Thursday, 13 December 2007

Treaty of Surrender.

Gordon Browns Reform treaty of surrender to the EU hands over our national controls over our population control mechanisms, illegal immigrant expulsion mechanisms, immigration and border control to the EU.

If you surrender control over who resides in your nation, you are no longer a nation but a vassal state.

The 27 EU judges, many of whom are ex-communists, now control our national borders via the EU Judgeocracy, which is the total political domination and subversion of legal systems via unelected EU judges.

The MEP's of Europe are elected, the Judges arent.

The EU judges are not elected, but now they have the power to overule national governments.

Signing away our prerogative powers over the areas stated below this is treason.

The EU REFORM TREATY is a treasonous document, and those that sign it traitors.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";

"if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir";[1]

"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition"; and

"if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".

This provision of the Treason Act 1702 is the important one, as it states that treason may be defined as meaning that any person who signs away the power of the crown over the territory of the realm, with dominion also meaning the APPLICATION OF THE POWER of the royal prerogative over Britain itself.

Dominions and territories applies not just to the Commonwealth but also Britain itself.

The Crown is not just the person of the Queen or King, it is the power of the Crown in Parliament and thre power of the Royal Prerogative.

The imperial crown represents the sovereignity of the Crown in this country, meaning the power of the Crown is the ultimate authority of Parliament and the Royal Prerogative.

Power may not be lawfully excercised unless done through the Crown.

Treason is therefore done when a Minister of the Crown signs a treaty that permanentaly revokes the power of the Crown as excercised via Parliament or through the Royal Prerogative in Britain. This is because they have signed a treaty that ensures the Crown no longer has the exclusive authority to apply the Royal Prerogative in those areas defined in the treaty AFTER THE PRESENT QUEEN ABDICATES, as it from henceforth binds all her successors, and therefore makes the Crown subservient to the EU. This is also confirmed by the fact that Parliament may no longer prevent foreign judges from imposing laws directly upon British citizens simply by bypassing Parliament and the Crown.

In previous treaties the power of the Crown was said to be operated in the name of the Crown via the EU and that the authority of the EU laws was based on them being produced as a result of this shared control of the power of the Crown and the Prerogative with the EU. The government allowed the EU to enact laws in the name of the Crown via the EU treaties and this meant those laws became laws in the UK under the authority of the Crown.

The EU did not permamently revoke the power of the Crown but excercised the power of the Crown in the name of the Crown via the EU. This treaty though removes and surrenders totally the power of the Crown over those areas defined in the treaty and hands full power over exclusively and directly in perpetuity to the EU. That is a fundamental legal shift.

The Reform treaty removes the power of the Crown and Royal Prerogative from the Crown and hands it to the EU.

Therefore the Reform Treaty binds the next monarch, and makes the Crown subservient to the EU and the EU judges. This means the Crown loses sovereign control of British territory and British dominions in those areas as defind in the Reform Treaty.

This means therefore those sections of the act are treason.


Judicial Review for a declaration from the Attorney General that the signing of the Reform Treaty was not unlawful as under the Treason Act 1702.

Norris v Ireland (1989) 13 EHRR 186 allows any British citizen to claim a judicial review.

Para 32 Regina V Her Majestys Attorney General " R (Pretty) v DPP [2002] 1 AC 800, 851C Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough stated: "In exceptional circumstances it may be proper for a member of the public to bring proceedings against the Crown for a declaration that certain proposed conduct is lawful and name the Attorney General as the formal defendant to the claim. But that is not what occurred here and, even then, the court would have a discretion which it would normally exercise to refuse to rule upon hypothetical facts."

The Treason Act 1702 has not been removed from the statute books and as such is still operational - Regina v Her Majestys Attorney Government ex partes Rusbridger SESSION 2002-03 [2003] UKHL 38 on appeal from: [2002] EWCA Civ 397 ;

34. The reasons why the Court of Appeal remitted the case to the Administrative Court to give further consideration to the respondents' application for a declaration are stated in paragraphs 22 to 26 of their judgment. Parts of these paragraphs read as follows:

"On the other side, there are powerful arguments in favour of free speech and also of having our criminal law formulated in such a way that the citizen can see what is prohibited and what is not. Of course there will always be borderline cases but it cannot seriously be contended that our many statutes dealing with treason which go back to 1351 but are still partly in force leave the law in a satisfactory state …."

"No one has been prosecuted under the 1848 Act for over 100 years. Every few years Parliament passes a Statute Law (Repeals) Act which repeals outdated statutes. While bits of the 1848 Act were repealed in the 19th century other bits including the section with which we are concerned survive in part."

24. The third criterion advanced by counsel for the Attorney General focuses on the question whether there is a cogent public or individual interest which could be advanced by the grant of a declaration. Bland was an example of an overwhelming interest of an individual in the grant of a declaration that the cessation of life-sustaining medical support was lawful. But the jurisdiction is in no way limited to life and death issues: Royal College of Nursing of the UK v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] AC 800. The Guardian alleges that some 25% of the population supports republicanism. The Guardian wishes to continue the debate. In words attributed to Voltaire the person on the Underground might say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it". It may be a matter of constitutional importance. An historic anomaly in our political democracy could be examined by our courts. There is something to be said for the view that it ought not to be left to the court in Strasbourg to drag us to an obvious conclusion."

In X V Morgan-Grampian Lord Bridge wrote " The maintenance of the rule of law is in every way as important in our free society as the democratic franchise. In our society the rule of law rests upon twin foundations: the sovereignity of the Queen in Parliament in making the law and the sovereignity of the Queens courts in interpreting and applying the law ".

The specific clauses in the Reform Treaty which are in conlist with the Treason Act 1702 are ;

Article 61 (1) which creates a common asylum and immigration policy.

Article 62 (abc) which ensures no national border control over EU states

Article 62 (2)(b) which removes national control over those that enter our national borders

Article 62 (3) which empowers the union to act without our express national authority via Parliament including forcing identity cards on British citizens

Article 63(2) (a) which allows the EU to create a common asylum policy covering entrance, residence and nationalisation status and judicial procedure.

Article 63 (3) which allows the European commission to unilaterally issue laws to force member states to obey commission diktats on what they should be doing in the event of 'a sudden inflow' of asylum seekers after an 'emergency situation'.

Article 63 (a) which develops a common immigration policy which alow the European council and Parliament to decides conditions of entry and residence for immigrants

Article 63 (c) which will control member states powers to remove and repatriate illgal immigrants

Article 69 (c) that seeks to harmonise criminal justice systems of member states.

These treaty sections in effect surrender the power of the Royal Prerogative both from Parliament and the Crown over the areas of national borders, immigration, asylum, repatriation and judicial control over their areas of state power and also their legal scrutiny and the rights of British citizens to judcially review those areas of state competence - in effect removing all those rights in one go.

This is itself the very defintion of Treson for which the Treason Act 1702 was predicated upon.

The use of Prerogative power may not be used in such a way that it is subversive of the rights and liberties of British subjects (See case of Nichols v Nichols, 1576, "Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice").

The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation, but the terms of treaty must themselves be legal as regards the UK common law and statute law, in that no treaty may be signed if the terms of the treaty so offend against the Treason Act 1702 . Also no minister of the Crown may lawfully sign any treaty using the Royal Prerogative that is in conflict with the Treason Act 1702 as the minister is bound not sign any treaty in conflict with their oath of allegiance to the Crown.

The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of Common law. It is also an operative statute and it contains the Oath of Allegiance which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP's and the Judiciary. They are required also to "take into consequence anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties.

Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was "still part of statute law...on which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests."

The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details: "…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come."

The Prime Minister and his ministers are constitutionally bound to respect their Oath of Allegiance, the terms of the Common Law which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights and so bound by Her Majesty's Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogatives of the Crown and Parliament were set by common law and cannot be lawfully infringed by them.

As Lord Jenkins of Putney was told by The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne) on 1st December 1994, "The Royal Prerogative may be defined as those residual powers, rights, immunities and privileges of the Sovereign and of the Crown which continue to have their legal source in the common law and which the common law recognises as differing from those of private persons" .

"Examples of areas where the Royal Prerogative remains important include the conduct of foreign affairs, the defence of the realm and the regulation of the Civil Service."

"With the exception of powers personal to the Sovereign under the Royal Prerogative are, by convention, exercised by Ministers. The manner in which they are exercised will depend on the power in question. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the use of powers under the Royal Prerogative, as they are powers derived from statute".

The power of the prerogative based on common law does not extend to legalising treason as defined under the Treason Act 1702.

The Royal prerogative does not allow ;

1) The Crown to sign away the power of the prerogative itself over aspects of the British state such as to the EU

2) The Crown to sign away the power of the prerogative as per its ability to limit the powers of foreign judges to enforce EU laws in Great Britain by bypassing the British legal system and Crown itself

3) The Crown to ignore the definitions of treason in the Treason Act 1702

4) The minister of the Crown to ignore his Oath of Allegiance to the Crown

5) The Crown to remove and annul rights protected under the British Constitution such as in the Bill Of Rights and Magna Carta

6) The Crown to apply ANY 'laws' in the Reform Treaty which confict with our British constitutional rights, and therefore all British citizens may ignore any laws in conflict in this treaty that impact upon their constitutional rights.

EU leaders have gathered in Lisbon and begun the process of signing the controversial new EU reform treaty.

Gordon Brown will later today put pen to paper on the EU Treaty, despite new evidence which shows the controversial document will surrender almost all control of Britain's immigration.

Buried in the Treaty's small print is a ruling that gives new rights to EU leaders to overturn decisions made by Britain's Immigration and Asylum Tribunal.

Thousands of failed asylum seekers will now be able to take their cases to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg where the final say will be handed to unselected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Taxpayer-funded £4.2m 'Radio Brussels' to send EU propaganda across the continent

European Union leaders are expected to sign the treaty at noon today in Lisbon - with Gordon Brown, who is flying in later today, expected to sign at about 3pm.

Neil O'Brien, who heads the I Want A Referendum campaign, claimed last night: "By signing us up to the rejected Constitution, Gordon Brown is giving EU courts the right to hear asylum cases.

"This could mean that decisions made by UK courts to deport failed asylum seekers will be overturned by Brussels."

Almost 170,000 deportation cases are already brought before the Immigration Tribunal every year, with each case usually lasting around two years.

Giving failed asylum seekers powers to take their cases to Europe will cost the taxpayer millions of extra pounds as each case now already costs an average of £18,000.


alanorei said...

Thanks, Lee, a most necessary article

The date is appropriate, i.e. the 13th, Judas Iscariot (13 letters), being one of the twelve (1+12 = 13) and also a traitor.

Interesting that the police as a whole are focussing on their pay award right now. Probably none of them are thinking about the implications of today, if they are fully integrated into Europol, they could find themselves being transferred to parts of eastern Europe, while eastern European officers are sent here.

I understand that armed French police already do guard duty on the Eurostar platform at Waterloo, before passengers go through Customs to board the express.

So the precedent has already been set - and the British police don't seem to realise it.

BFB said...


Well copied/posted...saved me the trouble!