Nicola Sturgeon has Lied & Concealed very serious corruption at the highest levels of authority in this country.
If you’ve read our Article “Leave and Remain, don’t play their game” then you know right now that “Brexit” has done nothing but confused the people more.
This argument is not about nationalism; it is
about the essential safety of democracy. The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 says that:
“For it is not glory, it is not riches, neither is it honours, but it is liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which no honest man will lose but with his life.”
Where did this liberty come from? It definetly wasn’t government, the people declared it, so do they have the right to give it away? NO!
(A fact worth mentioning about the Declaration of Arbroath is that it also set the will and the wishes of the people above the Monarch. Though they were bound to the Sovereign ‘both by law and merits’ it was so that their freedom might be maintained. If the people were betrayed them he would be removed and replaced.)
The whole line of Government has been inverted illegally, and the Crown usurped by unconstitutional and treasonous installments undertaken via quisling impostors in Westminster, however we have a right to defend these liberties, or permit them to be abrogated further.
The Constitution can only protect the people if they protect it, and they can only persue justice when they know that there is injustices present. However this can only happen if they know of its existence.
“I Nicola Ferguson Sturgeon, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law,”
So in regards to the solemn oath she took that lawfully bound her to the Constitutional Laws of Scotland (and Britain), and as she has also recently been notified of is that no European Union treaty which contradicts the Act of Settlement, the Coronation Oath Act, the Treaty of Union, (Articles of Union), The Union with Scotland Act, Union of the Crowns (with Scotland), the Treason Acts, Constitutional Case Law (R v Thistlewood 1820) and Magna Carta confirmed the permanent superior power of European Union Law, nor could it justify the use of undemocratic Crown Prerogative Powers. (Which you can find out more about here)
The unlawful de-facto overturning of the Constitutional Contractual between England and Scotland?
Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty 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”.
Therefore Elizabeth II (I of Scotland) is no longer the Queen, she’s actually a Suzerain, not a Sovereign.
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.
The British (Including Scottish) 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 and is part of our 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 and since 1972 to this present day) 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 Treaty of Union 1707.
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”.
So has she really been upholding the law and maintaining Scotlands interests? Far from it, not only has she manipulated the Independence Campaign and committed the crimes of Misprision of Treason by concealing the informations laid before her in letters about the 45+ years of criminal activity within current judiciary (“Government”) but she has also betrayed the Scottish people by subversion of the Constitution by tricking the people into finally putting their Sovereignty to rest, by literally selling it to Brussels. Is this really what the Scottish People want? Furthermore is it really the legacy to be left for those who follow on?
These EU Treaties are very inconsistent with our own constitutional law. For example, The Maastricht treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 [Article III] whereby 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 diminish the rights of Scots.
-The voters will definitely make somewhat of an uninformed vote taking away the fact that the whole prospect of this referendum will be void under Constitutional law (just like “Brexit”).
One of the Articles of Union clearly states:
[Article XXV]“That all Laws and statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease, and become void, and shall be declared to be, by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.”
So our Constitutional Laws still stands but there’s inevitable concerns in regards to where the Scottish Parliament may place the people. (LITERALLY).
We are profoundly concerned about the threat to our democracy posed by the decisions being made, past and present, regarding Scotland’s relationship with the European Union. Brexit did nothing except confuse the people more. It is not possible to lawfully vote in or out of an institution (EU) created unlawfully in the first place. The Scottish people are not aware of the (evidentual) crimes committed by the “British Government” as a whole shown by the overwhelming majority of support shown towards Sturgeon, and so the people, having not been fully informed of these crimes, will not be fully consenting as far as the law is concerned. The people have played right into the hands of Quislings impostors acting in the name of the “Scottish Parliament”, there is however a catch. MISPRISION OF TREASON:
Misprision of Treason as set out in the Treason Act 1708 states:
- (Section 1) “Crimes and Offences which are High Treason or Misprision of High Treason within England shall be construed adjudged and taken to be High Treason and Misprision of High Treason within Scotland”
- See also (Section 5) “High Treason or Misprision of High Treason in Scotland shall be subject and liable to the same Penalties as Persons convicted of High Treason or Misprision of High Treason in England”
- And the 1662 ruling that [R v. Tonge 6 State Tr 225]: “Where a person knowing of the design meets with the others and hears them discourse of their traitorous designs and says or acts nothing; this is high treason in that party, for it is more than a bare concealment, which is misprision.”
- And again at Constitutional Case law “to destroy the constitution of the country” is an act of treason” [R v Thistlewood 1820]
- and that, it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795: “to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom”
The death penalty for high treason still applies today. The 1795 Seditious and treasonous practices Act was NOT lawfully repealed by Tony Blair within chapter 36 of the 1988 Crime and Disorder Act. To attempt to do so was an act of high treason at common law. He also committed a further two counts of treason by removing the word ‘Sovereignty’ from the police constables Oath of office and, by signing the ‘Nice’ treaty. (Not to mention wage illegal wars)
So we personally let Nicola Sturgeon know about these crimes and the severity of them, and what would be the outcome if she did not act on the informations (Being The Crime Of Misprision of Treason). Showing substantiated claims with evidence, we attached documents that were hidden for 30 years from the public such as ‘Shoe-horned into the EU’ which highlights the acts of Treason and Sedition committed by the “British Government” in the very early 1970s, and other different pieces of evidence such as the ‘Kilmuir letter’, and the ‘Treason Cases of 1993’ amongst other information.
The first attempt of a letter highlighting the corruption by Scottish and English Parliaments since the 1970’s, was inapropriatly disregarded by the “First Minister of Scotland” and it wasn’t until 3 months later after she had fully wooed the Scottish People, where a 2nd letter was sent that we received a reply, from Mr Evans Stuart. However inappropriate the responce was. It stated:
“Thank you for your email of 10 February 2017 to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, about the recent EU referendum. I work in the Constitution and UK Relations division of the Scottish Government and have been asked to reply.
The Scottish Government is clear that EU membership delivers many social, economic and cultural benefits for individuals, businesses and communities across Scotland. Given the support in Scotland for remaining in the European Union, the Scottish Government is exploring all options to secure Scotland’s interests, and to protect its relationship with the EU and our place in the single market. The First Minister has said that independence has to be considered. However, the starting point is to protect Scotland’s place in Europe and future relationship with the EU.
Scotland delivered an unequivocal vote to remain in the EU, with all local authority areas voting to remain. A clear majority of Scotland’s elected representatives oppose EU withdrawal and Scotland’s views must be respected. The Scottish Government believes that finding a way to continue Scotland’s membership of the European single market. including the four freedoms. It is central to the health of our economy and our prosperity as a nation. The Scottish Government’s comprehensive plan. Scotland’s Place in Europe, published in December 2016, is designed to keep Scotland in the European single market even if the rest of the UK leaves. The paper can be read in full at: htt-://www.-ov.scot/Publications/2016/12/9234. The Scottish Parliament has supported these proposals. – Ewan WG Stuart
Invocation of Article Sixty-One! (Invoked, 2001)
-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.-
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, had 40 days to 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…”
Since Article 61 (which does apply to Scotland) was invoked, there has been an ongoing resistance against the tyrannical nightmares of Westminster and Article 61 has not been publicly revoked by the barons which means that Britain and the commonwealth has a lawful duty under constitutional law to take back what has been wrongfully and illegally taking away, through peaceful Dissent.
The people can either stand “In Defens” by reasserting their Sovereignty under Article 61 (with lawful excuse to do so) or diminish the rights their ancestors sought to defend.