Paul Weston: Why Is this not Treason?
Tony Blair accused of TREASON over Europe. Threat to British sovereignty
READ NOTICE OF TREASON ALL THE WAY THROUGH
Blair accused of treason over Europe
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
21 September 2000 - PROTESTERS will accuse Tony Blair of treason today to highlight the perceived threat to British sovereignty posed by the forthcoming European Union summit in Nice.
A "notice of treason" - naming Mr Blair, Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, and Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Attorney-General - is to be handed in at courts across the country. Campaigners say that by the end of the week they will have submitted at least 500 notices laying information under Section One of the Treason Act 1795 and Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848.
A group calling itself Sanity - Subjects Against the Nice Treaty - says ministers are preparing to give up national control over justice and home affairs matters. While the Government is adamant that decisions over foreign policy, defence, taxation and borders should remain subject to the veto, they have been more equivocal over these two areas.
In a recent letter to Christopher Gill, Tory MP for Ludlow, Charles Clarke, Home Office Minister, said: "The Government has not said it will accept qualified majority voting for justice and home affairs issues. We have said that we shall judge each case on its merits. Where QMV is in Britain's interests, we will accept it. Where not, we will not."
This falls short of the unambiguous pledges given by ministers to retain the veto in other areas. Euro-sceptics believe that a move to majority voting in justice and home affairs will result in the adoption of a common legal framework known as corpus juris and the extension of the powers of the EU police body, Europol.
In his letter, Mr Clarke said that none of the corpus juris recommendations had been formally proposed and Britain believed that the legal changes they would involve were outside the competence of the EU.
But a spokesman for Sanity said: "If justice and home affairs pass into the EU's control, then the EU's corpus juris project will ultimately be adopted by majority voting. They will abolish the British right to trial by jury and will make all British subjects and others in the UK subject to arrest and incarceration by a European public prosecutor and a so-called "judge of freedoms" with no public hearing nor obligation on the prosecution to exhibit any evidence for as long as they choose."
He added: "The EU will also acquire the power to decide to expand the strength and scope of Europol, equip and train it with paramilitary weapons and send it where it chooses." [Source:
21 Sep 2000
NOTICE OF TREASON
I received the following this morning, read carefully. Note - I could be one of the reasons for the recent Fuel Demos, a CIVIL DISORDER SQUAD.
(plus - it appears that a harmonisation of European Fuel Prices is being planned, what else?)
NOTE: Perhaps some of your friends (in the UK) would like to join in this? [Source: M ]
LAYING INFORMATION OF TREASON BY TONY BLAIR AND OTHERS
Are you willing to give a little more time to our cause? If so, please read on.
This proposition is new, and different. It is also even more vital and pressing than the expenditure by local authorities on the euro.
This is about treason. It is about the Nice Treaty [due to signed in December]. It is about galvanising the public into opposing the Nice Treaty. And it is short and sweet. We are calling it SANITY - Subjects Against the NIce TreatY.
We have prepared a document which accuses Blair, Straw, Cook and Lord Williams of Mostyn (I ll explain his role in a moment) of plotting treason.
The document follows (is enclosed if going by post).
Assuming you agree with the contents, and are willing to help, this is what you need to do: 1. Look up your nearest magistrates court in the phone book.
2. Call them, and ask for the name of the chairman of the bench.
3. Complete all the blanks on the document.
4. Take it to the court on Thursday 21 September, or as soon after as possible,and hand it in.
5. Get a receipt for its delivery.
6. Phone the CARP office (01 245 266466). Tell us how many have been delivered, and where. You have no further obligations or duties. You have no risks, financial or otherwise. You may be interviewed for clarification of the contents, but you are not personally pursuing a private criminal prosecution. You are simply doing your duty and laying information. Any subsequent action is up to the police.
We hope to have at least 100 identical documents delivered all over the country on the same day - Thursday 21 September 2000 - just before the Labour Party Conference.
We will announce what is happening to the media that morning, when we also hope to stage a photo session for the press in London, when Torquil hands his document in at Horseferry Road at 11.00am.
If you have time, and the resources, we invite you to make several copies of the document and ask your friends and other supporters to complete and deliver them as well. The more the better. Ideally, we would like to have 500, 1000, perhaps thousands more delivered. But involving others is not a must. If you can - fine. If not - no problem.
As with CARP, we hope to keep announcing the running total to the media.
Finally, Lord Williams. He is the Attorney General. Technically, he can take over all criminal prosecutions "in the public interest", and then abandon them "as not being in the public interest"! (That's what happened with Norris McWhirter's case against Douglas Hurd many years ago.) Since he is a senior law officer he is being named as a defendant, so that he cannot act in his own cause. In any case, he is legitimately targetted because law enforcement is part of his bailiwick, and that is what is under threat from corpus juris.
Finally, a word of sincere thanks and admiration to everyone who has worked so hard on the CARP polls project. We have achieved a huge amount of publicity (admittedly after a slow start), we have stirred up a hornet's nest within the local authorities, and we now know what we can achieve by acting informally together. And the results are still to come.
(on behalf of Torquil Dick-Erikson, Tony Bennett, Rodney Howlett, Richard Buttrey, Malcolm Wood, Idris Francis, Maurice Mitford-Blackburn and Mark Croucher)
NOTICE OF TREASON
Presentation of Information
Names of Suspects:
1. Rt. Hon Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2. Rt. Hon Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary of the UK.
3. Rt. Hon Jack Straw, Home Secretary of the UK.
4. Lord Williams of Mostyn, Attorney-General of the UK.
Address of Suspects: 10 Downing Street, LONDON SW1 Date: __________________________
To: The Chairman of the Bench,__________________________ Magistrates Court,
Misprision of Treason
(The Signing Away of Britain and its Laws at the Treaty of Nice)
I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and wish to remain so. I am aware of her solemn Coronation Oath to the nation in 1953, to govern the British people according to their laws and customs .
As a loyal British subject, it is my duty to bring to your attention any actions or planned actions which may amount to treason by any individual or group of individuals, or which may do so in the future if not prevented, so that the appropriate action can be taken.
It is AN OFFENCE at Common Law ("Misprision of Treason" - see Halsbury s Statutes, 4th Edition, Vol. 11, p. 818) for any person who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he can to a Justice of the Peace.
It is an offence under Section 1, Treason Act 1795 within the realm or without...to devise constraint of the person of our sovereign, his heirs or successors . It is also treason to take any action which would overthrow (or tend to overthrow) the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, I am supplying you with the following information about the treason that I humbly believe will undoubtedly be committed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues if he signs the draft Treaty of Nice in its present form:
1. CIVIL DISORDER SQUAD
It is now public knowledge that at Feira in Portugal on 19 and 20 June this year a meeting of the Heads of Government of the European Union was held to debate and approve a document entitled: Strengthening the Common European Security and Defence Policy , which will set up a European Union gendarmerie , Police Riot Unit or civil disorder squad , initially of 5,000 men, to be run in parallel with the military rapid reaction force [an incipient European Army] that is being developed . As detailed below, this civil disorder squad may, by Qualified Majority Vote of the countries of the European Union, be granted powers to arrest and detain British subjects. For that situation to be permitted by the British Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, who is responsible for legal advice to them, would I believe be an act of treason.
2. AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE
On 12 April this year, the European Parliament approved in its plenary session, with a large majority, a resolution containing proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference leading to the new Treaty due to be signed i n Nice on 8 December this year, which will further amend the existing Treaty of Rome.
Proposal n. 53.4 of the proposed Treaty seeks to abolish the national right of veto by the introduction of the co-decision procedure and Qualified Majority Voting for all measures relating to the establishment of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice (that is, a new Single Judicial Area ) i.e. on all matters relating to the British criminal justice system. Further, proposal n. 53.2 demands the recognition that the [European] Court of Justice has full jurisdiction over all measures relating to the implementation of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice .
3. EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE QUEEN
It is public knowledge that the said European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is not one of her Majesty s Courts and is not subject to the jurisdiction of Her Majesty s Courts, being located outside the realm.
Indeed, on the contrary, the European Court of Justice appears convinced that Her Majesty's very person is subject to its own jurisdiction under Article 8 of the Treaty of European Union, signed at Maastricht, by which every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a Citizen of the [European] Union . Indeed, Rt. Hon. John Major, the then British Prime Minister, informed the House of Commons at the time he signed the Maastricht Treaty that the status of the Queen had been degraded to that of a Citizen of the European Union .
4. ALIEN (FOREIGN) CONTROL OF BRITISH ARMED FORCES AND BRITISH POLICE
Although the Government has claimed that there are no plans to use the (aforementioned) civil disorder squad for law enforcement or crowd control within the European Union , it must be observed that if the above mentioned proposals to remove all measures concerning the area of Freedom, Security and Justice from national control were to be incorporated into the new Treaty, this proviso could readily be reversed by Qualified Majority Voting, against which any opposition by Her Majesty's representatives would thereby be rendered null and powerless.
The intention to set up a single European Army and a single European Police Force has many times been publicly stated by leading politicians in the European Union, not least the European Commission President, Romano Prodi, who called for rapid progress to be made towards establishing a single European Army, so that the said civil disorder squad could then be deployed, at the behest of one or more of the various organs of the European Union, who are not her Majesty's Servants, even within the realm. Her Majesty s Government has already decided to place some of her armed forces under European Union control by promising to contribute to the EU s Rapid Reaction Force , initially consisting of up to 60,000 men.
Similarly, an incipient European Police Force, EUROPOL, already consisting of over 2,000 officers, has already been established. Based in The Hague, Holland, its officers have already been granted, by virtue of European Union decisions and regulations passed by our Parliament, lifetime immunity from prosecution whatever offences they may commit in the course of their duties, contrary to common law.
A civil disorder squad, such as proposed by Heads of Government in Portugal, could be deployed at the request of either the Rapid Reaction Force or EUROPOL or other organs of the European Union.
5. AN ALIEN (FOREIGN) SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, AMOUNTING TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE LAWS OF BRITAIN
It has been public knowledge for more than two years that a plan has been drawn up by various organs of the European Union, known as Corpus Juris (see 9th Report by the House of Lords, Session 1998-9, House of Lords Paper 62, HMSO, 1999), which seeks to introduce a single, uniform system of criminal justice for all Member States of the European Union, with supremacy over national systems of criminal justice, which would gradually be phased out and replaced.
This plan would unquestionably do away with the right of British people, officially confirmed and vouchsafed by Magna Carta in 1215 and maintained for eight centuries since, to be tried by their peers (see Article 26.1 of the said Corpus Juris , given on page 42 in Appendix 3 of the said House of Lords Report). The Magna Carta provisions relating to jury trial remain part of the constitution of the United Kingdom as all expert commentators agree.
Moreover these rights and freedoms were reaffirmed in the Declaration of Rights 1688, and entrenched in Statute Law in the Bill of Rights 1689. Both also specifically included the words "all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors; for all time to come". On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: "There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights; the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
If Corpus Juris were to be voluntarily adopted by the United Kingdom, or was imposed on the United Kingdom by Qualified Majority Vote of other Member States, it would tend to - and indeed encompass - the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of our country, a breach of Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795, which stands on the UK s Statute Book to this day. To sign any Treaty which would in any way permit this to happen would unquestionably appear to constitute the offence of treason.
6. THE RIGHT TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE SOON AFTER ARREST
The aforesaid Corpus Juris would also do away with the right of Britons not to be detained in custody for over 24 hours (up to 96 hours for terrorist offences and in other special circumstances) without a public hearing. At such a public hearing, the prosecution must exhibit a prima facie case if required to do so.
Contrary to this most precious right of the British people, universally acknowledged to be a key safeguard against state power and tyranny, Article 20.3 (g) of the said Corpus Juris , given on page 40 in Appendix 3 of the said House of Lords Report, provides for the detention of suspects to crimes by a politically-appointed European Union Prosecution Service, without charge for periods of up to six months, renewable for three months thereafter on an unspecified number of occasions. In short, it amounts to a power to detain a suspect indefinitely without either trial or hearing. To put it another way, this would mean the end of the centuries-old British tradition of Habeas Corpus .
7. THE MISLEADING REASSURANCE ON CORPUS JURIS GIVEN TO MAGISTRATES BY LORDIRVINE OF LAIRG IN MAGISTRATES JOURNAL , SEPTEMBER 2000
In the September 2000 issue of Magistrates Journal , Lord Irvine of Lairg makes the following statement in response to concerns expressed by Magistrates about Corpus Juris :
"I should also make it clear that the Corpus Juris recommendations have not [yet] been formally presented to any meeting of the Council of the European Union. Many of the recommendations, if adopted, would conflict with the legal traditions of many Member States, including the United Kingdom; however as matters stand they do not even have the status of a formal proposal".
Lord Irvine concedes, then, that there are indeed recommendations to implement Corpus Juris and that they may be considered by a future meeting of the Council of the European Union. Nowhere in his statement is there a cast-iron commitment by the Government to repudiate all aspects of Corpus Juris for the United Kingdom. As shown above in this letter, Corpus Juris can be implemented by the European Union by Qualified Majority Vote if the Prime Minister signs the Treaty of Nice in its present form.
By claiming elsewhere in the Magistrates Journal article that Corpus Juris is not an appropriate way forward Lord Irvine fails to provide a categoric rejection of it. His words are as potentially misleading as the claim made by Edward Heath at the time he signed the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community that this was only a trading agreement and would lead to no loss of essential national sovereignty .
8. REMOVAL OF BRITISH VETO OVER JUDICIAL MATTERS
Please note that Proposal 53 of the resolution passed by the European Parliament s plenary session of 12 April 2000 will, if adopted in the Treaty of Nice, remove the power of veto by the Member States, including the United Kingdom, to stop the introduction by the European Union of any measures relating to Freedom, Security and Justice .
9. USE OF ARTICLE 280 TO INTRODUCE CORPUS JURIS
Proposal 25 of the aforesaid European Parliament resolution will, if adopted, amend Article 280 of the existing Treaty to allow the [European] Union to take legislative action in criminal matters in respect of fraud , while the intention of various organs of the European Union to use precisely Article 280 of the existing Treaty as a channel for the introduction of Corpus Juris , by Qualified Majority Voting, was explicitly manifested by representatives of the European Parliament giving evidence to the House of Lords (cited in the aforementioned House of Lords report, pages 84 & 85 of Oral Evidence).
10. REFUSAL OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO DEMAND A VETO OVER MATTERS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Her Majesty s Government, led by Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, has manifested the intention of approving the said proposal to set up a European Union civil disorder squad, and has not manifested any intention of vetoing the removal of justice and home affairs measures from national control, despite being publicly asked to do so (Letters page, Daily Telegraph , 16 June 2000). However, it has, by contrast, manifested the intention of vetoing the removal of other types of measures from national control.
11. LETTER TO CHRISTOPHER GILL M.P.
The Secretary of State for the Home Office, Mr Charles Clarke, wrote in a letter dated 6 September 2000 to Mr Christopher Gill, M.P. for Ludlow, Shropshire, specifically referring to the issue of Qualified Majority Voting on justice and home affairs and said that the British Government shall judge each issue on its merits. Where Qualified Majority Voting is in British interests, we will accept it. Where not, we will not. This holds for justice and home affairs matters as for everything else . In writing that letter, Charles Clarke fully conceded that Corpus Juris could be imposed on the United Kingdom by Qualified Majority Voting. He did not use this opportunity to signal that under no circumstances would the British Government prevent the gradual adoption of Corpus Juris within the United Kingdom. * THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE UNDER THE 1689 BILL OF RIGHTS MUST BE RESPECTED The Bill of Rights 1689, still an essential part of the British constitution, included the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, which has been required to be sworn by all Crown servants, including members of the Judiciary, ever since Magna Carta.
Specifically, all Crown servants remain required not to take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties , words which are still used today as Crown servants swear (or affirm) that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law , and that they will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second...and will do right to all manner of people, after the law and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection, or ill will . Crown servants will no longer be able to maintain that Oath if any of the Corpus Juris proposals were to apply in the United Kingdom.
13. OUR CIVIL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY ENGLISH (BRITISH) COMMON LAW
Lord Wilberforce reminded the House of Lords in 1997 what were - and are - the essential civil rights of the British people: "...our essential civil rights, as guaranteed by common law, are the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule against double jeopardy; no retrospective legislation; no legislation to be given effect contrary to international law - an old principle that has been there for years; freedom of expression, and freedom of association...firmly secured already by the common law of this country, and not intended to be superseded nor modified by new inter-state obligations..."
If any part of Corpus Juris were to be introduced in the United Kingdom, the English, now British, common law rights which Lord Wilberforce correctly described as being our essential and constitutional rights, would begin to be eroded and undermined. That, in my humble submission, would be an act of treason against the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom (Section 1, Treason Act, 1795).
14. TREASON IS BEING PLANNED
Therefore there is a clear and present danger that treason is being planned and will be committed shortly by Rt. Hon Tony Blair, Rt. Hon Robin Cook, Rt. Hon Jack Straw, and Lord Williams of Mostyn if and when they or their subordinates FAIL TO VETO the removal of matters of justice and home affairs from national control in the Treaty or other binding agreements with other Member States of the European Union.
Failing to veto the removal of justice and home affairs from national control would allow our Sovereign Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs, and all her subjects and others under her protection within her realm, to become subject to any constraints upon her and their persons as may in the future be devised by Men-at-Arms of the European Union Civil Disorder Squad acting on the orders of organs of the European Union, over which her Majesty s servants will have lost all control due to the system of Qualified Majority Voting.
Representatives of the said European Union have already manifested to the face of our very own House of Lords (see above) their intention of imposing an alien or foreign system of justice on our people, which ignores and indeed tramples on our constitutional rights and freedoms, and for which previous generations of Britons have fought and died to preserve.
Our forefathers put these constitutional rights and freedoms in place for all time precisely to safeguard our individual and personal freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and unjust convictions, and thus to prevent the overthrow of the laws and happy constitution of our country.
THEREFORE, for the first time since 1066, foreign [European Union] Men-at-Arms, not in any way answerable to our sovereign monarch, will be granted the legal right to tread the soil of Britain and moreover detain subjects of this Kingdom indefinitely, without trial or a preliminary hearing, all of which will be in flagrant breach of our constitutional rights.
I, the undersigned, do provide these facts to you and other members of your bench so that you may take all necessary and appropriate steps to arrest the danger of treason being committed and to ensure that it shall not come to pass, including any reference of these matters to the Police or to the Crown Prosecution Service or to the Lord Chancellor s Department. If any such treason as we allege were actually to take place, I further ask you to ensure that those against whom treason is alleged are brought before the Courts according to the full rigour of the law.
I should be grateful to know what action you have taken or propose to take, and thank you for your considered response in due course.
Signed ___________________________ Full Name
[Source: Notice of Treason came by email: for more information go to:
Telegraph UK - ISSUE 1945 - Thursday 21 September 2000
Blair accused of treason over Europe
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor