We were asked by a villager to add their view of the referendum to the hardcopy newsletter but since this is not due to be published until end June at the earliest, we are happy to include it here:
The machinery to keep the UK as part of the EU was decided long before the
referendum was announced.
The referendum is just a safety valve to placate those citizens upset by
the way they have little say in how their affairs are decided. It’s a bit
like last year’s Magna Carta celebrations. Yes there was a party and much
pomp and pagentry but the media was not allowed to discuss the substance of
Magna Carta. Any mention of habeus corpus; the power given under Magna
Carta to order the government to produce a prisoner and then justify in
open court why the prisoner was being detained, had been silently discarded
by the government and Ministry of Justice. There was very little
discussion of this because of the censorship and the celebrations which
diverted the public’s mind away from the real importance of Magna Carta.
They are able to do this by the clerks in the high court referring all such
complaints to the administrative side of the courts.
Here an understanding of how the courts work is necessary.
At a time which is not certain, because I doubt that it was recorded, but I
guess about ten years ago, one could go to the Royal Courts of Justice in
the Strand and lay a complaint at common law that someone had caused you
harm or loss. There would be no charge to lay such a complaint, neither
would there be any court costs because as Magna Carta dictates – justice
should be free and available to all.
About that time Lord Levenson introduced his Guide to the Queens Bench.
In this he describes the three different catagories of Queens Bench but
omits the fourth, the common law court of record. Who knows precisely why
he did that; but a fair guess is that any one UK resident could make a
complaint at common law that his prime minister had caused him harm by
giving away his sovereignty. The judge in a common law court goes on his
oath of office. If he does not follow precedent he can be sued. In all
other courts although the man with a sheeps wool wig (Wolf in sheep’s
clothing?) is called a judge in law he is not a judge. He is just a clerk
working for the company known as the ministry of justice. This is why they
are called administrative courts which conduct the *business* of the court.
These pretend judges cannot be sued because the rules of the business, a
statute also called an act with exactly the same meaning as a stage act,
created by parliament, has given these clerks a protected status. This
means that they do not have to follow the rules of law that the rest of the
population have to do. You might now understand why some very strange
decisions are made by these pretend judges.
One persistent man was able to get past the Clerks at Royal Courts of
Justice but when he tried to present his case at common law, the judge said
he had no jurisdiction because he refused to go on his oath of office.
You might now be wondering what this has to do with the referendum. It’s
because Cameron has already stated that he will use the Lisbon treaty to
leave the EU if the vote is to leave. Bear in mind that when in
opposition, Cameron rubbished the Lisbon treaty. He knows that it was
designed by unelected bureaucrats to make it difficult for any country to
leave and anyway is subject to qualified majority voting.
After June the 23rd and we vote to exit the EU, the population will breathe
a sigh of relief that it’s all over and leave it to the politicians to get
on with it; after all isn’t that what we pay them for.?.
This is where Cameron and Osborne are correct. All parties agree that it
will take at least two years of negotiations during which time the
uncertainty will cause the predicted depression in the economy. This will
reverse most of the opinions of the leave group who will change their mind
and agree to stay in.
During which time Parliament will vote through the bill which is waiting in
the wings, having already been debated and just waiting
to be signed into law.
Act not reported in the media removes from the Queen the duty to veto a
bill that is against her subject’s sovereignty.
You might be puzzling and wonder what this has to do with Parliament’s duty
to act in the public’s interest. Wonder no more.
Before 1972 when Prime Minister Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome for
us to join the common market, now the EU. he asked the top law officer at
the time the legal implications of signing the treaty. This man, the Lord
Chancellor Lord Kilmuir described our constitution evolving from Magna
Carta and even before, and wrote that giving away our sovereignty to
another state would be *illegal.* Heath still signed it and misled
parliament by stating that there was no loss of sovereignty. Before he died
he admitted his conduct in his memoirs.
Here an understanding of the international law of treaties will help you
see what the government’s problem is and what is really is motivating them.
Any treaty where fraud or deception is used is immediately null and void.
So since 1972 when more illegal treaties have been signed the government
has kept this fact from you. The letter was hidden under the thirty year
rule but was prized from the archives by an activist. Then the government
machine was cranked up to block any move to expose the subject to the
public. The media know of the letter but dare not discuss it. The
eurosceptic politicians know of the letter but will not admit in public to
it’s existence. So you have the British public in a state of confusion with
all the lying statistics from both sides of the Brexit argument. Don’t you
think that their minds would be clarified if they knew that we had joined
the EU by power mad controllers who lied to them?
There is one silver lining to this cloud. The government’s censorship must
have been so good that the parliament petitions committee did not realise
the significance of a petition presented to them =
“We require Lord Kilmuir’s letter to Edward Heath be debated in
parliament”. The letter can be read from a link on this site.
If this petition gets to 10,000 before 23rd June, the government has to
comment on it. This should release those previously censored as the
letter’s existence would be acknowledged on a government’s own site.
The problem is that the petition has such a boring and obscure title and
more importantly even the so called alternative media with the notable
exception of Don Hank and Rodney Atkinson whose site “Freenations” promotes
it. Rodney Atkinson was the man who together with Norris McWhirter took
John Major, Francis Maude and Douglas Hurd to court for Misprison of
treason for signing the Maastricht Treaty. The attorney general then took
it over and said there was no case to answer; presumably when not being on
his oath of office.
So dear reader, if you live in the UK, please sign the petition and get
everyone you know to sign it.
Think about it; if you are caught doing something wrong you have to stop
doing it. Get this letter’s contents into the public domain and you can
then demand that the treaties be declared null and void so that the laws
that gave away our sovereignty back to 1972 would revert back to the
position pertaining in 1972.
Follow the thought through and you will realise that our exclusive 12 mile
fishing boundary would be returned over night. Alright there might be some
stock market jitters but the jitters felt by the other EU countries would
cause them to consider what best suits them is for our trading arrangements
to remain the same. The European army and other evils we could just walk
away without too much trouble. So please do not let these politicians
confuse you by their convoluted rhetoric. The matter is clear and simple.
The EU treaties are against our laws. We the people need to get this fact
out to one and all.