'Misprision of Treason' Laws

ELIZABETH BECKETT’S SUBMISSION
AUGUST 2008

Report by Robert Theobald

On 5th August 2008 Elizabeth Beckett laid a complaint under ‘misprision of treason’ laws with the legal authority. Mrs. Beckett’s case is based on our Constitutional Law. She presented many supporting documents. The court legal officer who took Mrs. Beckett’s bundle of evidence expressed interest in the matter, saying that it will take 10 days for him to go through the papers and that the matter will then go either to the Crown Prosecution Service or to Magistrates .

In the Daily Express of July 18th 2008 it was reported that Prime Minister Gordon Brown forced the Queen to sign away Britain’s sovereignty in secret. (Lisbon Treaty) However, under the treason law no one may coerce the Monarch. Beckett observed that in the Chagos Archipelago case three Appeal Court Judges stated that Her Majesty may not have known what she was approving (in having the Chagossians removed from their land in the British Indian Ocean Territory to make way for the construction of the giant United States’ air base at Diego Garcia).

In her submission Mrs. Beckett pointed out that when the Queen made her Coronation Oath she promised to safeguard not only the laws and customs of Britain, but of all those nations of which she is the Head of State. The Queen is also Head of State of sixteen other countries. The signing of the Lisbon Treaty does not prejudice solely the Constitution of Great Britain, but also the Constitutional arrangements of all the Queen’s other realms. Philip Benwell MBE of the Australian Monarchist League has been making this point for several years.

The ‘automatic assent’ of the monarch to all Parliamentary bills that are presented to her is claimed by the Fabians to have been in operation since 1911. They misleadingly claim that no monarch has ever returned a Parliamentary Bill unsigned since Queen Anne. That is not the case however as several monarchs including Queen Victoria and King Edward referred Bills back to Parliament unsigned. Asquith’s Parliament Act of 1911 embodied the first major Fabian Society inspired attack on our Constitution.

Mrs. Beckett included in her submission Chapter 1 of Magna Carta material regarding the Monarch’s position as Head of the Church of England. At their coronations down through the centuries English monarchs have sworn on the Bible to uphold our laws and customs and have likewise been anointed with oil. In doing so they acknowledge a greater power than themselves, that of God. This is attested by the latin abbreviations D.G., by the Grace of God, and F.D., Defender of the Faith stamped on the coinage. These principles however are at odds with the man centred constitution/treaty of the European Union whose Constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters, acknowledges no spiritual brake on its power.
Para/ Mrs. Beckett is of the opinion that no longer having the British armed forces make the Oath of Allegiance would in effect transform them into mercenaries.

The power given to Her Majesty was entrusted to her by her subjects for their protection. Our special laws are based on this. The Queen promised to safeguard our laws and customs and in return has received the power to govern us. The signing of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty represents a high-jacking of the power of the people. The British Constitution was hard won and it was made by the people. In 1274 Edward 1st was crowned. The Archbishops, Barons and freemen told him that he had to swear to protect our laws and customs. He refused -- and was informed by the aforesaid Archbishops, Barons and freemen that in that case they would get another king--upon which ultimatum he made oath.

Tony Blair had the death penalty for treason repealed shortly before leaving office. In the case of Rex-v-Thistlewood (1820) treason was defined as ‘any action which attempts to overthrow or destroy the Constitution’ being the words of the Treason Act 1795 which Tony Blair repealed. Blair has been Chairman, or in politically correct terms ‘Chair’ of the Fabian Society. He unveiled George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Fabian Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’ stained glass window at the London School of Economics in 2007. But what is the true nature of the Fabian Society? It’s image is that of a socialist ‘think tank’, but its influence worldwide since 1884 has been enormous. In his paper “Communist” Councils in New Zealand John Christian describes the Fabian Society thus -- "a mixture" of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism all bundled together. However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle. The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists take your house by directly sending in the "secret police" to knock your front door down ­ Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly ­ by "gradually" taking your individual rights away, by "gradually" increasing property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can't pay them, they send in their regional "council tax inspectors" to take your house away ­ but the end result is the same’. It has long been a Fabian aim to incrementally downgrade the Monarchy of Great Britain but they are too subtle to overtly push for abolition. Their approach is to promote ‘debate’ about the necessity for ‘modernisation’ of the Monarchy and that it should be operated more economically etc. They always attempt to change the climate of opinion as a prerequisite to the slow, incremental achievement their aims. This is achieved by operation of the Hegelian Dialectic, the use of which was perfected by Fabian co-founders George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb. It is usual to find Fabians on both sides of a discussion, however their debates are carefully managed. What Fabians never mention is the Constitutional role of the Monarch. The constitutional settlement in this country, and in the others in which the Queen is Sovereign has evolved after centuries of struggle. The agreement reached is that we the people entrust the power to govern us to our Sovereign, who in turn promises to govern us according to our laws and customs. If the Sovereign’s role could be incrementally diminished and finally eliminated, the way would be open for powerful interests to corrupt our government virtually at will. The process is now well advanced.

The nature of Fabianism might best be illustrated by prominent Fabians themselves. On the 19th November 1937 the Fabian Nicholas Murray Butler addressed a banquet in London with the words, “Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and world money”. Margaret, wife of Fabian economist G.D.H.Cole wrote in 1943 ‘Fabians appeared in so many desirable liberal (and cultural) connections that they could scarcely be believed to be subversive of private property or of liberty.’ In 1948 in his Appreciation of the Communist Manifesto for the Labour Party famous Fabian Socialist theoretician Professor Harold Laski of the London School of Economics wrote “. . . who, remembering that these (policies of high taxation & centralisation of credit) were the demands of the Manifesto (issued by Marx & Engels in 1848) can doubt our common inspiration.” Laski joined the Fabian Society at Oxford and remained an avid member for life. In the April 1958 Fabian Journal tribute to Hugh Gaitskell’s teacher, G.D.H. Cole, a favourite pupil of Cole relates, how, after freely describing the various revolutionary changes he hoped to see the next Labour Party Government make, Cole suddenly realized he had failed to mention a particular reform dear to his heart. As the students to whom Cole had imparted his plans were leaving, he exclaimed: “Why, I forgot to include the abolition of God!” Cole urged complete abolition of the Monarchy and the watchdog House of Lords. In the 1920’s the Oxford University Fabian and British civil servant Sir Arthur Salter and his associate, international financier Jean Monnet advocated regionalism, a policy which constitutes one of the three ‘pillars’of the European Union. The other two are the common currency and the European Constitution. ‘Pillar’ is a Fabian term used in the political dialogue of the EU. In this vein the noted political writer Machiavelli observed ‘Divide a nation into parties, or set your enemies at loggerheads, and you can have your own way’. The apostle Mathew wrote “Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” -- Mathew xii.25. There are currently around 200 Fabian Members in Parliament, mainly in the Labour Party.

The checks, balances and acountability of national representative government, however imperfect, impede world government and globalisation. There has long been a covert assault on sovereignty in Britain. In 1925 the Fabian Professor Arnold Toynbee was Director of Studies at the Royal Institute of Interntional Affairs (the RIIA is now known as Chatham House) becoming Director of Foreign Research & Press Service from 1939 to 1943 becoming Director of the Research Department at the Foreign Office from 1943 to 1946. In June 1931 Toynbee spoke at the Fourth Annual Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations at Copenhagen saying -- “If we are frank with ourselves we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local independent states which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. The surest sign, to my mind, that this fetish of national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis which all our statesmen and publicists protest with one accord, and over and over again, at every step forward which we take, that, whatever changes we may make in the international situation, the sacred principle of local sovereignty will remain inviolable….The harder we press our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise - lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defence”. The Copenhagen Conference was initiated by the League of Nations Institute for Intellectual Co-operation. The National Coordinating Committee was domiciled at Chatham House and it included representatives from the RIIA, the London School of Economics, the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Politics at Aberystwyth and the Montague Burton Chair of International Relations at Oxford. Today the assault on national sovereignty is not covert.

In his The Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau prepared the ground for the French Revolution. Of England he wrote ‘The people of England regards itself as free, but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it deserves to lose them’. But the statesman Talleyrand, a political survivor of the regicidal French Revolution once said to one of his lady friends, Madame de Rémusat, “Get this into your head. If the English constitution is destroyed, the civilisation of the world will be shaken in its foundations”. Talleyrand was despite his shiftiness and his willingness to trim as circumstances dictated an intelligent man. He was, in the words of Metternich, “a man of systems.” Writer and critic Henrik Bering asked “What does it all add up to? The problem with the cruel, clever people portrayed in the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses, by the revolutionary conspirator Choderlos de Laclos, is that while exhilarating to watch for a while, pure intelligence without some kind of value system becomes tedious, pointless -- indeed, stupid -- leading to despair and death. So does an amoral, lawless political universe. The world becomes a chaotic place”.

We are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse yet our British Constitution is no longer taught in British schools. Universities confirm that knowledge of the British Constitution plays little or no part in their law syllabuses. In George Orwell’s novel 1984 the character Winston repeats obediently “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past?

Elizabeth Beckett told the legal officer accepting her case “If you go on with this you are a very brave man”. She has found the preparation and presentation of her case draining but she comments “ I feel, whenever I do anything like this, like a soldier fighting for England going ‘over the top’.

- - - - - -

Sustainable Development A Sinister Hidden Agenda for The World

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9144262448312647167&hl=en

Sustainable Development is an innocuous sounding name on the surface. The end result, with the tools of the Global Warming con and Political Correctness etc, is to manipulate and bully us through their goal of Communitarianism. Somewhere along the way, Prescott tagged on to the agenda and applied it to the UK. The Agenda was begun before Prescott through his office of DPM and applied along with Common Purpose and Regionalization.

Robert Theobald has a large working knowledge of the subject. He does his best here to explain a very abstract subject.
"To Achieve World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism their loyalty to family traditions and national identification"
- - Brock Chisholm - Director of the World Health Organization "

A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get."
- - Ian Williams Goddard

Ministers in power struggle over power

By Christopher Booker
07/09/2008

Two events in recent days shed light on a battle at the heart of government over what threatens to be as serious a crisis as Britain has ever faced.

The first was at Maidstone Crown Court, where six Greenpeace activists face charges of criminal damage at Kingsnorth power station. In protest at a plan by E.On to build a 1,600 megawatt coal-fired plant on the site, the demonstrators had tried to paint the slogan "Gordon bin it" on a 630-foot chimney. They were interrupted by a court injunction after painting the Prime Minister's Christian name, which it then cost E.On £35,000 to remove.

What elevated this case into more than just a local incident was the presence, as Greenpeace's chief witness, of Al Gore's friend James Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has done more than any other scientist in the past 20 years to promote alarm over global warming.
Greenpeace's case is that its members had a "lawful excuse" to damage the power station because they were only seeking to prevent it causing much greater damage through rising sea levels and extinctions brought about by climate change.

Mr Hansen told the court that the new power station alone would be responsible for the extinction of "400 species".

It might seem odd that a senior US public official should fly the Atlantic to support the defendants in a criminal trial, but Mr Hansen regards it as a test case in the campaign by greens on both sides of the Atlantic to close down all coal-fired power stations in the next 20 years.

Read more by Christopher Booker
Before his court appearance it was reported that he met with the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, a passionate supporter of the environmentalists' cause. Mr Miliband opposes the Kingsnorth plan, but it is strongly supported by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, who is urging Gordon Brown to approve the scheme.

The deep rift between the two sides was made clear by an interview Mr Hutton recently gave to The Daily Telegraph. In a little-noticed passage, while allowing that "of course we've got to tackle climate change", he went on "but we've also got to be absolutely clear that our energy policy has got to be figured first and foremost with a view to supplying Britain with the affordable and secure energy it needs for the future. That is why we cannot turn our back on any proven form of technology. We cannot afford to say no to new coal, new gas or new nuclear."

The reason Mr Hutton was so vehement was that, as minister in charge of energy policy, he is the one senior politician who recognises the scale of the approaching crisis. In the next decade, we are due to lose 40 per cent of the generating capacity that keeps our lights on and our economy running.

Within a few years, eight of the nine nuclear plants that supply 20 per cent of our power will come to the end of their life. We shall also - thanks to an EU anti-pollution directive - have to close nine of the major coal and oil-fired power stations that provide another 20 per cent.To make up that shortfall - as the minister and his more responsible advisers have come to realise - is as urgent a problem as any that Britain faces. But how?

The biggest headlines so far have been given to the "£100 billion renewables package" announced by the Prime Minister last summer, in an attempt to meet the EU's requirement that by 2020 we must generate a third of our electricity from wind turbines and other renewables. But in terms of filling our energy gap, this is no more than green window dressing.

The energy from turbines is derisory: the 1,600MW plant planned for Kingsnorth would generate two-and-a-half times more electricity than all the 2,300 wind turbines already built. And due to the intermittency of wind, as E.On recently explained, we will need new conventional power stations to provide nearly 100 per cent back-up for the times when it is not blowing.

To build more gas-fired facilities, when our own gas supplies are fast running out, would, as Professor Dieter Helm told the BBC last week, be the worst of all options. It would put us at the mercy of Russia and other unreliable sources of supply just when gas prices are soaring.

Since we closed down most of our coal industry, to build more coal-fired stations (which still supply a third of our power) will also put us at the mercy of foreign suppliers, and coal prices are also hurtling upwards. Again our largest supplier is Russia, from whom we imported 35 per cent of the coal we needed last year.

All of which accounts for our Government's belated conversion to the belief that our best hope is to look to France's EDF to build us a new generation of nuclear power stations. But nuclear order books are lengthening all over the world, and pressurised water reactors take up to 10 years to build, so how can they be built in time?

Since the Central Electricity Generating Board was scrapped at the time of privatisation, we have no central body to direct Britain's energy provision. It is left to the supply companies to provide energy according to where profit lies. And the only obvious way in which the Government could incentivise EDF or anyone else to get on with building new nuclear power stations would be to offer some form of subsidy.

This would be strictly prohibited under EU state aid rules. The only form of energy subsidy allowed is that given to renewable sources of energy such as wind turbines (nuclear power, though carbon-free, does not count). In Britain it is this "renewables obligation", requiring supply companies to buy electricity from wind at nearly twice the normal price, that makes wind so profitable and hopelessly skews the investment market in favour of the one source of power least able to fill our energy gap.

To address our looming energy crisis with the urgency it calls for, we would not only have to ignore the fantasies of Mr Hansen and the green lobby, but also directly confront our government in Brussels, which stands in the way of almost every measure we need to take. In this sense, in terms of what it will cost us, energy looks to become the defining issue of our EU membership.

At last week's Republican Convention delegates were given a card that put "energy independence" at the top of the party's national agenda, a message reinforced by the vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. Threatened with the same suicidal green stranglehold on its energy policy, it seems America may just be waking up to reality in time. But, apart from the faint voice of Mr Hutton, which politician here has the faintest grasp of what is at stake?