The Constitutional Crisis & The Solution!


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.

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 very serious crimes against the people, and did. In this letter, Edward Heath is reminded of the treacherous steps that he was about to take by the then-Lord Chancellor:


“My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.

I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.

He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:

(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war).

And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.

Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-
Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;
Answer as above.
The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the community;
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.

Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.
It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.
The position of Parliament
It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.

There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-
It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire 1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada, in this respect Parliament here has substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, an Act of Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
It would in theory be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable, we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal us own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short. Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.
There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, and Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.

Treaty-making Powers
The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition. There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know although the treaty-making power is vested in the Crown. Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation to take two examples and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.
This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire, under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
Independence of the Courts
There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’- to accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignly involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their lull weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be. It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty’s control.”

The once-top secret documents titled “Shoe-horned into the EU” which was also 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 files are mostly documents obtained via the 30-year rule which meticulously document the Heath administrations Treason, Sedition and Fraud which were used to admit us to the “common market” which later flourished into the European “Union.” The file, which was originally a collection named “Shoe-horned into the EU” is an enormous batch of PDF documents which unmistakably demonstrate the subterfuge that took place to get Britain into the E.U.

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 into foreign Rule. The people were voting for the Common Market, not a European Government. The British Government also committed Sedition by heavily backing the entrance into Europe. This evidence was hidden as it showed quite clearly that fundamental laws were broken.


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. 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 king,” says Bracton, who wrote under Henry III ( l. 1. c. 8.), “ought not to be subject to man, but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the king. Let the king therefore render to the law, what the law has invested in him with regard to others; dominion, and power: for he is not truly king, where will and pleasure rules, and not the law.”

The Declaration of Rights which spawned the Revolution Settlement containing both the Claim and Bill of Right(s) in 1689 states that “all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm . . . no foreign​ prince, person,​ ​prelate,​ ​state,​ ​or​ ​potentate​ shall​ at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use,​ enjoy​ ​or​ ​exercise​ ​any​ ​manner​ ​of​ ​power,​ ​jurisdiction, superiority,​ ​authority,​ ​pre-eminence​ ​or​ ​privilege​ ​within​ ​this​ ​realm​, but that henceforth the​ ​same​ shall​ ​be​ ​clearly​ ​abolished​ ​out​ ​of​ ​this​ ​realm,​ ​forever.”

The Act of Settlement 1700 also reinforces this sentiment by enacting that “no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either  House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him.”

The 37th of the 39 Articles of Religion passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, which still have legal force, and which can be seen in any book of common prayer, also says:

“The Queen’s Majesty … is not, and ought not to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction”.

“The legislature of England” says Blackstone, “doth not, nor ever did, recognize any foreign power, as superior or equal to it in this kingdom or as having the right to give law to any, the meanest of its subjects.”

It is clear that the UK Parliament may do many things but it cannot surrender its governing powers to any foreign source of power unless it has been defeated in war. Nor can the monarch be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power.


The Constitutional Laws of our country are the most important and powerful laws that we have. These laws protect our liberty, rights to self-governance, limit the powers of the Government and the judiciary, maintain the imperative right to a trial by our peers, a right to redress, and our right to enforce these laws. However, we can only use these laws and protect them if we know of them and insist upon their use. Unfortunately, as you’ve probably figured out, a very long-term and elaborate plot exists which is deceiving the majority of their rights in an attempt to subvert the British Constitution.

In a nutshell, our Constitution was designed to protect our human rights. It was the first Human Rights law, although much more powerful than an ‘Act’ of parliament because it’s an immutable law which was designed by the people and cannot be lawfully taken away from the people without completely transparent, lawful and democratic consent, or defeat by open war. Our Constitution is, in fact, the grandfather of the constitutions of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. It is the ultimate law of the land, designed to keep the executive and governing bodies in check.

ALL true law in Britain and the commonwealth is protected by the constitution which was created by the people’s uprisings against tyranny in the past. The law has been created by the people over many generations and includes various treaties, Bills, Declarations and sworn Oaths. We the people agreed with the law in its proper state which is why we are only policed by consent, or supposed to be. Our parliament and the Queen are subordinate to the Constitution, and the Monarch is lawfully bound by the Coronation Oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the people. Failure of the Monarch to protect the Constitution is an act of Treason against the people. Any attempt made by a minister of parliament to deceive the Monarch regarding the process of assent of legislation is a crime of sedition or potentially treason. Treason is the most serious breach of law on this land. The Constitutional Law cannot be changed by parliament; it can only be changed via a constitutional convention of the people.

To change ANY constitutional safeguard without first obtaining the fully fledged consent of the people is treason. High treason is to hand over the authority and decision making processes which governs the people to any foreign entity, without first being beaten in open battle. What most people consider to be law these days is not law at all. It’s been this way since as early as 1911 whereby the constitutional  lawmaking powers (Prerogative) were illegally destroyed. This, which you will also find out about soon, is why we have fascist “laws” today.


The 1993 Treason Cases



By 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was given assent and year later in 1993  Rodney Atkinson and the late Norris McWhirter laid before the magistrates court in Hexham, Northumberland informations under the process known as Misprision of Treason whereby there was an astonishing 7 counts of treason against the Constitution and people by two Ministers who had signed the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992.

Some weeks later in Scotland Norris McWhirter laid a further case. The Crown Prosecution Service took 4 months to consider the charges but, headed by the political post of Attorney General who in fact acted in contravention of the legal principle of non judex in re sua (you cannot be a judge in your own case), the CPS refused to address the specific charges and declared that the treason at the signing in 1992 was apparently “made legal” by the passing of the European Communities (Amendments) Act 1993. The treason of 1992 had been “legalised!”. However, treason was committed in 1992 and that act remains a crime since British law recognises it was the law at the time therefore it was not made legal. The 1993 Treason cases which follow 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 8 cases that follow (the 8th of which, presented in Scotland) can be seen in a news article dated from 1993 titled ‘THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND’. (a copy of which is proudly displayed on The following are the charges which Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter laid before the magistrates court in Hexham, Northumberland on 9th September 1993, under “Misprision of Treason”. The procedure of “misprision” is applicable to those who know of acts of either treason or terrorism and who, in the event that they did NOT report them to the proper authorities, would themselves be guilty of those crimes.

All the informations laid before the magistrates were preceded by the following words:

“It being an offence at Common Law (see Halsbury 4th edition vol 11 at 818) for a 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 we hereby lay the following information.”


Case 1:
Whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors.”

On 7th February 1992 the Rt Hon Douglas Richard Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, King Charles Street, London SW1 and the Rt Hon the Hon Francis Anthony Aylmer Maude at that date Financial Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury, Parliament Street, London SW1 did sign a Treaty of European Union at Maastricht in the Netherlands, according to Article 8 of which Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union (confirmed by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons: Hansard 1st February 1993) therefore “subject to the duties imposed thereby”, subject to being arraigned in her own courts and being taxed under Article 192 of the integrated Treaty and thereby effectively deposed as the sovereign and placed in a position of suzerainty under the power of the “European Union”.

Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.

Case 2:
Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” of the United Kingdom………etc Hurd and Maude….etc did sign a Treaty of European Union…according to Article 8 of which “every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union” and according to Article 8a of which such citizens “shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory” of any member state and according to Article 8b of which such citizens shall have the right to vote and according to which “Declaration on nationality” in the Final Act “the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state concerned.”

And that therefore the British people and Parliament will have no right to determine the numbers or identity of non British nationals to whom other European Union member states can give residence rights and voting rights in the United Kingdom.

And whereas according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The Laws of England are the birthright of the People”.

And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch77,89) has stated that
“And a matter of law the courts of England recognise
Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power
to destroy its omnipotence.”
Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt Hon the Hon Francis Maude are…
Case 3:
Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any “person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto…shall be capable to be…a Member of either House of Parliament”
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 “to destroy the constitution of the country” is an act of treason.
And whereas the term “municipal” has been defined by the European Court of Justice in 1972 as meaning “national”:
“..the treaty entails a definitive limitation of
the sovereign rights of member states against
which no provisions of municipal law whatever
their nature, can be involved.”
and similarly defined by Lord Justice Cumming Bruce giving the majority verdict in McCarthys v Smith 1979 ICR 785,798:
“If the terms of the Treaty (of Rome) are adjudged
in Luxembourg to be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970, European 
 Law will prevail over that municipal legislation”
Hurd and Maude…etc did sign a Treaty ….etc according to Article 8b of which “Every citizen of the Union residing in a member state of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides.”

Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.

Case 4:
Whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchy in which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign and Head of State and a democracy, whereby the people of that United Kingdom rule by delegating their authority for periods of up to 5 years to the Parliament and Government in London.

And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The laws of England are the birthright of the people”

And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that
“As a matter of law the courts of England recognise
Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the
power to destroy its own omnipotence.”

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to “destroy the Constitution” is an act of treason.

…..Hurd and Maude…etc did sign a treaty…etc according to Article 8 of which the British people, without their consent have been made the citizens of the European Union with duties towards the same and according to Article 192 of the integrated treaty the british people can be taxed directly by that European Union without further process in the Westminster Parliament and according to Article 171 of which the British State can be forced to pay a monetary penalty to the European Union.

Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd……etc

Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II swore at Her Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects “according to their laws”.

And whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors”

Hurd and Maude….etc did sign a Treaty….etc which extended the powers of the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament in the new “European Union” to make and enforce in the United Kingdom laws which do not originate in the Westminster Parliament. And that this loss of democratic rights was without the express consent of the British people.

And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The Laws of England are the Birthright of the people”

And whereas Lord Justice Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that
“As a matter of law the courts of England recognise
Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the
power to destroy its omnipotence.”

Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason….etc

Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors” (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation IKB 733)

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.

Hurd and Maude etc …did sign a Treaty…according to which Article Q of which the Maastricht Treaty “is concluded for an unlimited period” and from which there is no right of nor mechanism for secession. Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason etc..
This is one of the more extraordinary aspects of the Maastricht Treaty since it provides a direct parallel with that other “Union”, the American Union signed by the Southern, confederate states on the assumption that they could leave that Union whenever they wished. But they had omitted to ensure that both the right to and mechanism for withdrawal were included specifically in the Union declaration. As a result, the American President Abraham Lincoln (inaugural address 4th March 1861) justified war against the southern states by saying:
“No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union”
It was this issue and not the question of slavery (for which Lincoln had expressed accomodation in his inaugural address) which caused the American Civil War in which 600,000 died. The northern states were engaged not on a moral crusade but on an imperialist adventure, using the industrial and military might of the North to conquer the largely rural, raw material producing South.

Although the European Union as yet possesses no significant armed forces, this is the ultimate intention and an embryo Franco german force has already been set up.The possible exit from this “Union” of Britain, the second biggest paymaster, with the richest coal, oil and fishing reserves in Europe and with the world’s largest investments in the American economy might one day tempt this new breed of Eurofascist to use the logic of Abraham Lincoln.

Whereas it is established by a statute in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) confirmed in 1297 and last reviewed at the passing of the Statute Law Repeals Act 1967 that:
“No freeman may be…disseised…of his liberties
or free customs…nor will we not pass upon him
but by the law of the land.”
This most durable pillar of the constitution is destroyed by a “Treaty of European Union”…etc..which disseises all free men of their liberties and free customs under the law of this land by subjugating their Government to the extension of the powers of the European Commission, Court and parliament (in which latter the United Kingdom members form a minority of 87 of 567 voting members). Under Article 192 of the integrated treaty our free men are open to be taxed without further process of the United Kingdom Parliament and according to the “Declaration on nationality” in the Final Act of the treaty the number and identity of non British nationals given residence and voting rights in the United Kingdom will not be determined by the british Government. And further that the treaty extends majority voting in the Council of Ministers thus permitting other states to determine laws which govern British people. Under Article 8 of the Treaty free men are required to become citizens of the European Union “subject to the duties imposed thereby.”

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 “to destroy the constitution” is an act of treason. Therefore Hurd and Maude….etc



Whereas it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795:

“within the realm or without…to devise….constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors.” and
“to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom”

and whereas to destroy the constitution per R v Thistlewood 1820 is an act of treason.
Hurd and Maude etc…did sign a treaty….for an unlimited period and without right of or mechanism for secession. This treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby it is established per Article III of that Act 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 concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.

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.

Therefore Hurd and Maude….etc”


It is one of the major safeguards for the people that past rights are enshrined in specific statutes and specific clauses. Imprecise words, confused sentences and contradictory clauses are a danger since they allow potential tyrants to exploit or bypass uncertainty in the law. It has therefore always been accepted as vital that any repeal of a statute or part of a statute should be made specific in new legislation. This is not just to “tidy up” the law books but more important so that everyone – voters, Parliament, ministers and journalists should know precisely how their historic guarantees are being affected.

But in the text of the Maastricht Bill laid before Parliament there was no mention of any of the many contraventions of historical statutes by the terms of the Treaty. The only reference to another Act of Parliament was to that of the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act, the terms of which would have been contradicted had a specific Parliamentary approval not been obtained.

The British 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.


Case 8 of the Treason charges made in Scotland (laid by Norris McWhirter) 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 discernible 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 end results of our treason cases were statements from the Crown Prosecution Service in England and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. They refused to address the specific charges at all and both countries declared that the treason at the signing in 1992 was apparently “made legal” by the passing of the European Communities (Amendments) Act a YEAR LATER in 1993.

The treason of 1992 had been “legalised”!  (nothing wrong with that huh?)

However, treason WAS committed in 1992 and that act remains a crime since British law recognises it was the law at the time. And since the 1993 Act could not overturn the British Constitution that Act was null and void. Not to mention the fact that we were very much tricked and deceived into joining what was then a promise of a trade deal that wouldn’t affect national sovereignty, the “Common Market”.


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. The Act is a fundamental 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) then the Act of Union would (by the hands of unlawful traitors)  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 Act of Union. The de facto overturning of the 1706 Union with Scotland Act by the 1992 Treason and the surrender of UK self Government by Ministers on a daily basis since 1972 mean the contract with the Scots was broken. 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”.


Nicola Sturgeon and the “Scottish Government” have manipulated the people, and they are still being led down a path of lies, treachery and destruction against all of the laws which are there to protect and limit. There are many campaigns in Scotland who are willing to continue this deceit just as there are in England. It must be stopped.


Make a stand for your country by joining our Campaign and bringing justice against all those who persistently seek to destroy what legally BINDS them. Do not vote as by doing so we’re giving away lawful powers of representation of the People to tyrannical and despotic quislings. They are the outlaws, don’t let them continue this path of destruction. To repeat again and again is insanity, whilst they wage illegal wars, unlawful fraud and TREASON against us, will you let it continue? Not in our name.

The next section explains what we can do to remedy this matter, without the need to vote. The lawful power is literally in your hands which you will find out very soon. Since at this present time it’s against the law to vote, it cannot be done. By voting we would be consenting to the idea that these imposters are the real (constitutional) parliament that we used to have and is an authority when it is not.






In 1999 a committee of 68 barons had convened to discuss whether or not it was unconstitutional to enter into the EU’s treaty of Nice (France). The evidence proved that it was an act of high treason to enter into such an agreement so they dutifully (according to the correct protocols of British constitutional law) petitioned the crown, demanding that she (QE2) not ratify the Nice treaty. After their petition was only vaguely replied to and the treaty of Nice was passed into law anyway, the barons committee invoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta on the 23rd day of March 2001. It has not since been revoked publicly by the barons which means that Britain and the entire commonwealth is in a state of open rebellion (i.e the law demands that ALL British and Commonwealth subjects rebel against the crown) and in order to protect the British constitution, whilst doing so we are protecting our god given rights and freedoms that the constitution defends (our individual and collective sovereignty).

The Telegraph reported on both before and after the invocation. The first report detailing that;

‘Peers use Magna Carta to oppose EU charter

By Sarah Womack, Political Correspondent
12:00AM GMT 07 Feb 2001

“A GROUP of peers will today use ancient rights granted under Magna Carta to urge the Queen to block further European integration.

Their petition, presented under Clause 61 of the ancient charter, asks the Queen to withhold Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty. It has the backing of 65 Euro-sceptic peers led by Lord Ashbourne and has been organised by Sanity (Subjects Against the Nice Treaty).

Clause 61 of Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in June 1215, permits the “Sovereign’s subjects to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition which four of their number are then obliged to take to the Monarch who is obliged to accept it. She then has 40 days to respond.” The “enforcement powers” granted by King John when he signed the Magna Carta were last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

Lord Ashbourne, a Conservative hereditary peer ousted from the Lords under Tony Blair’s reforms, said: “These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed. Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.”

Campaigners said thousands of letters and postcards had been sent to Buckingham Palace urging the Queen not to grant Royal Assent to the Treaty which they described as a “major step in invading our country by treaties not tanks”. They added: “It removes the right of veto in virtually all areas.”

The following report detailing the actual invocation titled ‘Peers petition Queen on Europe’ By Caroline Davies outlines that;

“FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block closer integration with Europe.

The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter’s Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta’s provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.”

By courageously invoking Article 61 the committee of the barons provided us all with a peaceful remedy against the systematic deconstruction of our ancient laws and customs by imposters within Westminster. Voting will do nothing more that show consent to a very despotic and tyrannical ‘Government’.

We have had the right to reject this orwellian and quasi police state and to also ‘re assert the law ourselves.

(See below: barons signing the petition)



Since, moreover, for God and the betterment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the discord that has arisen between us and our barons we have granted all these things aforesaid, wishing them to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we give and grant them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe, hold and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in any way against anyone or transgress any of the articles of the peace or the security and the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us, or to our justiciar if we are out of the kingdom, and, laying the transgression before us, shall petition us to have that transgression corrected without delay. And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days, reckoning from the time it was brought to our notice or to that of our justiciar if we were out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and 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; and when amends have been made, they shall obey us as they did before. 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.

Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling of themselves and of their own accord to take an oath to the twenty-five barons to help them to distrain and distress us, we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command. And if any of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country or is in any other way prevented from carrying out the things aforesaid, the rest of the aforesaid twenty-five barons shall choose as they think fit another one in his place, and he shall take the oath like the rest. In all matters the execution of which is committed to these twenty-five barons, if it should happen that these twenty-five are present yet disagree among themselves about anything, or if some of those summoned will not or cannot be present, that shall be held as fixed and established which the majority of those present ordained or commanded, exactly as if all the twenty-five had consented to it; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the things aforesaid and will do all they can to get them observed. And we will procure nothing from anyone, either personally or through anyone else, whereby any of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing is procured, let it be void and null, and we will never use it either personally or through another.



February 2001 To Defend British Rights and Freedoms – A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta,1215

as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty’s attention:

  1. the loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient rights, freedoms and customs since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973;

  2. the terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause significant new losses of national independence, and further imperil the rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering powers to the European Union:

    1. to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your Government;

    2. to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;

    3. which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice, abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers of enforcement;

    4. to create a military force which will place British service personnel under the command of the European Union without reference to British interests, and contrary to:

      1. the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,

      2. the Queen’s Commission, and

      3. the United Kingdom’s obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;

    5. which remove the United Kingdom’s right to veto decisions not in British interests;

  3. the creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which purports to give it the power to abolish such “rights” at will;

  4. the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to

    1. suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and detrimental to your sovereignty, contrary to the Coronation Oath Act, 1688;

    2. subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols, 1576;

Your Majesty’s power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in 1707;
WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval; to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953. We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects. (signed)



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:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.



“Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
23 March 2001

You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause 61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence(which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty’s ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty’s obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.
From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty’s promise to her loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative. Blackstone’s Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself . De prerogativa Regis is merely declaratory of the common law…

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.
For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever. So it is clear that no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people – may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish.

Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power, and the Queen’s Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty’s subjects.

The EU seeks to assume 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 state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful. We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?
These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:
That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)
That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.]
That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is further protection of our common law rights.)
In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others– have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops
..until redress has been obtained.
We are and remain Her Majesty’s most loyal and obedient subjects.”  

(signed) Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell

The innapropriate Reply (39th day of the 40 days given to ‘redress the grievances without delay‘):

“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.”

The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”




Create an Oath of allegiance to the committee of the barons or declare your standing under article 61 within a ‘Notice’ served on a Police chief inspector (or above the rank of) or an alleged judge, magistrate or any other agent of the crown that has an oath of office.


The Oath of allegiance can either be sent by recorded post to one of the accepting barons or simply kept as a document proving your intent. It needs to be signed and dated by yourself and three signatory witnesses to make it a legal instrument, which can then be used as evidence of your lawful standing (intent) within any process you may undertake. If your oath is returned or gets lost (if you post it to a baron) it doesn’t matter, the fact that you posted it proves intent and intent is very important in law. You are no longer an outlaw once you join the rebellion.

Example of an oath of allegiance to the Barons.
To: Lord Craigmyle (for example).
Scottas House,
PH41 4PL

Sent by recorded post.


Dear Lord, Craigmyle,
In full knowledge of treason being committed in Parliament, by delivering the Sovereign Peoples of this Common law land into the hands of foreign powers, in understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the office of Sovereign, from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons’ committee whom invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 as long as they act strictly according to the constitution at all times, and in accordance with the protocols set out within article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 until such times as redress of these present wrongs is achieved.
Sworn and subscribed on:  (Date)

3 Signatory witnesses (anyone on or over the age of 21 can witness your oath.

Note: You can word your Oath as you wish as long as you follow the basic structure of its intent and purpose. The same applies with all Notices, Affidavits etc.

The current addresses of the Barons can be seen 3 pages on.






The following is a list of Barons who will accept your Oath of Allegiance.

(Please note: this does NOT give anyone power over you, it simply shows support and by doing so you will be standing for the laws and customs of the people which has been under attack by thieves in ‘Parliament’ since the mid 19th Centurary.)

  1. Lord Craigmyle [Definitely Accepting Oaths]
    Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire PH41 4PL

  2. Lord Strathcarron
    3 Elizabeth Court, Milmans Street, London SW10 0DA
    Otterwood, Beaulieu, Hampshire SO42 7YS

  3. Marquis of Aberdeen
    House of Formantine, Methlick, Ellon, Aberdeenshire AB41 7EQ

  4. Earl of Cromer
    6 Sloane Terrace Mansions, London SW1X 9DG

  5. Earl of Devon,
    Powderham Castle, Exeter, Devon EX6 8JQ

  6. Lord Dormer
    Yew Tree Cottage, Dittisham, Devon TQ6 0EX

  7. Viscount Exmouth,
    The Coach House, Canonteign Falls, nr. Exeter, Devon EX6 7NT

  8. Lord Newall
    18 Lennox Gardens, London SW1X 0DG
    Wotton Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 0RZ

  9. Lord Milne,
    188 Broom Road, Teddington, Middlesex

  10. Lord Oaksey
    Hill Farm, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9HS

  11. Earl Cathcart,
    Gateley Hall, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5EF
    18 Smith Terrace, London SW3 4DL

  12. Lord Ailsa,
    Cassillis House, Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7JN

  13. Lord Napier of Magdala
    The Coach House, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1HU

  14. Lord Sudeley (Merlin Charles Sainthill, interesting name)
    25 Melcombe Court, Dorset Square, London NW1 6EP





On the 10th of August 1911 parliament pushed through the Parliament Act which being an unconstitutional and therefore unlawful act, dissolved the Royal Prerogative. This meant that although Royal Assent is meant to only allow acts and statutes in keeping with the constitution, it was diluted and those powers all but removed. This being the second act of treason to our knowledge that was committed since the Grand Juries were removed from service, the governing ministers and the monarchy have failed to uphold their duty and their oaths to the people they are meant to be serving and broken the law a thousand times over since then. All acts and statutes since 1911 are treasonable, that means they need to come under close scrutiny and reassessing as to whether they are still valid under constitutional law.

Even King Edward VII REFUSED the assent outright to what became the 1911 Parliament Act ordering the prime minister Asquith to go to the country on the grounds the bill was unconstitutional and also removed protection from his subjects. Asquith and his ministers went around the country lying about the Lords who thought it beneath them to reply. Asquith won the election and put the bill through, the King in his speech at the opening of parliament said that the only reason he was doing this was at the instruction of his ministers. A clear indication that this was against his wishes.

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.”


Blackstone’s Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative:

“The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogativa regis is merely declaratory of the common law…”


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.


ALL true law in Britain and the commonwealth is protected by the constitution which was created by the people’s uprisings against tyranny in the past. The law also complies with the 10 commandments in the Christian faith which is at the heart of British law. The constitution is consented to by the good people because it is natural law, it guarantees justice for all and is very simple to understand. It protects the innocent and vulnerable and is simply common sense. The sovereign peoples of Britain and the commonwealth consent to be ‘governed’ by the common laws of the realm because they are just, not ‘ruled’ by corporate policies that do not comply with the constitution and are unjust, which is what we have going on today. Britain (constitutionally) has a very good system of justice but it has been denied us for generations, and most people think that the corporate rules being used today are laws! Any rule that does not comply with the British constitution is NOT a law. Rules require your consent (tacit or otherwise) and the law of course demands that nobody consent to treasonous rules. The common law has our consent because it is fair to all. The destruction of the Royal Prerogative meant that ‘law didn’t have to comply with the law. Does that seem justly to the reader?


Please understand that the common law judicial system in Britain and the commonwealth has been systematically dismantled since at least 1848 when the grand juries were removed from service. The grand jury process is a fundamental part of the law of the land and should never have been allowed to be replaced by the corporate magistrate courts that we have today, especially without the consent of the people.


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 and the Declaration of Rights are contracts 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


It is not denied by those pretending to be in service to the people that we are policed by consent in Britain. This simply means as said, we consent to be governed by a fair and just system of service as subjects of a constitutional monarchy under the common laws and customs of the realm. The monarchy today is anything but constitutional therefore we all have a duty under the law (Article 61 MC 1215) to reject the crown until the constitution is once again properly observed. We have a duty to ourselves, ancestors and to those yet unborn to safeguard the laws that protect us all equally against injustices.


The death penalty still exists in Britain for high treason never mind what the so called government may say. ‘They’ claim that the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act was repealed in 1998 when the Right Dishonourable Tony Blair introduced the Crime and Disorder Act, in chapter 36 he attempted to repeal the 1795 Act and the death penalty for high treason but Blair had no lawful authority to do so, and he committed treason in his attempt. He committed three counts of high treason in all (among other very serious crimes). He would be in prison today if only the people would stand united under the common law in lawful rebellion as the law demands.

The remedy to this mess relies on the people uniting and rejecting their demands, whilst at the same time demanding that the police act according to the undeniable  facts and assist the people in this monumental struggle, all it takes is numbers. Your country needs YOU!! The corporations (led by the Bankster’s) have taken over the governments of Britain and the commonwealth alike. All elections for the past few decades have been rigged, allowing the corporate elite criminals to rule by deception and coercion. This can only continue if the people are kept in the dark or decide to do nothing once they have been informed of the facts.

Articles of Union clearly state:




“FCO 30/1048”         –           [HIDDEN FOR 30 YEARS]

This classified government document dated April 1971 remained secret until it was released in 2002 under the 30 year rule. Also known as “Shoe-horned into the EU” as titled now, it proves Heath’s government knew the 1972 EEC Treaty would lead to the loss of sovereignty, and was therefore treason. They had a stunningly accurate picture of the EU, which never was the EEC (an Economic Community), expecting Britain to be abolished after the turn of the century.

The authors, all civil servants or ministers, are very pro EU, their intent is clearly to conceal the loss of sovereignty. But they understood perfectly it would all be abolished. In public Heath’s government all lied the treaty would not affect our sovereignty.  This includes Douglas Hurd, still an active senior Conservative, who is also both a liar and a traitor, a point we put to him at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool. He assured us his connections in the legal profession would ensure he was never convicted. Even the Bill which took us into the EEC, said: “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty…”. This mantra, in one form or another, was repeated throughout the campaign and the debates in Parliament. So we see a Government White Paper which attempted to bury the truth.
Nothing changes as we shall see.

Here are just a few of the damning sentences:

Parliament controlled
11. Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.

For the first time. Parliament is binding its successors.

Increasing loss of sovereignty
The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome “to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples”. Small threats to sovereignty, like Burgess, Blunt and Maclean’s selling secrets to the Russians, attract 30 year jail sentences. The penalty for actually loosing even small parts of it until 1998 was “to hang by the neck until dead.” The death penalty still exists for treason as the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act was NOT legally repealed in 1998 when the Right Dishonourable Tony Blair introduced the Crime and Disorder Act, in chapter 36 he attempted to repeal the 1795 Act and the death penalty for high treason but Blair had no lawful authority to do so, and he committed treason in his attempt. He committed three counts of high treason in all. (among other very serious crimes). For example, a year earlier at the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 which increased the European Union’s powers for action at community level, and included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration. In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word ‘sovereignty’ from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the  legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section 82). These were also acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

King Charles 1st was executed for treason that was, by comparison, relatively minor.
Lord Haw Haw (“Germany Calling” – William Joyce) was hanged for treason on 3rd January 1946. His efforts on behalf of Germany were tiny by comparison with Edward Heath’s.

Our law subservient
12. (ii) The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court’s decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.

The writ of a foreign power is not allowed under the British Constitution, which Heath was breaking.

Predicting monetary and military union
18..but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy.  If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.

No withdrawal, sovereignty diminished
22.   Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member states can hardly lose the “last resort” ability to withdraw in much less than three decades.  The Community’s development could produce before then a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful.  If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty (and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and practical would indeed be diminished.

After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community.

Transfer of the Executive
24 (ii) The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government.

Erosion of sovereignty
24 (v) …The more the Community is developed … the more Parliamentary sovereignty will be eroded. …The right … to withdraw will remain for a very considerable time. …The sovereignty of the State will surely remain unchallenged for this century at least.

The EU Bureaucracy will rule
25.   The impact of entry upon sovereignty is closely related to the blurring of distinctions between domestic political and foreign affairs, to the greater political responsibility of the bureaucracy of the Community and the lack of effective democratic control. The writers understanding of the future of the EU was very correct. They wanted the bureaucracy to take over from the democracy. The loss of sovereignty was desirable for them, legally traitors working deep inside our government.

“SDI: Overview of the accelerating EU
absorption of the British Military to form
the EU Military
and a ‘nuclear defence shield’”                   

“A Strategic Defence Initiative Briefing Sheet
25 January 2017 10:15 GMT

Max Hofmann of Deutsche Welle on 20 January 2017: ‘Everything must now be put on the table —
from higher [EU] military spending to a British-French nuclear defense shield for the continent.’
The short briefing sheet has been produced to highlight some of the key areas and perceived risks
of the integration of the UK into a single integrated EU defence structure. The content has been
compiled by those with military experience, including submarine operations — this experience is
considered important in relation to comments made not only in relation to the Royal Navy, but
particularly the nuclear deterrent.
In focusing in greater detail on some significant Royal Navy issues regarding size of the fleet, specific
units and the nuclear deterrent, the joint risks of EU integration to both the Army and Royal Air Force
are by no means belittled. On the contrary, there is much more to be said on behalf of these two
services than can be covered in this summary paper.

The recent British referendum has made no difference to the speed and tenacity with which the
Conservative Government under Prime Minister Theresa May and Secretary of State for Defence
Sir Michael Fallon (a strong EU advocate and former EU Movement supporter) are continuing the
path to EU military union. There has been no change in the advancing integration of UK military
forces into the EU structure — the subject is simply not discussed in political, public and media
forums, which is testimony to the usual EU policy of implementation by stealth where

Perhaps most dangerous here is the rapid integration of the EU commercial military procurement
and supply chain, operating under an EU treasury already being declared and implemented. Once
locked together under EU procurement rules, and with ‘joint interoperability’ doctrine driving pan-EU
military needs, Britain will be further stripped of its ability to design, build and supply our own
weapons systems and munitions. This will further strengthen the EU political tactic of creating
‘interdependence’ between EU member states as a tool for removing sovereign identity and the
ability to act as an independent nation state.

Understanding EU Military Integration Policy
The EU has consistently and publicly stated that the goal of the EU is to form a single integrated
supranational state, with law, internal security, defence and foreign policy controlled from Brussels.

The EU Organisation for External Action (Foreign Policy vehicle of the EU) recently quoted Frederica
Mogherini’s policy as follows:
“Security is a priority for the EU … We have hard and soft power. We have done more on defence
in the last seven months than in decades. Building on the ideas in her Global Strategy for EU Foreign
and Security Policy, Mogherini has illustrated the European Union’s three-pronged set of measures
to strengthen the EU’s security and defence capability … In a reshaping world the only way for the
Europeans to be global players is through the EU.”
The implication is clear — EU security and defence capability is to be strengthened as a centralised
Brussels-led objective. This is not simply an invitation for member states to contribute more to EU




The 2017 Express Report 

Exclusive: Britain is sleepwalking into joining EU army, warns top UK military commander
BRITAIN is sleepwalking into becoming part of an EU army and must take immediate measures to “extricate” itself from the bloc’s defence plans, one of the country’s most respected military commanders said today.



09:01, Sat, Jun 10, 2017 | UPDATED: 11:17, Sat, Jun 10, 2017


Major-General Julian Thompson told that ministers are quietly signing up to “vast military plans” devised by Brussels whilst the public gaze is largely on Brexit.

In a blistering intervention he said proposals put forward by eurocrats will “touch every part of the UK’s defence policy” and warned the UK could become militarily tied to Brussels for years to come.

The war hero, who led the landing mission to the Falklands, entered the debate after EU officials unveiled their most ambitious military plans yet which critics have said amount to the effective creation of a euro force.


Foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini’s plans for a massive EU defence fund and greater mission control from Brussels drew scorn from commentators who accused her of trying to turn the bloc into a “second NATO”.

They include proposals to make it obligatory for EU countries to defend a fellow member state under attack and the setting up of a European Defence Research Agency to develop weapons for the bloc.

The option favoured by eurocrats states: “The EU would be able to run high-end security and defence operations, underpinned by a greater level of integration of Member States’ defence forces.”


Speaking exclusively to Major-General Thompson said the fact that UK ministers have signed up to all recent EU defence agreements should set alarm bells ringing about the proposals.

He said: “The EU’s vast military plans, which have gone virtually unnoticed in the UK yet approved by our diplomats and ministers, touch every part of the UK’s defence policy from intelligence and deployment to procurement and finance.

“When even the EU Commission is expressing surprise at UK willingness to conform, it’s clear something has gone wrong with the UK’s stance. At the heart of this is a mindset problem.

“The UK believes it is approving military structures for the other 27, but the EU is completely clear that agreements unfortunately apply to the UK as full participants.”

He warned: “The agreements will last for at least two years and possibly five or more, depending on the length of a transitional deal and the difficulty of withdrawal.

“It is disappointing that UK representatives agreed to so many separate EU military plans even after the country voted to leave the EU.”

– Major-General Julian Thompson


Thompson told defence secretary Michael Fallon and foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who are responsible for Britain’s role in European defence policy, that they must not sign up to further demands from Brussels.

The retired military commander warned that doing so will strengthen the EU’s hand during the Brexit talks by providing eurocrats with a “bargaining chip” to dangle over British negotiators.


He said: “The UK must stop giving consent to defence proposals from the EU which come with a political underpinning.

“It has already resulted in a defeat for the UK government over the creation of a central EU military HQ.

“Ministers must think urgently about how the UK will extricate from these recent agreements, which simply provide the EU with a bargaining chip and additional leverage over the UK during the exit talks.”


The proposals were also panned by Tory MEP Geoffrey Van Orden, a former British Army Brigadier, who said they threatened NATO by creating “alternative structures that will merely increase the transatlantic divide.”

He fumed: “Whilst security and defence has become a pressing issue in the minds of all our peoples, it is nonsense to suggest that the answer to this is more EU.

“It is NATO that has preserved peace and security in Europe since the end of the Second World War.”

Major-General Thompson, who is chairman of the campaign group Veterans for Britain, made the remarks after a senior eurocrat admitted she had been stunned by the lack of British objections to the EU’s military plans.

Polish official Elżbieta Bieńkowska said representatives from the UK were “mute” when the bloc’s proposals to significantly up military cooperation were drawn up, adding they had not offered “any opposition”.





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

(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”





Why we do NOT want or go near the EU or the Euro.                                      (Short History)

The truth is that the history of the EU goes back much, much further than its proponents will usually admit. The Maastricht Treaty in-fact replicated the chapter headings and various other details almost in verbatim what was actually planned in Berlin during the year of 1942, half a century before.

These plans were originally finalized by the Geopolitical 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 were not eerie enough, the original documents 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.

See translation on next page…

It may shock most to learn that Nazi ideology was, and still is, behind the EU. The document that follows is the English translation of the original German one as referenced under the World Catalogue OCLC number 31002821 and available in the public domain via various libraries, archives and websites. It is a document of great historical significance and essential to understanding the mindset behind the European Union and where the idea originated. It is the original blueprint for ‘the European Economic Community’ which would later become, as we know, the European Union.

Created as a series of seminars by the Third Reich’s Economic Minister and various advisors to Adolf Hitler so that in the event the Nazis should fall to the allies and lose the war, they could complete their plans covertly by subversion, treason and sedition from ‘within each government’. In it you will find the proposal of a one united Europe with one currency, one transport system…and more importantly, the United Kingdom was to be “de-industrialised“, and used for a limited amount of agriculture and tourism. The plan was to usurp each nation’s sovereignty, including Britain, and create a Europe wide dictatorship; and for us, stripping out anything that put the “Great” into “Great Britain”.

Ironically – Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Corporatism have all turned out to be distracting labels for the same ideology and in reading this document, one will find it chilling that most of the changes that the Nazi’s had planned for the United Kingdom have already been implemented. Slowly, but surely, and by covert means, the followers of this ideology, these conspirators, backed by huge financiers, namely the international banking families, have succeeded in infiltrating Westminster through the political system and parts of the Intelligentsia over the last 60 plus years. They have ushered in the Acts and Treaties envisaged in this document – NATO 1947, The Treaty of Paris 1951, Jean Monnet 1952, The Treaty of Rome 1957, European Communities Act 1972, European Monetary System 1979, Single European Act 1987, The Maastricht Treaty 1991, Euro Currency 2002, The Lisbon Treaty 2009.

This manifesto is the foundation that these traitors within our political establishment have been building on since the end of the second world war. It was a means to an end. An ugly end. We may had removed Hitler from power, but the forces behind him pressed on and what was not achieved by arms, has sadly now been established through money, treason and subversion.

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

“Plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity after Germany’s defeat”

It was back in the 1930s, in Hitler’s Germany, that the European Union was invented and designed. The finishing touches to the EU as we know it were put in place during World War II by a man called Walther Funk, who was President of the Reichsbank and a director of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It was Funk who predicted the coming of European economic unity. Oh, I almost forgot, Funk was also Adolf Hitler’s economics minister and his key economic advisor. The European Union was designed by Nazis and it has been carefully created according to the original design.
The BIS, by the way, was then and still is the world’s most powerful and secret global financial institution. During the Second World War the BIS accepted looted Nazi gold (handling 21.5 metric tons of Nazi gold) and supported the development and launch of what would, in 2002, become the Euro.


Some like to pretend that the fine points of the organisation were planned in the 1980s and 1990s. But it was Hitler and Funk who designed the EU as it exists today. They wanted to get rid of the clutter of small nations which made up Europe and their plan was quite simple. The EU was Hitler’s dream. And it was Funk who outlined the practical work which needed to be done.


In 1940, Funk prepared a lengthy memo called ‘Economic Reorganisation of Europe’ which was passed to the President of the BIS (who was an American called Thomas  McKittrick) on July 26th 1940.

The new European economy will result from close economic collaboration between German and European countries,’  wrote Funk.

It is important to note that even then the EU was seen as a union between Germany, on the one hand, and the rest of Europe, on the other. There was never any doubt which nation would be in charge. There are commentators and economists today who note Germany’s control of today’s EU with surprise and who seem puzzled by the fact that Germany is booming and has by far the largest and most dominant economy in the EU. No one should be surprised. The EU was always planned that way. Germany is benefiting enormously from the Euro crisis but Funk knew that would be the case. Back in 1940, he had the idea for the Euro and argued that even after monetary union it would be impossible to have one standard of living throughout Europe. But he knew that Germany would come out on top. He would not be in the slightest bit surprised by the fact that modern Germany is by far the largest and most dominant economy in the European Union.

It was Funk who helped plan the European Union Community (although when it was established he was still labelled a war criminal and a resident of Spandau Prison in Berlin). It was Funk who planned a Europe free of trade and currency restrictions. The idea of a federal Europe was supported by America, which wanted to preserve America’s military and geopolitical interests and, in particular, to maintain and improve the links which had been established with Hitler’s Germany prior to the Second World War. In June 1942, German officials prepared a document entitled ‘Basic Elements of a Plan for the New Europe’ which called, among other things, for a European clearing centre to stabilise currency rates with the aim of securing European monetary union and ‘the
harmonisation of labour conditions and social welfare.’The original plan was for the Reichsmark to be the new European currency but Funk never saw this as crucial, or being as important as Germany having economic leadership.


Funk saw Germany as central to the planned EU, arguing that it would result in ‘better outlets for German goods on European markets.’ Back in 1940 it was Funk who planned to introduce a United States of Europe via a common currency. Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership welcomed Funk’s plans and in 1942 the German Foreign Ministry made detailed plans for a European confederation to be dominated by Germany. In the same year a group of German businessmen held a conference in Berlin entitled ‘European Economic Community.’ [NC edit- ‘Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’ (public document worldcat OCLC number 31002821).] When the Nazis realised that they were losing the war they knew that they had to make a deal in order to preserve German domination in Europe. Thomas McKittrick, the American president of the BIS acted as go between and helped set up negotiations. The plan was to ensure that Germany dominated post-war Europe. Funk and his colleagues decided to talk about European spirit, liberty, equality, fraternity and worldwide cooperation as the basis for their planned European Union. They decided to agree to share power, and even to allow other countries to take charge for a while. The Nazis knew that all they needed to do was retain men in power in crucial posts. And this they succeeded in doing. The technical preparations for Funk’s ‘European Large Unit Economy’ (now better known as the Eurozone) began in 1947 when the Paris accord on multilateral payments was signed, were strengthened in 1951 when the European Coal and Steel Community was  created as the first step towards the development of a new European nation to be run by Germany, and continued in 1964 when the Committee of European Central Banks (made up of Bank Governors) met at the BIS to coordinate monetary policy.


The European Central Bank (ECB), (which today has so much power over European citizens) was designed and set up by the German Bundesbank which was Germany’s post war central bank. The Bundesbank was the son of the Reichsbank which was the name of Germany’s central bank before and during World War II. The President of the Reichsbank before and during World War II was, of course, Walter Funk.As planned, the ECB is not democratically accountable to anyone. It is actually prohibited from taking advice from Eurozone Governments. The European Parliament has no authority over the ECB. And no one knows how the ECB makes decisions. On January 1st 1999, eleven countries launched the Euro and in January 2002 Funk’s dream currency finally replaced national currencies. The secretive BIS was crucial in helping to force through the Euro the first step towards the new European state. The truth is that the introduction of the Euro was nothing more than the final instalment of World War II the realisation of the Nazi dream of Adolf Hitler and Walter Funk. The press was massively enthusiastic about the Euro. Commentators drew attention to the trivial fact that travellers could now use the same currency over much of Europe. No attention was paid to the fact that when countries decide to share a currency they are making a significant political decision.


No one seemed to care that the majority of people in all the countries which gave up their currencies were opposed to the Euro. (The EU has never pretended to be a democratic organisation.)’It was a very peculiar thing to have a central bank without a Government,’ said Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve in the USA. French politicians believed that the single currency meant that Germany would not be able to start any more wars. They also believed (quite wrongly, of course) that Germany would no longer be able to dominate the European economy. Everyone involved with the creation of the Euro knew that the new currency was fatally flawed. The aim was to use the Euro to force through a political union, against the will of the European people and in spite of the massive, inevitable cost in terms of unemployment and hardship. Walter Funk had predicted that uniting countries with different cultures, histories and economic policies would be hazardous. But he knew that Germany would come out on top.

Economists recognised from the start that the Euro would be problematic and would create huge social difficulties (including terrible levels of unemployment) but politicians ignored all the warnings. They knew that introducing the Euro would make the creation of a federal Europe inevitable and unstoppable.Readers who want to know more about the EU might like to read my various books on the subject (particularly my most recent book called OFPIS). There is more material about the founding of the EU on this website. But for now I will close with a note that the European Court of Justice has now decreed that the EU commission can restrict dissent and punish individuals who damage the institution’s image and reputation. Walter Funk and his mustachioed friend would be proud of the modern European Union.Please encourage your friends, relatives and enemies to read this article.




To be part of a legally defined “public protest” is in fact showing your tacit agreement to an issue you don’t generally agree with. Legally, a protest is nothing more than you having a moan about a policy you can do nothing about and the establishment is obliged to recognise that you had a little moan about their policy but is not obliged to support your moaning. If you take part in a protest, you are supporting the government in its policies and in its treason. We do not advocate gathering on the streets in protest. It has the potential to create civil unrest (which the government imposters want) and does absolutely nothing other than maybe wake a few people up…and to what? protesting on the streets.Swearing your oath as directed in article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is the only lawful way you can “reject” it entirely and with the backing of the law! Lawful Rebels do not attend legal protests as this would undermine our total rejection of the Crown and its agencies.




By voting for any MP, any Political Party, any proposal that comes from this ‘Government’ and/or otherwise in any Referendum, you’re consenting to their tyrannical rule without question. Change cannot come from criminality, it’s time for the people to rightfully take it back lawfully by Command of laws in effect (Article 61). ALL elections since at least the 1970’s have been rigged. We have had corporate representatives in positions of power for far too long! They (collectively) have committed acts of sedition, treason, war crimes, false flag terrorism, murder/genocide, paedophilia, fraud, kidnapping etc, to name but a few of the more serious crimes that have been allowed to continue by the present system. They control the mainstream media entirely, and they know how to use ‘double think’ and concept control to gradually mislead the people into accepting extreme changes to their environment. It’s called ‘boiling the frog’…apparently a frog won’t notice the water getting hotter if it sits in a pan of cold water whilst it slowly comes to the boil…..time to jump out of the proverbial pot folks!














  1. ‘Shoehorned into the EU’

  2. ‘Kilmuir Letter’

  3. ‘1993 Treason Cases’

  4. Article 61 text

  5. The Barons Petition and communications with Sir Robin Janvrin

  6. Telegraph Report 1 (‘Peers use Magna Carta to oppose EU charter’)

  7. Telegraph Report 2 (‘Peers Petition Queen on Europe’)


  9. Magna Carta Society Research paper which led to the petition

  10. Articles of Union

  11. Lord Renton speech

  12. ‘Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’

  13. A Short History Of The EU And The Euro










  1. Even King Edward VII REFUSED the assent outright to what became the 1911 Parliament Act ordering the prime minister Asquith to go to the country on the grounds the bill was unconstitutional and also removed protection from his subjects. Asquith and his ministers went around the country lying about the Lords who thought it beneath them to reply. Asquith won the election and put the bill through, the King in his speech at the opening of parliament said that the only reason he was doing this was at the instruction of his ministers. A clear indication that this was against his wishes.

    If that’s the case that the king refused to pass the bill then after a lot of lying, ‘Asquith won the election and put the bill through’. How did he ‘put the bill through’ when the king has the choice to refuse?

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. WE HAVE MOVED TO A NEW SITE! -Denounce the Deception – Denounce The Deception (UK)
  2. The TRUTH about the ‘EU’ and the ‘EURO’ – Denounce the Deception UK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.