TREASON - A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
By
The Great
Defender of Freedom
NORRIS McWHIRTER
HE
ARGUED THAT:
By its nature, the duty of allegiance is in law
"unalienable and perpetual". This language, from Foster`s
Crown Cases (1743-1761), was quoted with approval at the
trial of Sir Roger Casement in 1917. Casement had been
arrested near Tralee, County Kerry, in1916, having been
landed from a German U-boat to foment Irish defection.
Allegiance was similarly defined at the capital trial of the
supercilious Nazi wartime broadcaster, William ' Lord
Haw-Haw' Joyce (1906-1946)
For the purposes of allegiance, foreign states are deemed either to be
"in actual hostility", as in the case of Argentina in
1982,or "in amity", as in the case at present of the other
European Union states. However, the condition of hostility
or amity in no way disposes of the essential exclusiveness
of perpetual and unalienable allegiance. No man can serve
two sovereigns. When, therefore the late Sir John Fiennes
(1911-1996) cunningly drafted the European Communities Bill,
in 1972, and when on 17 October 1972, his unamended Bill
became an Act subordinating British law to European law,
there was wrought nothing less than the greatest
constitutional revolution in Parliament's seven and a half
centuries of existence. It was furthermore done without even
a schedule of consequential repeals.
The politicians of the day, many of them unwittingly, voted to launch
the nation on a path of "ever closer[ European] union" which
could only lead to the United Kingdom becoming a subordinate
offshore province of the United States of Europe. Those who
engineered Britain's adherence to the
Treaties of Rome and of Maastricht, probably never even had Section 3
of thee Treason Felony Act 1848 drawn to their attention. In
it , condemnation is incurred:
"If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without,
compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or
dispose our most gracious Lady the Queen. . . from the
style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the
United Kingdom. . ."
Indicted and convicted offenders against this unrepealed law
are subject to imprisonment "for the term of his or her
natural life". Yet not a finger was lifted even when, on 7
February 1992, two Privy Counsellors, Douglas Hurd
[Bilderberger] and Francis Maude, signed the Maastricht
Treaty which , at a stroke, brought our Monarch under
suzerainty of the European Union.
The Queen was thereby rendered subject to past and future judgments of
the Court of the European Communities in Luxembourg, from
which there is no appeal and which was thereby confirmed in
authority over her Courts in which she was previously
arraignable.
Article 8 of the Treaty of Maastricht which imposed
all-embracing compulsory European citizenship on the Queen
and all her United Kingdom subjects, without their express
consent, did so " subject to the duties imposed thereby".
These duties are undefined and are thus both unknown and
unknowable. One of them is however perhaps discernable since
the Maastricht Treaty left un-amended Article 192 of the
Treaty of Rome. This reads:
"Decisions of the Council or of the Commission
which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than
states shall be enforceable."
Since "pecuniary obligations" clearly includes taxation, and "perhaps
other than states" must include the new recipients of
compulsory European citizenship, we have here the legal
authorization of a reserve power to levy new taxation from
Brussels on each and every citizen of the 15 EU countries.
Of al the magical and mysterious processes involved in Britain's
political integration with Europe, initiated by Macmillan
and engineered by Heath from 31 July 1961 to17 October 1972,
none is more remarkable than the absence of a single measure
repealing any part of any of the four great
Constitutional Statutes - Magna Carta of Edward 1, the
Petition of Right(1627), the Bill of Rights (1688 ) and the
Act of Settlement (1700).
Perhaps Sir John Fiennes relied upon the doctrine of
implied repeal, but certainly the electorate would have
regarded express repeal as offending against the principle
that nothing but their own demerit can deprive natural born
subjects of their peculiar privileges, called their
birthright, as enshrined in these hitherto durable
constitutional bulwarks.
In Vauxhall Estates v. Liverpool Corporation 1932, it was established
in law that "no Parliament may bind its successors" However,
Article Q of the timeless Maastricht Treaty said that the
Treaty "is concluded for an unlimited period" and it
conveyed no right or mechanism for secession. It is
nonetheless arguable that what one Parliament has done ,
that same or some succeeding Parliament can undo. In
Blackburn v.Attorney General 1983, Lord Justice Megarry, in
his judgment declared:
"As a matter of law, the Courts of England recognize Parliament as
being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its
omnipotence."
From the European Court of Luxembourg in 1972, the very year in which
Parliament, at least temporarily, voted away its sovereignty
in such large measure, came an unappealable judgment on the
Treaty of Rome:
"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."
It was in reference to this Court that Sir Patrick Neill QC, former
Warden of All Soul`s College, Oxford, coined the maxim; " A
court with a mission is a menace; a supreme Court with a
mission is a tyranny." The phrase was incorporated into the
recent Euro-sceptic speech by the Home Secretary. (1996)
Those who see the erosion of British self -government (in defence of
the 1,250,000 Britons died in the first half of this
century) as emanating from the single Oxford college of
Balliol, will be dubbed ' conspiracy theorists'. But the
precise legal definition of a conspiracy is that it is an
agreement between two or more people, unrelated in marriage,
to behave in a manner that will automatically constitute an
offence by at least one of them, though mens rea (guilty
mind) is required by at least two co-conspirators. There is
nothing theoretical about the way in which the Privy
Counsellor's oath, which enjoined two Balliol educated Prime
Ministers,
Macmillan and
Heath and the first
British president of the European
Commission in Brussels ( Lord
Jenkins of Hillhead,
also a Balliol man!):
"To bear faith bear faith and allegiance to the Crown and to defend
its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign . . . persons . . . or
states."
has been breached by these men.
What is further demoralizing is that no less than six subsequent Privy
Counsellor's, following the precedent of Lord Jenkins in 1975, have each
made a solemn declaration before the Luxembourg Court as European
Commissioners:
"To perform my duties in complete independence in the general
interest of the communities; in carrying out my duties".
This conflict of solemn undertaking can only mildly be described as
duplicitous.
Unconstitutionality in the headlong dash to create the new European
Super state is hardly confined to Britain. The Dutch draftsmen of the
Maastricht Treaty included a stipulation in Article R that each and
every country must ratify it "according to its own constitution
requirements". Having got it ` wrong' the first time, Denmark's second
referendum raised several studiously unanswered constitutional questions
.
No case was , however, more stark than the case of
Germany herself. She has a unique Federal Constitutional Court, the
Bundesverfassungsgericht, with nine judges sitting in Karksruhe to guard
their Constitution.
The creation of the European Union and Britain's
continued self-governance was dependent on the verdict of this Court for
, on 11 October 1993 ,
Germany's instrument of ratification was still
undeposited in Rome. Without this twelfth and last document (the other
11 EU countries having ratified the Maastricht Treaty) the EU could not
come into being. It transpired however that the terms approved by this
supreme German national Court to permit ratification, were miles wide of
the terms of the Treaty already signed by the German Government and the
eleven other nations.
For instance, the Court declared:
"Article F does not empower the (European) Union to procure the
financial means or other means it deems necessary to fulfill its
purposes."
Yet that is precisely what Article F does say in the following words:
" The Union shall provide itself with the resources necessary
to attain its objectives and carry out its policies."
Following a question in the House of Lords, Baroness Chalker, Minister
of State in the Foreign Office, confirmed that indeed the European Union
"can obtain financial resources to attain the Union's objectives."
In another area the Karksruhe Court calmly took for Germany an
negotiated opt-out from the European Monetary Union (EMU) - something
for which both Denmark and the United Kingdom had to negotiate by
special protocol prior to signing. Both the Governors of the Bank of
England and the Danish Central Bank have confirmed that there was and is
no opt-out provision for Germany in the Treaty. The fact that the terms
and conditions of the Maastricht Treaty, as approved by their
Constitutional Court, simply do not exist.
Hence Germany's rapid ratification was in clear breach
of Article R of the Treaty itself. Since its ratification was invalid,
the Maastricht Treaty itself has no proper legal standing.
Though earlier this year (1996) our Foreign Office made a legal
assessment of the Treaty, it has not publicly disclosed the obvious and
only conclusion. Perhaps we are waiting either until the going gets
rougher or some wealthily corporation litigates to prove that some
swingeing Brussels penalty is in fact unenforceable.
No sovereign state can survive without the concepts of allegiance and of
breaches of allegiance being treasonable.
Can a European Super state survive without such internal defences? The
answer must assuredly be that where solidarity is more, rather than
less, fragile and tenuous, the as yet unfamiliar concept of Euro-treason
will eventually be vigorously advanced. There does not appear to be any
ready instrument for enforcement at the moment (1996) it is not however
hard to predict that the draconian powers of the Luxembourg Court will
soon bring the concept of Euro-treason into focus. We are told that the
Europol is intended for apprehending cross-border criminals within the
Union. But the beef crisis, the United Kingdom was about to acquiesce in
its creation. Perhaps a fortuitous blow for freedom has been struck and
magazine articles such as this will be safe from a Europol for a little
longer. [BUT
NOT MUCH LONGER!-
added October 13-2009]
THIS NOTICE WAS RELEASED BY THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATION SOME YEARS AGO- IT
HAS FOLLOWED A POLICY OF EXPANDING ITS BRANCHES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
BUT HAS FAILED TO GET ITS LARGE MEMBERSHIP TO TAKE TO THE STREETS IN A
COUNTRYWIDE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN BUT INSTEAD TO WRITE - AND
WRITE - AND WRITE YET AGAIN OF FREEDOM . A CAMPAIGN OF LETTERS and
BALLOONS GOT US NOWHERE. THE BETRAYAL BY PARLIAMENT AND THE
MONARCH FOLLOWED BY THE RATIFICATION OF THE LISBON TREATY BY
GORDON BROWN IN 2008 CONFIRMED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOTHING TO FEAR
FROM THE MASSED RANKS OF THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS A
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF MANY NOTABLES - ACADEMICS
- POLITICIANS
WHO SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A POSITIVE LEAD TO TAKE THE FIGHT ONTO THE STREETS
TO REGAIN OUR ACCUSTOMED RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WHICH WERE THE
INHERITED RIGHTS OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE IN THE FIGHT TO REGAIN OUR HARD
FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM. IT NOW APPEARS THAT IT WILL BE THE
CZECHOSLOVAKIAN PRESIDENT WHO MAY BE OUR DELIVERER BY DELAYING THEIR
ELECTION UNTIL JUNE 2010 AND WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE LISBON TREATY
WILL BE ABANDONED AND A UNITED STATES OF EUROPE CONSIGNED TO HISTORY-WE
HOPE!
OCTOBER-2009
[The British people were lied to by their own
politicians but decided to leave it to others to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM and
INDEPENDENT NATION STATE and the result in 2008 of a traitorous PARLIAMENT and
MONARCH is only now beginning to sink in! Our national salvation now
depends on one courageous man - the president of the Czech Republic. We hope and
pray he will hold firm and if this is possible until June, 2010 HE would have
SAVED EUROPE and indeed the DEMOCRATIC WORLD because his failure will result in
the NAZI ONE WORLD ORDER becoming a reality again in 2010 which will lead to an
ELITE in a SATANIC WORLD GOVERNMENT.
WAKE UP! ENGLAND!
before it is
TOO! LATE!
FRIENDS OF ENGLAND
is a Voluntary Association formed in
order to fight back to reclaim our accustomed FREEDOM. We cannot leave it
to those tainted treasonable political parties who gave away YOUR SACRED
INHERITANCE to help us . It is now a matter of SELF-HELP as the way to VICTORY-
be it months or years.
THE FIGHT BACK MUST START
NOW!
*
On a number of occasions over the
past four years we have mentioned the name of the Master of Balliol College,
Oxford A D LINDSAY who was warned of a Nazi
spy-ring
in the College in 1938. In his
work The Modern State (1943) he makes a the following statement:
'As we have seen, it is possible for
statesmen desiring to bring about a revolution, [because that is what it is
since 1972 and the Treaty of Rome] to seek by deliberate propaganda to implant
into the minds of a whole population the operative ideals which are necessary
for the CONSTITUTION they DESIRE (Caps ours). So , in our time(1943) have
acted Mustapha Ken al in Turkey, the Kuomintang in China, and the Bolshevicks in
Russia, and of course the
Nazi
in GERMANY'.
How appropriate that our so-called
statesmen in 2008 have brought us full circle to find ourselves possibly
only a matter of month's from sharing the same Augean stable - the stink
of which will soon remind those who had no interest in the matter and after we
have lost over 3,000,000 lives in TWO WORLD WARS and many since in defence of
OUR FREEDOM-OUR CONSTITUTION -OUR COUNTRY which our traitorous so-called
representatives have handed over to our former enemy in pursuit of its FOURTH
REICH
on the road to a Nazi inspired
NEW WORLD
ORDER
and a
SATANIC
WORLD
GOVERNMENT.
TREATY OF
TREASON *
http://educate-yourself.org/
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Bird_Flu_Hoax_Exposed
Update:
MUST SEE
H5N1 (Bird Flu) DNA Found In
Ordinary Flu Vaccine!
*
http://prisonplanet.com/
http://infowarrior.infowars...
DON'T MISS IT! -THE
FALL OF THE REPUBLIC - HOW THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE WORLD WIDE IS NOW IN
DANGER !
October 13 -2009 |