The treason and propaganda continues apace from the mainstream media in the attempt to prevent the restoration of the sovereignty and constitution of this country.
I would like to remind all readers of how we need to treat those who do us wrong by quoting scripture from Matthew Chapter 5:
"Verse 43: Yee haue heard, that it hath beene said, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour, and hate thine enemie:
Verse 44: But I say vnto you, Loue your enemies, blesse them that curse you, doe good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully vse you, and persecute you:
Verse 45: That yee may be the children of your father which is in heauen: for he maketh his sunne to rise on the euill and on the good, and sendeth raine on the iust, and on the vniust.
Verse 46: For if yee loue them which loue you, what reward haue yee? Doe not euen the Publicanes the same?
Verse 47: And if yee salute your brethren only, what do you more then others? Doe not euen the Publicanes so?
Verse 48: Be yee therefore perfect, euen as your father, which is in heauen, is perfect."
One of the latest snipes at those seeking our laws to be upheld has come from one time Prime Minister, John Major.
Whilst Prime Minister, Major allowed Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude to sign the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.
I quote Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty below:
1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established.
Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby."
As was correctly argued at the time by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter who laid charges of "Misprision of Treason" before the magistrates court in Hexham, Northumberland on 9th September 1993, this is treason. The judicial system in the end didn't agree. The two conclusions I can see is either they read what they signed and thus committed this act of treason or they didn't read what they signed which again is a very serious offence.
This Article cannot be allowed under British law as it would make the queen a "Citizen of the Union" and as part 2 of Article 8 says, she will be subject to the duties of the treaty. This would give the European Union authority over the holder of the crown. Clearly an act of treason.
Misprision applies to those who know of acts of either treason or terrorism and who, in the event that they did not report them to the proper authorities, would themselves be guilty of those crimes. On this basis perhaps we should all report the current government for treason?
Some of what was laid before the court is written below:
"It being an offence at Common Law (see Halsbury 4th
edition vol 11 at 818) for a person who knows that
treason is being planned or committed, not to report
the same as soon as he can to a justice of the peace
we hereby lay the following information.
Whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors.”
On 7th February 1992 the Rt Hon Douglas Richard Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, King Charles Street, London SW1 and the Rt Hon the Hon Francis Anthony Aylmer Maude at that date Financial Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury, Parliament Street, London SW1 did sign a Treaty of European Union at Maastricht in the Netherlands, according to Article 8 of which Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union (confirmed by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons: Hansard 1st February 1993) therefore “subject to the duties imposed thereby”, subject to being arraigned in her own courts and being taxed under Article 192 of the integrated Treaty and thereby effectively deposed as the sovereign and placed in a position of suzerainty under the power of the “European Union”.
Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” of the United Kingdom………etc Hurd and Maude….etc did sign a Treaty of European Union…according to Article 8 of which “every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union” and according to Article 8a of which such citizens “shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory” of any member state and according to Article 8b of which such citizens shall have the right to vote and according to which “Declaration on nationality” in the Final Act “the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state concerned.”
And that therefore the British people and Parliament will have no right to determine the numbers or identity of non British nationals to whom other European Union member states can give residence rights and voting rights in the United Kingdom.
And whereas according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The Laws of England are the birthright of the People”.
And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch77,89) has stated that
“And a matter of law the courts of England recognise
Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power
to destroy its omnipotence.”
Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any “person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto…shall be capable to be…a Member of either House of Parliament”
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 “to destroy the constitution of the country” is an act of treason.
And whereas the term “municipal” has been defined by the European Court of Justice in 1972 as meaning “national”:
“..the treaty entails a definitive limitation of
the sovereign rights of member states against
which no provisions of municipal law whatever
their nature, can be involved.”
and similarly defined by Lord Justice Cumming Bruce giving the majority verdict in McCarthys v Smith 1979 ICR 785,798:
“If the terms of the Treaty (of Rome) are adjudged
in Luxembourg to be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970, European Law will prevail over that municipal legislation”
Hurd and Maude…etc did sign a Treaty ….etc according to Article 8b of which “Every citizen of the Union residing in a member state of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides.”
Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchy in which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign and Head of State and a democracy, whereby the people of that United Kingdom rule by delegating their authority for periods of up to 5 years to the Parliament and Government in London.
And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The laws of England are the birthright of the people”
And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that
“As a matter of law the courts of England recognise
Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the
power to destroy its own omnipotence.”
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to “destroy the Constitution” is an act of treason.
…..Hurd and Maude…etc did sign a treaty…etc according to Article 8 of which the British people, without their consent have been made the citizens of the European Union with duties towards the same and according to Article 192 of the integrated treaty the british people can be taxed directly by that European Union without further process in the Westminster Parliament and according to Article 171 of which the British State can be forced to pay a monetary penalty to the European Union.
Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd……etc
Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II swore at Her Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects “according to their laws”.
And whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors”
Hurd and Maude….etc did sign a Treaty….etc which extended the powers of the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament in the new “European Union” to make and enforce in the United Kingdom laws which do not originate in the Westminster Parliament. And that this loss of democratic rights was without the express consent of the British people.
And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The Laws of England are the Birthright of the people”
And whereas Lord Justice Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that
“As a matter of law the courts of England recognise
Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the
power to destroy its omnipotence.”
Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason….etc
Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors” (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation IKB 733)
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.
Hurd and Maude etc …did sign a Treaty…according to which Article Q of which the Maastricht Treaty “is concluded for an unlimited period” and from which there is no right of nor mechanism for secession.
Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason etc.
This is one of the more extraordinary aspects of the Maastricht Treaty since it provides a direct parallel with that other “Union”, the American Union signed by the Southern, confederate states on the assumption that they could leave that Union whenever they wished. But they had omitted to ensure that both the right to and mechanism for withdrawal were included specifically in the Union declaration. As a result, the American President Abraham Lincoln (inaugural address 4th March 1861) justified war against the southern states by saying:
“No state upon its own mere motion
can lawfully get out of the Union”
It was this issue and not the question of slavery (for which Lincoln had expressed accomodation in his inaugural address) which caused the American Civil War in which 600,000 died. The northern states were engaged not on a moral crusade but on an imperialist adventure, using the industrial and military might of the North to conquer the largely rural, raw material producing South.
Although the European Union as yet possesses no significant armed forces, this is the ultimate intention and an embryo Franco german force has already been set up.The possible exit from this “Union” of Britain, the second biggest paymaster, with the richest coal, oil and fishing reserves in Europe and with the world’s largest investments in the American economy might one day tempt this new breed of Eurofascist to use the logic of Abraham Lincoln.
Whereas it is established by a statute in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) confirmed in 1297 and last reviewed at the passing of the Statute Law Repeals Act 1967 that:
“No freeman may be…disseised…of his liberties
or free customs…nor will we not pass upon him
but by the law of the land.”
This most durable pillar of the constitution is destroyed by a “Treaty of European Union”…etc..which disseises all free men of their liberties and free customs under the law of this land by subjugating their Government to the extension of the powers of the European Commission, Court and parliament (in which latter the United Kingdom members form a minority of 87 of 567 voting members). Under Article 192 of the integrated treaty our free men are open to be taxed without further process of the United Kingdom Parliament and according to the “Declaration on nationality” in the Final Act of the treaty the number and identity of non British nationals given residence and voting rights in the United Kingdom will not be determined by the british Government. And further that the treaty extends majority voting in the Council of Ministers thus permitting other states to determine laws which govern British people. Under Article 8 of the Treaty free men are required to become citizens of the European Union “subject to the duties imposed thereby.”
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 “to destroy the constitution” is an act of treason.
Therefore Hurd and Maude….etc
CASE 8 (IN SCOTLAND).
Whereas it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795:
“within the realm or without…to devise….constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors.” and
“to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom”
and whereas to destroy the constitution per R v Thistlewood 1820 is an act of treason.
Hurd and Maude etc…did sign a treaty….for an unlimited period and without right of or mechanism for secession. This treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby it is established per Article III of that Act the people of the United Kingdom be represented by the one and the same Parliament and none other and per Article XVIII that no alteration be made in laws which concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
Under the treaty, the rule of a Parliament other than that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is established whereunder, contrary to the Act of Union, subjects within Scotland become subject to laws made in an assembly in which their representatives form a minority seven fold more slender than in the parliament of the United Kingdom.
Therefore Hurd and Maude….etc
Since the United Kingdom has no formal codified constitution in the manner of the USA or Germany, we rely on certain critical statutes and precedents in case law to formalise and hold fast for future generations the wisdom of the laws which have established and guaranteed our rights and liberties and the institutions of Parliament, Government and Courts.
It is one of the major safeguards for the people that past rights are enshrined in specific statutes and specific clauses. Imprecise words, confused sentences and contradictory clauses are a danger since they allow potential tyrants to exploit or bypass uncertainty in the law. It has therefore always been accepted as vital that any repeal of a statute or part of a statute should be made specific in new legislation. This is not just to “tidy up” the law books but more important so that everyone – voters, Parliament, ministers and journalists should know precisely how their historic guarantees are being affected.
But in the text of the Maastricht Bill laid before Parliament there was no mention of any of the many contraventions of historical statutes by the terms of the Treaty. The only reference to another Act of Parliament was to that of the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act, the terms of which would have been contradicted had a specific Parliamentary approval not been obtained.
The British people were deliberately kept in the dark about the destruction of their constitution and how the Maastricht Treaty and the European Community Amendments Act effectively threw out many of the most important statutes in British Parliamentary history. The first strategy of the tyrant is secrecy. The second is to lose the detail in a mass of superficiality and generalisation. Both were evident in the passage of the Maastricht Treaty Bill.
Some statutes within the British system of an informal constitution could perhaps, at some stretch of the imagination, be regarded as less critical. But this could certainly not be said about the Union with Scotland Act, for in 1706 the Scottish people decided to share a Sovereign and a Parliament. Since the new Parliament of the UNITED Kingdom was to be in England (and the physical existence of the Scottish parliament dispensed with) the terms of the Act of Union were absolutely vital. The Act is the nearest we possess to an actual constitution. The Scots, effectively, gave up their Parliament only in return for the guarantee that the new (English dominated) Parliament would not curtail or in any way diminish their rights. If they did so (as has now happened under the Maastricht Treaty) then the Act of Union would be null and void and not only would the United Kingdom cease to exist but so would the authority of the Parliament at Westminster which was spawned by the Act of Union.
This is exactly what has happened and the British people, once the full enormity of the betrayal has dawned upon them, will exact a terrible revenge on those who purport to be their “democratic representatives”."
Now according to the London Evening Standard (click here to read), Major has said:
“If, in pursuit of the ‘hard’ or ‘no deal’ Brexit they favour, they vote to delay approval of any other options by Parliament, or deny the nation a binding referendum, they will have nowhere to hide if — as so many forecast — Brexit harms our national wellbeing,”
"Those responsible for forcing through a policy that impairs the prospects and lifestyle of the British people will be held accountable for many years to come. They will not be forgotten — and may well not be forgiven — by those they misled.”
Major as Tory leader and Prime Minister, let his ministers sign this treaty so he must either be guilty of "Misprision of Treason" or he had no idea what the government he was leading was doing, which is also a very serious offence. How dare he twist the responsibility for the mess this country is in around onto those of us wanting to free this country from the shackles of the EU? Major ought to be charged with treason, but I would rather see him honestly apologise and be forgiven.
The actions of Major's government (along with those of others) have impaired the prospects and lifestyle of the British people for decades. What John Major is doing is called projection. He is trying to accuse others of what he is guilty of himself.
Major is also calling for a second referendum. The suggested wording I saw as early as the first few months of 2017 for this referendum is deeply concerning. The choices could end up being to accept May's package or remain. Both of these options are the same. To accept May's package is to remain. It is to sign their laws onto the statute book, to submit to EU military unification and to leave the EU whilst paradoxically entering into a deeper partnership. There need be no second referendum. The vote was leave the European Union and Theresa May's cabinet aren't doing that.
One day all this will be academic at the second coming, but for now we have an appointed power structure in this country and the EU have no lawful authority. The British people have never voted to be governed by the EU and the laws of this country clearly define the ceding of power in this manner as treason. As always our reaction to this must not breach God's laws and principles. We have been wronged and there will be anger at these wrongs, but we must not let our love grow cold and we must not hate those who have wronged us.
Also of note is the comments from George Osborne in this article:
Guardian Article - Click to read
These paragraphs are worth highlighting:
"Osborne said that argument had then been used by a minority of leave supporters who were convinced by the “rather esoteric issues of constitutional sovereignty”. which had not previously been an issue of major public concern.
“We allowed that kind of minority concern – because we pool sovereignty in all sorts of different organisations like Nato – to be linked to immigration control. And that was pretty lethal in that referendum debate,” he said."
For a lot of us the issue has always been about sovereignty and not being oppressed by a tyrannical European fascist regime. It was an issue back in the 1970s when national traitor Ted Heath and his government promised "no essential loss of sovereignty" by joining the European Economic Community. At the same time, Heath and his team of traitors were secretly discussing how this would eventually result in a total loss of sovereignty, perhaps by the turn of the century. These talks were kept secret for 30 years. Perhaps he thought Britain would be finished by then. He thought wrong. The British people stood up to this EU monster back in 2016 and we need to do so again now to slay this foul beast. The EU has no lawful right to have any say over this island. This country has a constitutional monarchy where there is a constitution between the people and the crown that the reigning monarch must uphold (there is remedy if they don't in the Magna Carta in Clause 61). The House of Commons is elected by the people and alongside the Lords, are to make legislation compatible with Common Law to be approved by the holder of the Crown. The holder of the Crown is expected to deny any treasonous laws from Parliament and the Crown is endowed with the power to do so.
For Osborne to try and make out the sovereignty is some new fringe element is untenable and potentially some sort of NLP mind game trick. What he is saying is not true and very easily provable as not true from the history books which show major concern about sovereignty back in the 1970s. The concern was big enough that the government of the time falsely promised no essential loss of sovereignty.
For evidence that Heath's government did know that they were destroying national sovereignty please read this book pictured below.
The EU: A Corporatist Racket by
The Craven Freedom advice is switch the telly off, stop the license fee, research what is really going on and take peaceful, respectful action. This action must meet God's laws so pray and read your Bible. If I am wrong in anything I write correct me. If each of us gets active, we can stop the lawlessness that is descending on this land. The clocks can be turned back. It's going to take a huge effort to finish off the monster we face, but we have it them on the ropes. Their fake media house of cards is collapsing. The desperation I saw in a BBC reporters' voice the other day was encouraging. They cannot believe people can see through them and seem astounded that their fake narratives are being questioned by us ordinary, everyday men and women using our brains and thinking.
Below are some links. I cannot account that the information in them is 100% accurate, but I would encourage you to read them and do your own research. Don't take what I have said at face value either, research that. This goes far deeper than my research shows. I've given you some strings to pull at, but you must make sure yourself they are true and then see what other information you can dig out. Please be careful not to act in an inappropriate way out of anger from what you read. The links are: