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:
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, 4th
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
“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.
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.
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 20th 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 18th
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
(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
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
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.
Labels: Anne Palmer, EU, GCHQ, High Treason, Snowden, treason