The Great British Constitutional Crisis & The Solution: 45 years of deception & continuing.The European Communities Act received Royal Assent on the 17th of October 1972. This Act resulted in the United Kingdom joining the EEC (European Economic Community), which had been established by the Treaty of Rome, signed on the 25th of March 1957. Britain finally became a member of the EEC on the 1st of January 1973. This state of constitutional illegality was ultimately entrenched on the 19th of June, 2008 when Royal Assent was given to the Lisbon Treaty. This final “Treaty” of the now-political European Union was ratified by all Member States of the EU on the 13th of November 2009.

The Problem?

When Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome in Brussels on the 22nd of January 1972, the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath knowingly and willfully tricked, deceived And betrayed the British people into handing over National Sovereignty to a foreign authority under the guise of a trade deal, that trade deal being the ECTA (The common Market). Whereas Heaths true intention was to surrender our Sovereignty, he lied to the whole country as the people were unaware they were voting for Foreign Rule and under Constitutional law it stands as the most grievous high treason in British history. 

The famous Lord Kilmuir letter (kept hidden for 30 years) made it painfully obvious that the British Government at this time were ready to commit Sedition and Treason, and did. In this letter, Edward Heath is reminded of the treacherous steps that he was about to take by the then-Lord Chancellor.

The once-top-secret documents titled “Shoe-horned into the EU” (Obtained under the title “FCO 30/1048” from the Public Records office via the 30 year rule), highlights the acts of Sedition and Treason along with other crimes Committed by the Heath administration. Every Government that have followed since have been complicit!

The Heath Administration were fully aware at the time that there would be an inevitable “Loss of Sovereignty” which was even admitted in the Kilmuir letter. However at the time this was all hidden in secrecy and so the British people were fooled and duped into what would turn in to foreign Rule. It is also stated in the Letter that:

“The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own parliament because they are not the incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they only hold those powers in trust for those who follow on.”

The people were voting for the Common Market, not a European Government. The British Government also commited Sedition by heavily backing the entrance into Europe. Some news agencies and businesses were also asked in secrecy to take their anti Anti-EEC flyers down and put Pro-Europeans flyers and banners up. 

Sovereignty

The following statement was made by a QC in a discussion about the recent ruling on the right of Parliament to the referendum result – “As Parliament is sovereign it can do as it pleases, including give away some of its own sovereignty.” This is a VERY dangerous concept. Parliament is bound by Constitutional Law in many ways, including the prohibition to give away sovereignty to a foreign authority. The Bill of Rights 1689 clearly states: 

“no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.”

-The people have sovereignty over their Constitutional Laws; these can only be changed via true and open democracy. And for democracy in this country to truly exist the people must be their own rulers. The word democracy (origin: Demokratia) says it all, DEMO means people, and KRATOS means sovereignty or sovereign rule. It originates from the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of Government, where democracy was founded on the Rule of Law, with laws being decided via the Trial by Jury system.-

By 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was the icing on the cake for the perversity of the time. On 9th September 1993 Rodney Atkinson and the late Norris McWhirter laid before the magistrates court in Hexham, Northumberland under the process known as “Misprision of Treason” whereby there was an astonishing 7 counts of treason against the British Constitution and people by two Ministers who had signed the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992.

[R v Thistlewood 1820] 

“to destroy the constitution of the country” is an act of treason”

-Some weeks later in Scotland Norris McWhirter laid a further case. These Treason cases also showed that 500m people could move to and vote in any EU country’s national elections. The Government denied this. But it happened in the Scottish National referendum.- 

The Maastricht treaty, as well as being contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby:

“the united Kingdom of Great-Britain be represented by one and the same 
Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great-Britain”
 (Article III)

and per Article XVIII that no alteration be made in laws which diminish the rights of Scots, Article 8 of this detrimental EU Treaty also imposed an all-embracing compulsory European citizenship on the Queen and all her United Kingdom subjects, and 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 unamended 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.” 

The Maastricht Treaty also in-fact replicated the chapter headings and various other details almoast in verbatim what was actually planned in Berlin during the year of 1942, half a century before. 

These plans were originally finalized by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin in 1942. These plans for the future Europe are detailed in the seminars entitled ‘Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’ (OCLC number 31002821) literally translated into English as ‘European Economic Community’. If these findings werent eerie enough, the original dicuments were detailing in effect that if the Nazis should lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion. 

The declassified US Military intelligence report EW-Pa 128 (Also know as the “Redhouse Report” showed very simular plans.

The involvement of the United Kingdom of Britain in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. It was also evidenced further by the declassified documents “Shoe-horned into the EU” that this state funded Anglo-French pro-federal European lobbying body was posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. 
This group were also apparently funded and used as a tool to push Britain into a Federal European State by the CIA according to a report (2000) by The Telegraph. The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution. 

The unveiled documents: 

confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state.”

And the public documents “OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe 1948-60”  First published online in 1997 highlighted that 

“…Bohlen, representing American officials based in Paris, including ECA, complained that the United States was reluctant to apply real pressure in London, as they habitually did in Paris, because of the close wartime relationship: the Empire-Commonwealth should be broken up, he argued, allowing Britain to merge with a federal Europe.” (Pg, 200)

Brexit. Did it solve the problem?

Brexit did nothing except confuse the people more. It is not possible to lawfully vote in or out of an institution created unlawfully in the first place; has anything changed since? This is why Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should NOT be touched. You cannot change a system of unjust governance with the very same system that causes it, we would indeed have a good Government if there weren’t as many corrupt beurocrats and quislings in it. Therefore we should not be taking any political sides, not Leave, nor Remain. Instead we should be unifying as a whole country under Britain’s established constitution.

No Parliament can bind its successor, yet no following Parliament has ever reversed Edwards Heath treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and Parliament has continuously and deliberately acted to reinforce Heaths detrimental and outrageous pretense that Britain had knowingly and willingly Consented to foreign rule. As public servants, neither Heath nor any or any following Parliament have ever had the power to do such a thing.

The Solution? 

On the 26th of February 2001 The Treaty of Nice which amended the Maastricht treaty (responsible for the EEC becoming the EU as an independent state) was signed by European leaders but before parliament seeked its final ratification there was a petition that was sanctioned under the sixty-first clause of the Magna Carta 1215 which was signed by of 68 peers from the House of Lords as a last attempt to save fundamental freedoms and birthrights in the name of British democracy.

Amongst those leading the Petition (backed by thousands of the general public) whom also signed was Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel)Lord Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace. The petition was also signed by: Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.

  • This Vellum Parchment had the status of a judgement on the Sovereigns by her Peers. 
  • Elizabeth Mountbatten had 40 days to respond under her Coronation Oath and Contractual duties and to bring redress to the people. 

    Elizabeth Mountbatten, the ex-Queen and Traitor whom the Petition was sanctioned to, as article 61 recognises, had to “correct the transgression…within forty days” and respond in accordance with her Coronation Oath and Contractual duties bringing redress to the people, however Letters between Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell and Sir Robin Janvrin (Private Secretary) show different intentions rather than to serve her subjects under the law. She “commanded” her Private Secretary (Sir Robin Janvrin) to respond for her and the reply was rather careless, inappropriate and no redress was given within those 40 days nor was it received and the unlawful Treaties the Lords were trying to extinguish were fully forced on the British people.

    It was on that very day of the reply (23rd of March 2001) that our nations security clause (Article 61) was invoked becoming supreme constitutional law of this country. According to Clause 61, we have a lawful obligation and duty to Swear allegiance to the Committee of the Barons and together as worded in the security clause: “those twenty-five barons together with the community of the whole land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely, by seizing castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can, saving our person and the persons of our queen and our children, until, in their opinion, amends have been made;

    It also goes on to say:

    “…And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress us as much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it…”

    ​Article Sixty-One installs (we) the people as the legal and lawful force to police, indict, try, punish and otherwise obtain redress over wrongdoers acting as, or in the name of, government. 

    Since Article 61 was invoked, there has been an ongoing resistance against the tyrannical nightmares of Westminster and Article 61 has remained the law of the land. 

    These European Treaties -Wether we like it or not- are actually outside of our British constitutional Law bounds, they shouldn’t exist, and there’s a good reason for it. Again and again, they will commit crimes against us unless we use our Constitutional Laws to remedy this crackdown on fundamental freedoms.

    How can we continue to push for changes under a unlawful system of unjust governance? Would the changes themselves be lawful? No! We mustn’t give this imposter government any credibility or chance at further corroding our Common law at all, doing so would continue this treachery but in perpetuity. WE NEED REAL CHANGE and need it now before it’s time up. There’s only so many times you can repeat something before it becomes insanity and this regime crossed that line long ago.

    Join us (as we attempt to awake the whole of Britain) on the Practical Lawful Dissent Facebook Group where you will find thousands of others still gathering to this day. This group is now a rally point for the unlawful EU occupation and for those who wish to peacefully and lawfully dissent against the impostors behind the the current highly-illegal Parliament.



    The Treaty of Nice
    (
    agreed by the Heads of State or Government at the Nice European Council on 11 December 2000 and signed on 26 February 2001 includes:


    1. Article 24 –transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting.

    2. Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.

    3. Article 191 –assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.

    4. Articles 29 and 31 – establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).

    5. Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.

    6. Article 17 –establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: 

      “The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed”

    Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.
    The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU “competence,” including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty negotiations.


    Charter of Fundamental Rights – signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.

    • Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [i.e.: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

    Article 46A of the Treaty of Lisbon, which the traitor Gordon Brown signed in 2008, “The Union shall have legal personality” is evidence of high treason being signed and sealed by imposters within Westminster throughout several decades. Civil obedience today is suicide tomorrow.

    Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name. 

    Therefore ‘legal personality’ brought the European Union into changing from an alleged trade agreement, to its intended state as a new supranational union. Which is a type of multinational political union where negotiated power is delegated to an authority by governments of member states.

    That being the case in fact, Britain became a vassal state. Being a vassal most commonly implies providing military assistance to the dominant state when requested to do so; it sometimes implies paying tribute, but a state which does so is better described as a tributary state. 

    Article F3 of the Maastricht treaty;

    3. “The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.”


    So what polices are they referring to?

    On 20th Feb 2008 a caucus meeting was held at the German Parliament in Munich to discuss the Lisbon Treaty.

    At this meeting a previously unmentioned paragraph was bought to light by Professor Schachtschneider, Humanities Faculty – University of Nuremberg.

    Professor Schachtschneider, explained that the undisclosed paragraph means on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the DEATH PENALTY will be reintroduced to Europe. The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR. (When are we not at war and who will define riot and upheaval?)

    Professor Schachtschneider made the point that this clause is particularly outrageous as it had been cleverly hidden in a footnote of a footnote and would not have been detected by anyone other than an exceptional expert. 

    A quote from Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Executive Intelligence Review, 7 April 2008. Professor Schachtschneider pointed out that it [the European Union reform treaty, a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty] also reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which I think is very important, in light of the fact that, especially Italy was trying to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations.

    And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty is a covert scam to destroy the Nation States, we accepted also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it also has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible.

    Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote. The “footnote” in question, directly quoted, is as follows:
    3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the “negative” definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

    (a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

    “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

    (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
    (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
    detained;


    (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

    (b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:

    “A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts
    committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”


    By voting for Brexit, which is a TRAP! Those who vote WILL be granting the Lisbon treaty authority by granting Article 50 authority in order to leave the EU. To grant authority to a foreign entity overriding British law (especially Magna Carta article 61’s invocation) is treason at common law. Also repeated within the Bill of Rights 1689:

    “And I do declare, That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm”



    I hope the people WAKE UP before the dream state that they are experiencing turns into the nightmare of their own creation.


    Before 2001, Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee the country.


    Since the Royal Prerogative was eroded with the first Parliment Act of 1911. House of Lords have been unable to stop forced legislation from receiving Royal Assent. They could only delay it for a period of 2 years. Royal Prerogative is to keep all of Parliaments legislation within the bounds of our constitution.


    The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words:
    “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.)
    In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.
    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.”

    Both Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 are Peace Treaties between the sovereign and the people. Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.

    Don’t you want your children to have the same rights that you’ve looked after? We certainly do.

    Advertisements