The EU Conspirators compound their treason

Removing our democracy, rendering the nation subject to rule by foreigners and destroying our individual liberties and freedoms is all clearly treasonable. Combine all these EU related infringements and manoeuvrings with the activities of GCHQ, as revealed by Edward Snowden, and Britain quite clearly has a very major problem concerning individual citizen's rights.

This blog has from time to time posted in full the thoughts and writings of retired JP Anne Palmer. We do so again today. As it is the weekend, please find time to read it and give it as wide a circulation as you feel able. We "the people" are the victims, but will only obtain redress by acting together to protest in the greatest possible numbers:

§§§

Regarding TREASON      10.10.2013.  Anne Palmer
This Government, a little while before the new Royal Baby was born, changed (allegedly) nine separate parts of our Constitution-I believe, to be in keeping with the EU’s Equality Act,  although this was denied by the Government.  There is no explanation other than for the EU Equality Act.
I wrote three separate letters in three separate months to the Prime Minister regarding the proposed changes. (20. 2.2013.  23. 3. 2013.  15.4.2013.)   I had no reply until AFTER the Succession to the Crown Bill became an ACT.  As the Commonwealth Countries had agreed to these then proposed changes-which I was already aware of through our Prime Ministers and Mr Hague’s attendance at the Commonwealth meetings.

On the 17.6.2013. From the Cabinet Office,  4^th Floor (SE) 1 House Guards Rd, London SW1H 2HQ   Dated simply, June 2013.  These are four paragraphs from the letter sent to me in response to my three letters on the subject.  “Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on the Succession to the Crown Bill, in particular you believe that the legislation is not required.  I am responding as a member of the team working on Constitutional Reform.  I am sorry for the delay in dealing with this matter, this is due to an administrative error”.

 “The Prime Minister announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011 that, with the agreement of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms of which her Majesty is also Head of State, the government would change the rules of royal succession to end the system of male preference primogeniture and the bar on those who marry Roman Catholics from succeeding to the Throne and repeal and replace the Royal Marriages Act 1772”.

“The government received final agreement from all the remaining Commonwealth Realms in December and the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons shortly after.  Firstly, I would like to point out that changes to the laws of succession are not due to pressure from Europe or from the Equality Act but from a reasonable need to progress and evolve.  The Prime Minister states on 28 October 2011: “The great strength of our constitutional approach is its ability to evolve.  Attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries and some of the our-dated rule – like some of the rules to succession – just don’t make sense to us any more.”

“The Deputy Prime Minister also stated on 22 January 2013 that: “On female succession, the real question that we need to ask is why it has taken us so long.  This is a nation that prises itself on pioneering equality between sexes:  a nation of great Queens such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II.  A woman can, and has, been Head of the UK Government, yet still on our statute books, with Parliament’s official backing, we have succession laws based on the supposed superiority of men.  That anachronism is out of step with our society, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the world, and it is time for the rules to change.”   “We believe that the government’s commitment to end male primogeniture and the bar on the Monarch and those in the line of succession from marrying a Roman Catholic will end two significant areas of discrimination in the UK”.   End of Quotes.

There was not and there has not been any attempt at all to put these proposed changes before the people of this Country. WHY NOT? Yet it has been put to the Governments of the Commonwealth. The very people that these changes would affect mostly and to their long standing Common Law Constitution which would and will indeed affect us all, very much so, if these changes were indeed be possible to change.  Many people, ordinary people fought and died in two World Wars to keep their way of life and their very Constitution the Governments of “TODAY” have tried to alter.  This cannot be done without the people of this Country agreeing because each and every one of us live by (and some gave their young lives for) the very Constitution that this Government has tried to change.  Not, I suggest for the coming baby, for had they waited until it was born, a son, there would have been no need for any attempt for Constitutional change at all, but of course, there would have been no excuse to change the nine necessary parts of our Constitution for the EU’s Equality Act.  There was absolutely no need to TRY to change our Constitution at all. Our Constitution, I suggest, cannot be so changed without the people’s of this Country’s permission.  It is noted that Magna Carta cannot be changed at all (See further below) and neither can the people’s Bill of Rights because of the two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights, stating such.  If we had lost a WAR, all Governance of our Country would be gone-lost forever.
No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689.  However, what Parliament does, Parliament can undo.
Also made clear is that the use of the Prerogative Power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (Which includes the people’s Bill of Rights and Magna Carta of course (See case of Nichols v Nicholes, “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”)  The Bill of Rights 1689 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”.  The Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the Common Laws, which are 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.  Each British Subject from the moment they are born here in the UK is bound by an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and this country, just as if that person has declared so out loud.

From the Bill of Rights. II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

I now ask the question previously asked by others, How can a ‘Citizen of Europe’  be Queen of our Nation and the Commonwealth? No wonder this Government have tried to repeal the Laws of Treason? Those Treason Laws are there still, and are ENTRENCHED to protect the wearer of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and even though the 1795 Treason Act was allegedly repealed in full instead of just “Death by Hanging” in the 1998 Crime And Disorder Act, if people care to dig a little deeper they will find that the Treason Laws remain there to protect the Crown, and although Terrorism Laws may be used where it might have been better to use the laws on Treason, Terrorism Laws are no alternative for violation of the Oath of Allegiance because violation of that Oath that is made to the wearer of the British Crown is the greatest betrayal of all. 

It has been said that there are only four clauses left in Magna Carta.  Proof that Magna Carta remains complete is recorded in Hansard, for many are the times clauses have been quoted to prove an argument. I have over a hundred pages printed where Magna Carta has been mentioned-I stopped looking after one hundred, to back up, or enforce or protect legislation.  The last time Clause 61 was used, was by four Lords at the time of NICE-a clause that was allegedly repealed.  Magna Carta is a Treaty and it needs the people’s consent to alter.

I quote Lord Renton when he said (Lords Hansard 20^th July6 2000)  “My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I might mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech.  He suggests that we should amend Magna Carta.  We cannot do that.  Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament.  All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta”.

Parliament was reminded of the Bill of Rights after the Case of Pepper v Hart when the Speaker at that time said, “This case has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible.  There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights.  I am sure that the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts.”

Quote from Govermnment Research Paper 18^th July 1996. Page 38. “Many, including Dicey himself, have sought to distinguish between legal sovereignty and political Sovereignty.  Indeed Dicey regarded the Queen-in-Parliament  (ie, the legal body comprising the two Houses and the Monarch) as the legal sovereign and the electorate as the political sovereign.  This latter point is the British version of what in many other constitutions is the idea of ‘the people’ as the true sovereign, a political concept which is often invoked to confer upon the constitution moral authority and binding force as the supreme source of legal power.  Perhaps the most famous example of this is the constitution of the United States.  (We the people…)”

Page22. “Mr Major announced a concerted Ministerial campaign on all aspects of the Constitution: “This will be the most thorough debate on the constitution for a generation’ He concluded his speech by emphasising the Conservative approach of supporting “practical change that would solve real problems or improve the way our constitution works….I don’t make any apology for defending what works.  I‘m a Conservative and I reject change for change’s sake…Our constitution is the lifeblood of the United Kingdom.  It upholds our freedom.  It binds Parliament and the Government to the citizen.  It provides the checks and balances that prevent abuse of power. It cements the Union together.”

Even as those MP’s step forward in the House of Commons to place their hand on the Bible and swear the Oath, that Oath ends with the words , "ACCORDING TO LAW". This is the Executive ECHOING the Queen's own Coronation Oath. There are TWO OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people. The Queen's Oath, and the Oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking oaths to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times.

Anne Palmer. JP Retired

The oath of allegiance has its origins in the Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215.

Once the terms had been finalised on 19 June, the rebels again swore allegiance to King John. The later Bill of Rights (1689) included the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, which was required by Magna Carta to be taken by all crown servants and members of the judiciary.^[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_%28United_Kingdom%29#cite_note-6

§§§