephenson. But what John Yates had done was to fraudulently misappropriate air miles which equals tax payers’ money, and therefore it was stealing. So I submitted a formal allegation of fraudulent misappropriation of air miles. My sources told me John Yates was going around Scotland Yard complaining that some bastard had reported him. My allegation was not investigated but eventually John Yates resigned.

Next Sir Paul Stephenson was investigated for taking a £12,000 freebie and resigned shortly afterwards.

So three senior officers who had refused to investigate the government’s treason had all been forced to resign in disgrace. Like Crocodile Dundee, “Me and God, we be mates”.

Since then we have changed tack and started on more recent treasons and now the country’s police forces are starting to take us seriously. So join us in what is a numbers game. Report treason to your local force. At least take a look at us - www.englishconstitutiongroup.org and www.acasefortreason.org.uk - or email me at albertburgess@hotmail.com.

Police Crime Numbers for Reported Treason

As of 2 August 2013

1..Devon and Cornwall Police

Treason report recorded DCP/20120904/0473 and referred to the Met, whose reference is 6006001/12.

2.  Bedfordshire Police

URN 184 dated 04/10/2012

3.  Cambridge Police

Cambridge police referred the report of treason to the Met on 22 March 2012.

Crime Related Incident number CC-22032012-0170 and Met reference is 6006001/12.

4.  Cheshire Police

Jack’s comments regarding police reopening past investigations about politicians’ paedophilia in return for Conservatives’ attack on police pensions,  salaries and conditions. Given CRI 206 22/01/13

5.  Durham Police

Crime Related Incident number DHM-01112012-0295 on 2 November 2012. (Maastricht Treason evidence).

6.  Dyfed Powys Police

Treason report recorded and referred to the Met on 13 March as number MI/159/11.

Met reference as yet unknown. Dyfed Powys Police are currently uncommunicative on this.

7.  Hertfordshire Police

 

Have logged this under CRI reference number URN356 of 03/10/12 and forwarded to the Met. Also logged under CRI number Hi, Chaps-05062013-0446 and forwarded to Met 12 June 2013.

 

8.  Lancashire Police

Treason report recorded in August as number (still to hear back from them) and referred to the Met (whose reference is as yet unknown). Lancashire Police are currently uncommunicative on this.

9.  Leicestershire Police

Reported by Paul Talbot-Jenkins that Leicestershire Police told him they’d forwarded his treason allegations to the Met.  His email dated 20/02/2013.

10.  Wiltshire Police

Recorded and referred to Home Office National Crime Registrar and the Crown Prosecution Service on 16 March 2012 as Crime Related Incident (CRI) number 5411010866. (Case reference numbers requested and as yet still unknown).

Wiltshire police HO and CPS contacts are :-

Steve Bond - Home Office National Crime Registrar, (tel. 0207 0350280)
Katie Waterman, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy and Policy Directorate in the CPS.

11.  West Mercia Police

Report of Maastricht Treason forwarded to West Mercia Police Legal Department on 8 October 2012

12.  Warwickshire Police

Reported by Christopher Roswell to Chief Constable Andy Parker ref AP/DC/409-13 late July 1013. (Gueterbock Treason  -  Removal of Queen’s consent and Theft of Duchy of Cornwall)

13. Wiltshire Police

Reported by post to Wilts Chief Constable 31 August 2013.  He told me to report it to the Met.  I replied demanding he pass it to the Met. 27 September 2013.  He passed it to the Met on 2 Oct under ref. 6548305/13 which went to the local Borough of Westminster. (See paper letter).

_________________________________

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Reporting Heath's Treason (2)

(Pic source)

The adjective "superb" is often awarded too easily, but in this case it is fully justified. Last week, Albert Burgess recounted how he was shown classified documents that proved Edward Heath and others committed treason when they took us into the Common Market in the 1970s, and how he went straight to a police station in Oxford to report the crime. In today's instalment, he discomfits successive levels of police hierarchy by reminding them of their sworn duty to uphold the law.

Whether Albert will ever succeed in his primary aim is uncertain to say the least, but he feels morally bound, and the police are professionally required, to try. The greater issue revealed in this process is, on what does power in this country stand? If it is our constitution, laws, truth and logic, it seems Albert must prevail; if not, we have the dreadful prospect - some would say, a present reality - of arbitrary rule by tyrants.

A few days later I received a letter from one Superintendent Trotman saying he was not going to investigate, his reasons being it would be difficult to obtain evidence as all the witnesses were dead (not true), R vs. Commissioner of the Metropolis exparte Blackburn 1968 gave the police the right to decide which crimes they investigate and which they don't, and he was not prepared to allocate his resources.

I wrote him and told him that treason required him to investigate as a priority, that Blackburn was nonsense and that a lot of the people who worked with Heath were not only not dead but readily available.

A couple of days later a woman police officer who was Superintendent Trotman’s assistant phoned me and said, "What exactly do you want?"

I said, "I want to turn on the six o'clock news and see Douglas Hurd in handcuffs being helped into the back of a police car, and 10 months later I want to see him and others on trial for his life at the old Bailey."

She said, "I will put this through to Special Branch."

I said, "Give me their number so I can talk to them."

She said, “Hold on, he's just walked past my door, I’ll get him."

After a few seconds a Detective Inspector from Special Branch came on the phone. He said, "I know about this, and have allocated a woman detective constable to it, but she is very busy and will not get to you for three weeks."

I said. "Give her my number and tell her if I have not heard from her in five days I will submit a formal allegation of neglect of duty against her."

The following morning she phoned to tell me she had a two hour window and could come and see me. We arranged for her to come about noon and I phoned David Barnby to see if he wanted to be there; he did and he arrived about half an hour before two detectives. I explained what Heath had done and what the crimes were and handed over another set of documents, and then they left.

After a number of letters Superintendent Trotman wrote to say he was not going to conduct the investigation. So I submitted a formal allegation against him for neglect of duty under the police discipline codes and for Misprision of Treason at Common Law.

Two weeks later I had a knock on my door and a Chief Inspector Howard from the complaints department and his Sergeant were there. I invited them in and DCI Howard told me they had cleared the Superintendent.

I said "Did you read the documents?" He said, "I glanced at them." I said, "Did you read them?" He said, "I glanced at them." I said, "Without reading them and studying the treason laws, how can you clear him or convict him?" He said, "Well, we have because we don't want the Chief Constable’s photo on the front page of every newspaper as the Chief Constable investigating the government for treason." I said, "She hasn't got to be Chief Constable without having her picture taken, and I am not asking her to go topless on page 3."

Then he confirmed what I had been hoping they would not notice when he said, "The real reason we are not going to do this, is that if we get a conviction against any of Heath's people, which we probably could on the evidence you have supplied, we would have to go out and arrest every government minister for the last 35 years, and that we are not prepared to do." I said, "You are not allowed to make the decision on those grounds, you have to follow the evidence where it leads you."

He got up to leave and I said, "How do you like knowing I know you are a liar?" He said, "What do you mean?" I said, "You took an oath to uphold the laws of this country without favour, fear, malice or ill will. You have just told me because it means arresting government ministers you are not going to do it. That makes you a liar."

He left in a huff.
 

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

Albert Burgess: reporting treason

In December 2006 I was given a CD-ROM with over 200 pages of documents retrieved from the Public Records Office by David Barnby, each page headed Secret, Classified, or Restricted. I was told these were of historical interest, so I sat down to read them with my historian’s hat on.

After ten minutes my historian’s hat had been kicked into touch and I was wearing my constable’s hat as I exclaimed to myself, “My God, this is sedition!” I hit the print button and printed off all the pages. I then sat down pencil in hand to make notes. Once I had satisfied myself that crimes of sedition and treason had been disclosed, I took the papers to St Aldate's Police Station in Oxford, a 15-mile drive from my home in Thame.

On arrival I was greeted by a civilian counter clerk. I asked if he could get me a police officer. He said, "Why?" I said, "I want to report a crime." He said, "You don't report crime here, you phone this number," and he chucked an 0845 number at me. I pirouetted around in the police station front office and said "This is a police station, is it"? He said, "Yes." I said, "Then get me a policeman.” He said, "Perhaps if you tell me what it’s about?”

My first thought was to tell him to mind his own business and get me a police officer, but I said, "Yes, well, it’s about the fact that Edward Heath, one-time Prime Minister, set up a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution, the major crime of Sedition at Common Law, and at this level of sedition an act of high treason against the Constitution and people of England. And his conspiracy planned to hand over this Kingdom to a foreign power, the EEC, the major crime of high treason. Are you any the wiser?” He said, "No." I said, "Then get me a policeman!”

He vanished out the back and came back with the tallest police sergeant I have ever seen, who I now know to be Sgt Thomas. Sgt Thomas walked up the counter, placed his hands on it and in a very I've-got-a-lunatic-here tone of voice said, "YES SIR, AND WHAT CAN I DO FOR YOU"?

I said, "Well, Sergeant, the first thing you can do for me is open up one of these interview rooms so we can sit at a table and discuss this in relative comfort." The look in his eyes was one of utter confusion: after all, no-one walks into a police station and tells the duty sergeant what to do, but I had done just that. He stood for a moment, not sure what to do, then he walked away and opened the interview room and my journey had begun.

I explained to him how Edward Heath had set up a conspiracy using a Foreign Office civil servant by the name of Norman Redaway (now deceased) who worked in the information research department (IRD), which used to be known as the Special Operations Executive, which trained (SOE) agents to be dropped into occupied Europe to work with the Resistance. Redaway was a spook. The SOE was disbanded in 1946 and IRD was born.

Sergeant Thomas said, "But Heath is dead!” I said, "I know, but some of his people are still alive." After about 45 minutes talking Sgt Thomas said he couldn't deal with this, he would have to take it upstairs. I agreed and giving him a full print out of the documents retrieved from the Public Records Office, I left.   

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Loyalty vs. Treason 3

Albert Burgess argues that ceding sovereignty to the EU (or any foreign power) is ultra vires - beyond the legal capacity of the Monarch or her ministers - without the agreement of the "estates of England" as a whole. I'd welcome legal comment, for I can't see how his reasoning is faulty.

________________________________

 

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” said George Santayana, and he was right.

Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of England is first and foremost Queen of England. All her other titles, prerogatives, superiorities and supremacies stem from this one fact. Yet of all her titles only that of Queen of Scots is by dint of arms and only then because the Scots had a habit of raiding over the border into England. That was until King Edward III captured the Scots King David and released him to rule Scotland as a vassal King to Edward; he allowed David to keep Scots law but imposed the 1351 Treason Act on Scotland. Every other title Queen Elizabeth holds was obtained by trade.

It is with Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of England that we are dealing with the Treason at Maastricht.

The Act of Supremacy 1559 put on a formal basis the one true and certain fact that the Kings of England are the supreme governors of England, and a King of England takes second place to no other crowned head on the planet. Not even the Pope, God’s representative on earth is over the King of England. English Kings rule England as God’s Lieutenant and according to God’s laws, and answer directly to God and the people of England.

Each and every English man woman and child has a duty of loyalty to the King of England; every person who comes to England as an immigrant, to trade or simply on holiday comes under the protection of the Queen’s Law. So a Frenchman who comes here to sell wine has a duty of loyalty to the Queen, whereas a Frenchman who comes here as a belligerent soldier does not.  In return the Queen, who is the fount of all law, gives the people the protection of her law.  

The Treaty of Maastricht purports to make not only England's Queen but each and every one of us citizens of a foreign power! This is a constitutional impossibility.

We were not asked if we wanted to surrender our Queen or ourselves to the dominion of a foreign power, and had we been asked the answer would have been a resounding “OVER MY DEAD BODY!” - as so many of our forefathers have proved with their dead bodies lying on many a stricken field.

So who gave John Major the prime minister the authority to give Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude the authority to sell us all into slavery to the European Union? The answer is no one. The rule is simple: no authority to govern this Kingdom can be disposed of unless we have been defeated in war, and the first, last and only war we have lost was in 1066 when King Harold died at the Battle of Hastings.

I look on Parliament as the housewife of the nation: I go to work and every week I hand my pay packet over to my wife, who pays all the bills, buys food and clothes and puts a bit away to cover emergencies. But she sure as hell does not have the right to give the house away whilst I am at work. Parliament takes a part of our wages in tax to pay for the day to day running of the Kingdom, to see we have a transport system that works, an efficient NHS and a well-equipped and -trained armed forces so they can defend the Kingdom against all comers.  But they sure as hell do not have our permission to give us away and that is exactly what the Maastricht Treaty does.

So when did this refusal to accept foreign interference start? It began with Alfred King of the English, when he inherited the Crown and was elected King in 877. Alfred had a man he wanted to appoint as Archbishop; the Pope thought otherwise, and sent his own man. Alfred sent him back saying he had his own man; the Pope sent his man back to tell Alfred that he, the Pope, appointed every King in the world, and if Alfred did not accept his man he would appoint a new King to Alfred's Kingdom. Alfred returned the Pope’s man saying, he was elected King by the English and would only ever do what was in their best interests, he had appointed the best man for the job and that is how it would stay. Several of our Kings up until King John also told the Pope to get lost. In 1213 King John, a bad King, in an effort to save his life surrendered England to Pope Innocent III and agreed to rent it back for 1000 Marks a year (700 for England, 300 for Ireland). In 1215 John was forced to sign Magna Carta which was a simple restatement of the laws of Alfred; after his death in 1216, his son Henry III wrote and told the Pope he, Henry, was answerable directly to God and not the Pope.

In 1366 the then Pope Urban V wrote to King Edward III to demand payment of the 1000 Marks a year for every year since Henry III had refused to pay it. Edward knew nothing about this so he sought advice from the Bishops and Barons; they discussed the matter with the Commons, and the following day first the Bishops then the Barons and finally the Commons told King Edward England did not belong to King John: it was not his to give away, John only held England in trust for those who followed on. John had broken the law and his action did not count, Edward was not a vassal King to the Pope, and the monies were not to be paid. The Bishops, Barons and Commons meeting without the King constitute the estates of England, the highest law-giving body in the land, even above the King in Parliament. This major constitutional ruling only confirmed the position taken by King Alfred. The last time the Estates met was at Runnymede when John was forced by the estates to reissue English law.

Henry VIII we know finally split with Rome completely. Queen Elizabeth I took on and beat the most powerful Catholic country in the world when her navy defeated the Spanish Armada, which sailed with the Pope’s blessing to defeat this “heretic” Queen - a heretic because she would not do the Pope’s bidding.

So when John Major sent Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude to negotiate making Her Majesty and us citizens of Europe he was going directly against the ruling given by the estates of England from 1366, and previously in 1215 at Runnymede. Ah, you may say, that's a very old law which does not apply in this modern age. But - and it’s a very big but - two things make that opinion just plain wrong.

The first is the 1366 ruling: it was not a law, it was and is a constitutional statement made by the most powerful body in England, of the most profound kind which lies at the very heart of what it is to be English; this is doubly important because King Edward III was the first of our Norman French Kings to think of himself as purely English.

The second point is that there is no principle of obsolescence of English law. If the law does not work it is formally repealed; as long as it works, it remains the law of England. So John Major was going against everything which being English means, but he did more than that: he made Her Majesty give the assent to what was and is a treasonable document, a document English constitutional law refuses her permission to sign. A document which every honest English man, woman and child will die before accepting.

Why would Her Majesty agree to such an infamous document? It is my belief, backed up by considerable research, that Her Majesty has been convinced by government that she has no authority, which instead lies entirely with government ministers, and that she must obey her Ministers. It is to deal with these evil and wicked councillors that we need to use the good English Law.  

Help me to help you to fight back: go to www.acasefortreason.org.uk and www.englishconstitutiongroup.org or email me at albertburgess@hotmail.com.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Albert Burgess: Loyalty vs. Treason 2

Winston Churchill said in 1938, "This country breeds a type of man who is very well educated and highly intelligent, who think they know best. They can't help themselves: they always commit treason."

Such a man was Edward Heath. He thought he knew what was best for this ancient Kingdom. He was wrong, of course. Traitors are never right. Heath as an Englishman and as Privy Councillor had an absolute duty of loyalty to this Kingdom.

So what did he do?

Edward Heath was tasked by McMillan to carry out negotiations for the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community, for entirely the wrong reason De Gaulle said "non".

When he became Prime Minister Heath was determined to take us into the EEC at any cost. Sir Con O'Neil, our chief negotiator, was told not to negotiate but to accept whatever the French offered. Sir Con O'Neil coined the phrase "Swallow it whole, swallow it now".

The laws which prevented our membership of the EEC had already been removed: the Act of Provisors was repealed in the Criminal Law Revision Act 1948, and the Act of Praemunire was repealed in the Criminal Law Act 1967. The way was now clear for Heath to commit high treason.

But how did he go about it? The first thing he did was to contact a man named Norman Redaway who worked at the Foreign Office in a department called the Information Research Department, which during the Second World War was known as the Office of Strategic Services. Redaway was a spook. Heath asked him if he could change the mind of the British people and Redaway said he could do that. He needed help and he got it from a man named Anthony Royle.

Did Heath know what he was doing? The answer is yes, he sought advice from Lord Kilmuir the Lord Chancellor. His advice is in this letter*:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-079.pdf

 (N.B. This document is no longer on the Parliamentary website at that address!)

They set up a conspiracy designed to subvert the English Constitution, which is the major crime of sedition, and at this level of sedition an act of high treason. And to hand this Kingdom lock, stock and barrel to a foreign power the EEC was the major crime of high treason.

But how to do it? First, organized breakfast meetings at the Connaught Hotel in London; these meetings were attended by Government Ministers, MPs, the British Council for the European Movement and top people from ITV, the BBC and the national newspapers. At these meetings the media people were persuaded to remove all their front line anti-EEC reporters and to replace them with pro-EEC reporters.

They set up a department in a back room of Chatham House where five people wrote thousands of letters all purporting to come from people like you and me, every letter saying what a great idea this EEC was; but the IRD did not have a facility to distribute them, so they were distributed to the central offices of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement. They got them signed and sent to the letters pages of the news outlets. By this method they completely skewed the public’s perception of what was best for the Kingdom and themselves and their families.

Heath also asked the Foreign office what effect joining the EEC would have on Britain. They told him it would mean surrendering powers to govern to a foreign power, and taking on foreign laws.

So both Lord Kilmuir and the foreign office knew it would mean surrendering powers to govern to a foreign power, Lord Kilmuir saying this had never been done. Of course it had not, because to do that is treason. The Foreign Office went so far as to say, "It is important for our politicians to get positions of authority in the European Parliament, ready for the day it takes over.”

The rest, as they say, is history, Heath is dead; others are not. Our job now must be to reverse this ongoing treason by putting on trial the surviving members of Heath’s machine. In order to do that, check our website: www.acasefortreason.org.uk.

________________________
* Slightly edited copy of the text - from here - is as follows (apologies for the odd line breaks, caused by pasting from pdf):

RESEARCH PAPER 10/79

Appendix 2 Letter to Edward Heath from Lord Kilmuir, December 1960

I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty [...]
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; The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to
those organs; Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming
subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.

(a) The position of Parliament

It is clear from the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of
Ministers could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force)
make regulations which would be binding on use 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:-Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgment on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North America Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada; in this respect
Parliament here has in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would
have, pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.

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 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 have therefore to accept a
position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its 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.

(b) Treaty-making Powers

The 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 sovereignty 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 use of obligations under our
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, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no
precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender 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 take only 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.

(c) Independence of the Courts

There 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 these three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in
my view the surrenders of sovereignty 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 the objections to them.
But those objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to
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 these constitutional consideration must be
given their full 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 sacrifice
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.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-079.pdf

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

"The British Government has committed treason."

Albert Burgess makes the case that in 1972, the British Government committed treason and sedition when it took Britain into the EEC. Our continued membership, he says, is against the British people's Constitutional freedoms and rights. His website is here: http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/
_____________________________________

Loyalty vs. Treason

What bench marks do we have to help us decide between Loyalty and Treason? What is it to be loyal to one’s country or to betray one’s country?

 

In the United Kingdom we have a Parliamentary democracy headed by the King or Queen.

How does Parliament work?

Parliament is made up of three things:

• The House of Commons in which our elected representatives sit;
• The House of Lords in which the Lords Spiritual (the Bishops) and the Lords Temporal (the Barons) sit;
• The King or Queen, who sits in the House of Lords, being the top Baron in the Kingdom.

It has become convention since 1420 for the House of Commons to start legislation, which then goes to the House of Lords, who vet the legislation, accept it, reject it or send it back to the House of Commons with recommendations for how it should be amended. If it passes through both Houses it is then put before the King for the Royal assent. If and only if it gets the assent from the King can it become law.

The King is born of the Common Law: he is part hereditary, part elected. The King has advisors who were originally the important men in the Kingdom; these developed into the Saxon Witan and the Witan into a Parliament as we now know it. This is how it should work.

The different types of law

The oldest is the common law, which started out as a set of rules to allow people to live together in harmony.

Then there is constitutional law. This in large measure is a confirmation of the rules of the common law by the King and by a charter. Such constitutional laws are the Charter of Liberties 1100, Magna Carta 1215, the Petition of Right 1628, and the 1689 Bill of Rights.

Finally, there is statute law. There is a great deal of misunderstanding of statute law. Parliament itself was born of the common law and the common law gave Parliament the right to clarify the common law and as society developed and the common law was unable to supply a remedy, to make law by statute to provide a new remedy. Statute law is real law, but only as long as the statute complies with the spirit of the common law, which can be very basically described as “do no harm”.

What are loyalty and treason?

Loyalty to the King and the Kingdom is a duty imposed on us all in exchange for the protection afforded to us by the King.

Treason is a breach of our duty of loyalty to the King or the Kingdom.

It is important to understand these things if we are going to understand what follows.

The growth of the power of the Commons

Since 1420 when the House of Commons demanded and got the right to initiate all legislation, the Commons has been on a power grab.

In 1609 the Commons wrote to the House of Lords describing themselves as the Knights, Burgess's and Barons, of the High Court of Parliament. The House of Lords replied saying that under no circumstances world they accept the Commons as Barons of Parliament and without the Lords they were no court at all.

In 1667 the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill. A ten-year row ensued but in 1677 the Lords agreed not to amend money bills. This had far-reaching and unforeseen consequences, consequences which have had devastating effects on the Kingdom.

In 1909 the government of Asquith put forward a budget which promised the common man a pension. The House of Lords looked at this and believing they could not amend a money bill, and realising the extra tax needed to fund this pension was more than the common man could afford on top of the taxes they already paid, they rejected the budget.

Asquith told the Lords he was putting a bill forward to prevent the Lords from rejecting a bill. The Lords said they would reject it, but Asquith said he would put 500 new lords into the Upper House and they would vote for its abolition. The Lords caved in.

The bill was put before King Edward VII who rejected it on the grounds that it removed a protection from his subjects and it was unconstitutional. The King ordered Asquith to go to the country.

Asquith and his ministers went around the country telling everyone those horrible Lords would not let the working man have a pension. The Lords felt it was beneath them to out their side. Asquith was re-elected and the 1911 Parliament was passed into law, King Edward saying when he opened Parliament that the only reason he was putting this forward was because his ministers told him he must.

This was the end of Parliament as a democratic body. It placed the House of Commons in the position of being able to do anything it wanted to without any restraint.

The removal of legal safeguards against foreign power

As a result the House of Commons were able to repeal laws like the 1351 Statute of Provisors, which prevented the disposal of English assets to a foreign owner, and the 1351 Act of Praemunire, which forbade the importation of any foreign law into England or for any of his Bishops to excommunicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope, or for any of his subjects to be drawn out of England to be tried in foreign courts. These two major laws were designed to protect the Kingdom.

Edward Heath, the EEC, treason and sedition

It was the removal of these two ancient laws which allowed Edward Heath to put through his 1972 European Communities Act. When Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome he surrendered our fishing grounds, a very valuable English asset to the EEC; and on that day we imported more law than we had made for ourselves in the previous 700 years: some 2,000 extra laws in one day.

Edward Heath had a duty of Loyalty to Her Majesty and he had taken the oath of a Privy Councillor in which he swore to uphold and defend all Her Majesty's Rights, Privileges, Pre-eminences, and Prerogatives. When he put through the 1972 EEC Act he knew he was surrendering this Kingdom to foreign rule, entirely contrary to the oaths he had taken. Edward Heath had committed high treason against Her Majesty, contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, and high treason against the people of England and the English Constitution. 

Every European treaty since has surrendered more powers to govern to a foreign power. Joining the European Union has been an act of high treason against the Queen and people of this United Kingdom by those in government.  

By doing this Edward Heath had imagined the death of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen, which is high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. He had also subverted the English Constitution, the major crime of Sedition at Common Law and at this level of sedition and act of high treason against the English Constitution and Her Majesty’s subjects.

 

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.