MENU

Treason at Maastricht.

The following are the indictments brought to a Private Prosecution by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter in 1993 that accused Douglas Hurd MP for signing the Maastricht Treat in conflict with the 1795 Treason Act.

THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND
On 9th September 1993 Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter laid before the magistrate’s court in Hexham, Northumberland the following charges 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, 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 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. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
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 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
CASE 5.
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”.
Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason etc.
CASE 6.
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..
CASE 7.
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
CASE 8 (IN SCOTLAND).
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 that 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
MENU
Powered by: Wordpress