Act of Settlement: NWO Achilles Heel

by **antiaristo** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:01 am

ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1701 Ever wondered why the British Constitution is famously unwritten? Read on. As its name implies, the Act of settlement of 1701 settled the matter of the legitimate inheritance of the Crown. It is part of the American common law. It is vital reading for those who can see the Windsor threat. (Advice: go straight to Section II) Whereas in the first year of the reign of Your Majesty, and of our late most gracious sovereign lady Queen Mary (of blessed memory), an Act of Parliament was made, entitled, "An Act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown," wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted, established, and declared that the crown and regal government of the Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, should be and continue to Your Majesty and the said late Queen, during the joint lives of Your Majesty and the said Queen, and to the survivor: and that after the decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen, the said Crown and regal government should be and remain to the heirs of the body of the said late Queen; and for default of such issue, to Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of Your Majesty. And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same: and in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance: and that the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons, so reconciled, holding communion, professing or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead. After the making of which statute, and the settlement therein contained, your majesty's good subjects, who were restored to the full and free possession and enjoyment of their religion, rights, and liberties, by the providence of God giving success to your majesty's just undertakings and unwearied endeavours for that purpose, had no greater temporal felicity to hope or wish for, that to see a royal progeny descending from Your Majesty, to whom (under God) they owe their tranquillity, and whose ancestors have for many years been principal assertors of the reformed religion and the liberties of Europe, and from our said most gracious sovereign lady, whose memory will always be precious to the subjects of these realms: and it having since pleased Almighty God to take away our said sovereign Lady, and also the most hopeful Prince William, Duke of Gloucester (the only surviving issue of Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark) to the unspeakable grief and sorrow of Your Majesty and your said good subjects, who under such losses being sensibly put in mind, that it standeth wholly in the pleasure of Almighty God to prolong the lives of Your Majesty and of Her Royal Highness, and to grant to Your Majesty, or to Her Royal Highness, such issue as may be inheritable to the Crown and regal government aforesaid, by the respective limitations in the said recited act contained, do constantly implore the divine mercy for those blessings: and Your Majesty's said subjects having daily experience of your royal care and concern for the present and future welfare of these Kingdoms, and particularly recommending from your throne a further provision to be made for the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, for the happiness of the nation, and the security of our religion; and it being absolutely necessary for the safety, peace, and quiet of this realm, to obviate all doubts and contentions in the same, by reason of any pretended title to the Crown, and to maintain a certainty in the succession thereof, to which your subjects may safely have recourse for their protection, in case the limitations in the said recited act should determine. Therefore for a further provision of the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, we Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, do beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted and declared, and be it enacted and declared by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the most excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, daughter of the most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our late sovereign lord King James the First, of happy memory, be and is hereby declared to be the next in succession, in the Protestant line, to the imperial Crown and dignity of the said Realms of England, France, and Ireland, with the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, after His Majesty, and the Princess Anne of Denmark, and in default of issue of the said Princess Anne, and of His Majesty respectively: and that from and after the deceases of His said Majesty, our now sovereign lord, and of Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and for default of issue of the said Princess Anne, and of His Majesty respectively, the Crown and regal government of the said Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, with the royal state and dignity of the said Realms, and all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities, to the same belonging and appertaining, shall be, remain, and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants: and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, shall and will in the name of all the people of this Realm, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities: and do faithfully promise, that after the deceases of His Majesty, and Her Royal Highness, and the failure of the heirs of their respective bodies, to stand to, maintain, and defend the said Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, according to the limitation and succession of the Crown in this act specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. II. Provided always, and be it hereby enacted, that all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases are by the said recited act provided, enacted, and established; and that every King and Queen of this Realm, who shall come to and succeed in the imperial Crown of this Kingdom, by virtue of this act, shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them, at their respective coronations, according to the act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty, and the said late Queen Mary, intituled, An act for establishing the coronation oath, and shall make, subscribe, and repeat the declaration in the act first above recited mentioned or referred to, in the manner and form thereby prescribed. III. And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further provision be made for securing our religion, laws and liberties, from and after the death of His Majesty and the Princess Anne of Denmark, and in default of issue of the body of the said Princess, and of His Majesty respectively; be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established; That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any person, not being a native of this Kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament; That no person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall go out of the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without the consent of Parliament; That from and after the time that the further limitation by this act shall take effect, all matters and things relating to the well governing of this Kingdom, which are properly cognizable in the Privy Council by the laws and customs of this Realm, shall be translated there, and all resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Council as shall advise and consent to the same; That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, 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; That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons; That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, judges commissions be made quamdiu se bene gesserint, and their salaries ascertained and established; but upon the address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawful to remove them; That no pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in Parliament. IV. And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do therefore further humbly pray, That all the laws and statutes of this Realm for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are by His Majesty, by and with the advice of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed accordingly. ========================= COMMENTS II. Provided always, and be it hereby enacted, that all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities Yes, that’s right. Charles is debarred from the Crown. Do you wonder why the constitution is unwritten? every King and Queen of this Realm, who shall come to and succeed in the imperial Crown of this Kingdom, by virtue of this act, shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them, at their respective coronations But see below as to what happened in 1937. Only King George swore the Oath. That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established; Yes, that includes YOU, Queen Elizabeth, Talmud Queen That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any person, not being a native of this Kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament; mmm. That bears chewing over (the Windsors are Scottish/Germanic) That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons; mmm. Tell THAT to Michael Howard QC MP and the rest of them! IV. And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same: This is exactly what Elizabeth Windsor swore on 2 June 1953. She lied. How come she gets away with it? Do I really have to recite this one more time? 3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. ‘Cos it’s illegal to put ANY force or constraint upon her. THE CRIMINALS ARE IN CHARGE OF THE COURTS AND THE PRISONS 143. GEORGE VI: CORONATION OATH (1937) ... Then shall the archbishop go to the king and, standing before him, administer the coronation oath; first asking the king, "Sir, is your majesty willing to take the oath?" And the king answering, "I am willing," the archbishop shall minister these questions; and the king, having a book in his hands, shall answer each question severally as follows: — Archbishop: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the union of South Africa, of your possessions and the other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, and of your empire of India according to their respective laws and customs?" King: "I solemnly promise so to do." Archbishop: "Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?" King: "I will." Archbishop: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the united kingdom the Protestant Reformed religion established by law? And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of England, and to the churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" King: "All this I promise to do." Then the king, arising out of his chair, supported as before and assisted by the lord great chamberlain, the sword of state being carried before him, shall go to the altar and, there being uncovered, make his solemn oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premises; laying his hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible ... , saying these words: "The things which I have here before promised I will perform and keep. So help me God." Then the king shall kiss the Book and sign the oath.... Form and Order of the Coronation, pp. 13 f. THE QUEEN MOTHER’S CORONATION DOES NOT COUNT. ========================== Sorry, I forgot the URLs (i) Act of Settlement 1701 <a href="http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/settlement.htm">www.worldfreeinternet.net...lement.htm</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act...ement_1701</a> and for rain (aussie version 5 July 2002) <a href="http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/db_1788/">www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/db_1788/</a> (ii) George VI Coronation Oath HARPER'S HISTORICAL SERIES Under the Editorship of Guy Stanton Ford Sources of English Constitutional History A SELECTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM A.D. 600 TO THE PRESENT EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY CARL STEPHENSON AND FREDERICK GEORGE MARCHAM Cornell University HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS New York, Evanston, and London SOURCES OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Copyright, 1937, by Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated Printed in the United Slates of America To the memory of CHARLES HENRY HULL <a href="http://www.constitution.org/sech/sech_143.txt">www.constitution.org/sech/sech_143.txt</a> (iii) Treason Felony Act <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,511147,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/monarc...47,00.html</a> <a href="http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1848Treason_FelonyAct.shtml">www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1848...yAct.shtml</a> And I’ll add this (from the American perspective) The following documents are reproductions of the Magna Carta (1215), Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701), and the Act Establishing the Coronation Oath of 1689. These Acts are sources of real law in the United States, because they define the practices and customs of the American people. This is in contrast to the legislation of Congress. Under the legal model of the republic, only the legislation of Congress has legal force. Whereas under the principles of law of the ancient constitution, law can be found in any source that can authoritatively describe the practices of the people, such as the rulings of magistrates, the statutes of parliament, the proclamations of a lawful sovereign, the autobiographies of statesmen, the treatises of scholars on constitutional law, and even the decisions of juries. The whole point of creating a written constitution was to cut short the rights of individuals to contribute their expertise, outside of the political control of the republic. <a href="http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/documnts.htm?">www.worldfreeinternet.net...umnts.htm?</a> For my American friends that can see the merger of the two countries on the horizon. Keep this handy.

by **rain** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:18 am

antiaristo. you have been busy. (which is good. I was getting a little concerned)

by **antiaristo** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:44 pm

rain. Thank you for your concern, but really, don’t worry. I had to face up to this fear when I first went back to see my mother. Remember that line from Jeff’s post “Whoever shall enter the Black Lodge with less than perfect courage is doomed.”? Fear is their only weapon. ZeroHaven, I’ll answer on this thread because the URLs are here, and you can check it out for yourself. In the meantime, does this mean that the beloved Queen isn't really the Queen, based on British law and/or birthright? Wowza. What you infer is indeed true. The Crown was stolen in 1936/7 during what was known as the Abdication Crisis. The question is, what can be done, and who will do it? Unfortunately many will conclude, quite logically, that the only solution is to eliminate the Queen. In fact I believe this is what lies behind the London bombings. Registered MemberPosts: 272(7/30/05 2:59 pm)Reply MI6 Motivation and Purpose Confusion leads to suspicion leads to a search for motivation. Would MI6 bomb London? Look at the timing. I was born and bred in London (Battersea).The vibe I’m picking up over the net is that London people believe this was the work of the SAS.I’m inclined to agree – for the ruthlessness.Pumping eight bullets into a prone man’s head is what they call “Butcher and Bolt”. It’s not police. It’s straight out of “Death on the Rock”. So what’s this all about? I’ll give a hypothesis. The word is now out about Queen Elizabeth and the Treason Felony Act.She feels herself urgently threatened. Her personal bodyguard is the SAS. The boys from Hereford don’t report to the Ministry of Defence, but straight to “The Palace”. What does the SAS want to guarantee Her Majesty’s safety? The right to blow away anybody they deem a threat. A shoot-to-kill policy. But how do you introduce such a policy? You create a threat.The ubiquitous “suicide bomber”. You demonstrate the threat – on 7 July. Why 7 July? She’s invested a ton of money and effort into taking the Olympics from the French. Let's get that first, then blow up Commoners. Then you create a diversion – on 21 July – which just so happens to reinforce your original message. You put all your media and investigative effort into the second “bombing” (the harmless one). Then you test out your shoot-to-kill policy – in the hands of the SAS, and nobody else. They are your Swiss Guard. A “brown” man is executed for no reason that we know. The story we are fed is a patchwork of lies. Outrage rightly arises – in the “brown” community. The focus is on the discrimination, and not the underlying murder. What’s next?Shoot to kill a "white" man? Will everybody be happy then, because it is an equal opportunity shoot-to-kill policy? And Her Majesty achieve her purpose? <a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=127.topic">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...=127.topic</a> Ps to rain, Remember our debate about Robin Cook? He was on our side, wasn’t he?

by **rain** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:00 pm

as much as someone in his position can be. the news is very troubling. as I suspected, it seems the gloves are off.

by **rain** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:11 pm

my conern is re: Espagne. as I've tried to point out in earlier posts, it is conspicuous by it's absence. it's that knightly, gung-ho, Cervantes-esque, devil-may-care thing you've got going. nevertheless, there are good people there, just don't go charging in where angels fear to tread.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:41 pm

rain, I take your point. Back in '98 I got into the Spanish Constitutional Court. That's the one that hears disputes between branches of government. And hears petitions for protection. On very dodgy procedure the Court "heard" my plea and rejected it. I was in no danger. Could be embarassing if I got "disappeared".<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:28 am

Antiaristo Dear, It is exactly your depth of understanding which caused me to try to overcome my natural shyness and join discussions here. Please continue posting here. May God's Holy Angels protect you and your family. My dad is a Mensa member, though I ain't the brightest, I flatter myself by believing that I know true talent when I see it. You are most definitely on to something, and I know the sacrifices you have endured. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto. Amen. Mother Dear, thank you. This is my preferred thread. About five years ago I say down and began a list of the miracles that had occured on my journey. When I reached twenty true miracles plus another 30 "inexplicable happenstances" I stopped. I had convinced myself. So long as we carry on trying the angels will step in and help us. I consider RI to be the most recent "intervention". I'd like to say more but prudence dictates otherwise. Meanwhile back on planet Earth.... August 07, 2005 Special forces turn sights from Iraq to hunt terrorists in Britain Michael Smith Sunday Times BRITAIN’S special forces commanders have temporarily switched the main thrust of their attention from Iraq and Afghanistan to hunting down suspected terrorists at home. A number of special forces teams are on an hour’s notice to move anywhere in the UK to support police operations against the terrorist threat. The teams have a number of aircraft, including civilian helicopters and two small executive jets, assigned to them to ensure they can get anywhere in Britain as swiftly as possible. “The UK is now at the top of our agenda and the two (terrorist) incidents will result in significant changes to our workload for the near future,” a senior defence source said. Each of the rapid reaction teams includes a mix of SAS and Special Boat Service counter-terrorist experts, specialist human surveillance operatives and special forces bomb disposal officers. They also include technical surveillance experts from a fifth special forces unit, 18th (UKSF) Signal Regiment, which was secretly created this year. The regiment is the third new special forces unit set up to support 22 SAS Regiment and the navy’s SBS in an expansion of Britain’s special forces to cope with the war on terror. The new regiment includes soldiers who can monitor mobile and satellite phones and has a number of high-tech methods of listening in to conversations from up to half a mile away. The Sunday Times revealed last week that special forces intelligence personnel were part of the surveillance operation that resulted in the shooting of an innocent Brazilian. SAS troops also played a role in the capture nine days ago of three men suspected of taking part in the failed July 21 bomb attacks. The soldiers provided expertise in explosive entry techniques to back up raids by police firearms officers. The extent of the involvement by special forces and the scope of their capabilities have remained secret until now. “Our people are carrying out what I can only describe as a vital role within the current operation,” one source said. “It is complex and spread across a large part of the UK. The team includes aspects of the new units assigned to UKSF (UK special forces) within the past year.” Part of this role is understood to involve special forces merging into the background in London and other British cities. Plainclothes SAS teams have also monitored airports and main railway stations to identify any security weaknesses. Members of the SBS have worked alongside Home Office officials on exercises at key ports to try to spot security problems. One exercise scenario involved suicide bombers hijacking an oil tanker which they aimed to blow up in a port. However, defence sources said that although the elite military teams are under the overall control of the director of special forces, any counter-terror operations will remain under the authority of the police. So you see she is getting very nervous (as is the King of Spain)

by **antiaristo** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:30 am

An interesting development, given that there is nothing to prevent MULTIPLE treason laws being used in conjunction... Today's Guardian Leader Terrorism Use existing laws Leader Tuesday August 9, 2005 The Guardian The screw continues to turn. After Tony Blair's draconian 12-point anti-terrorist plan on Friday, a 13th front emerged yesterday: the use of centuries old treason laws against prominent Islamic clerics promoting terrorism. The crown prosecution service's anti-terrorism head is due to meet Scotland Yard officers in the next few days to examine whether treason charges can be brought. At least three clerics are reported to be under scrutiny.....(continues) <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1545210,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/leader...10,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:20 am

This is about as close as the MSM is prepared to tread.. 650 years of treason law By Nigel Morris Published: 09 August 2005 Launching court cases under the Treason Act would mean dusting down legislation so venerable that it was originally written in Norman French. The threat by the Crown Prosecution Service to use the medieval statute against so-called "preachers of hate" in the 21st century has startled politicians, lawyers and human rights groups. * 1351 The Treason Act was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Edward III, shortly after the start of the Hundred Years' War against France. It established offences of high treason, punishable by execution and the forfeiture of all property to the Crown, and of petty treason. A person was guilty of high treason if he plotted the death of the sovereign, waged war against the crown or gave "aid and comfort" to the monarch's enemies. Petty treason was defined as offences against a person's superior, such as a servant killing their master or a wife her husband. * 1535 Sir Thomas More, who had been Henry VIII's Lord Chancellor was found guilty of treason. He clashed with the king over his desire to break with Rome and was prosecuted over his refusal to accept Henry's claim to be head of the Church of England. The following year Anne Boleyn, Henry's second wife, was also executed for treason and adultery. * 1606 Guy Fawkes and his fellow Gunpowder Plot conspirators were hung, drawn and quartered after being caught attempting to blow up King James I at the opening of the 1605 session of Parliament. * 1848 As revolutions swept across Europe, the Treason Felony Act made it an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy, even by peaceful means, in print. An attempt to repeal the law two years ago failed, so it still technically stands. * 1916 The Dublin-born Sir Roger Casement had been knighted by George V for his work with the Colonial Service. But he became active in the Irish Republican movement and was arrested off the coast of Co Kerry with a shipload of German arms for the Easter Rising. A campaign to save his life failed and he was hanged four months later. * 1946 William Joyce, popularly known as Lord Haw-Haw, who broadcast Nazi propaganda to Britain during the Second World War, became the last person to be hanged for treason. He was found guilty on three counts of assisting or giving comfort to the "King's enemies". * 1998 The death penalty for treason was finally abolished. The last working gallows in Britain had been quietly put out of commission five years earlier. <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article304644.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...304644.ece</a>

by **antiaristo** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:10 pm

There are some interesting political manoeverings going on in Britain. This piece is quite informative about what has happened the last few days. Sir Max Hastings was Editor of the Telegraph in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and so represents the right wing of mainstream politics at that time. Here he is writing in the Guardian, the left wing of the mainstream today. The only check on the folly and excesses of government Attempts to weaken the judiciary and rule of law will only fuel terrorism Max Hastings Thursday August 11, 2005 Guardian We live in strange times, when the leader of the opposition calls upon the judiciary to demonstrate more active support for government policy. That is what happened yesterday. Mr Howard argued in a strident article for the Daily Telegraph that the supremacy of parliament must be upheld, at a time when British society faces a grave threat to its security from terrorism. He urges that judges should hold back from exercising the discretion granted them by the Human Rights Act, to assess whether given legislation is proportionate to its objective. He suggests that judges' abuse of their powers - for instance in overruling the home secretary on detention cases - is improper. He says it is time for the judiciary to step back, and allow the judgment of the elected executive to prevail. This is remarkable politics. It is the Tories, in recent years, who have complained vociferously that Britain is being ruled by "an elective tyranny". It is the opposition which has chafed in the face of its inability to check Tony Blair's alleged dictatorship. It is Michael Howard who has protested as vehemently as any MP about the government's eagerness to ride roughshod over its foes. What is different this time, in Mr Howard's eyes, is that national security is at stake. In the new world we face after the events of July, he deems the government to deserve principled support for the anti-terrorist measures which it announced last week. He is fearful that over-mighty judges will seek to thwart parliament's will, in making these stick. Yet many people will be dismayed by Mr Howard's broadside. There is a good case for many of the government's proposals. But history shows that almost all legislation made in haste is imperfect, and sometimes deeply flawed, as was George Bush's patriot act following 9/11 in the US. Whatever steps a society takes to defend itself, these must be subject to extra-parliamentary review. Democracy in Britain is already in poor health. Such is the power of the executive, so feeble is the influence of Commons backbenchers, so weak are the Lords and local government, that today the judiciary represents the only substantial check upon the excesses and follies of government. We have reason to be envious of the United States, where even a Republican Congress provides a powerful brake on a Republican president, as do the supreme court and states' rights. Almost nowhere in the western world does a national leader possess centralised power matching that of Tony Blair. The more authority the British government seeks over the citizen, the greater the need for monitoring the manner in which it exercises this. In our limping modern democracy, only judges can provide it. It seems bizarre, if not perverse, for Mr Howard to urge them not to use the latitude they possess under the Human Rights Act. Some of us think human rights legislation is flawed, chronically vulnerable to abuse by the legal profession and undeserving plaintiffs. The European human rights convention is an extraordinarily one-sided document, which places huge duties upon its signatory states, while imposing almost no reciprocal conditions on its beneficiaries. There is a strong case for its amendment in the wholly new world which has evolved since it was drafted in 1949. But this is an argument for altering British law, not for asking judges to forswear the influence which such law grants them today. It seems extraordinary that Mr Howard - himself a lawyer - should seek to persuade judges unilaterally to renounce duties imposed upon them by legislation, whether or not this was ill-conceived. The Tory leader seems to want judges to stop treating asylum applicants so sympathetically; to abandon their objections to detentions without trial; and to avoid placing legal obstacles in the path of police and intelligence services' wishes. Yet, were the judges to do this, they would concede a shocking victory to the terrorists: in the face of a limited threat from a small minority of violent fanatics, British society would turn away from the rule of law. The outbreak of active terrorism in this country indeed demands new laws, rendering necessary a shift of the balance between civil rights and public protection. It will be surprising if judges do not show sensitivity to this. But the greater the powers of the state - especially custodial powers - and the more vital becomes the sceptical, scrutinising role of courts. There seem good pragmatic, as well as principled, reasons for holding firmly to law. The United States has paid a shocking price, both in terms of domestic self-respect and international opinion, for its extra-legal activities since 9/11. The Guantánamo Bay detentions, kangaroo courts and CIA abductions of suspects overseas have cost America much more politically than they have achieved operationally. None of this is intended to make a case for the British government to respond feebly to the threat from violent Islamism. It is merely to argue that legislation on new security measures should be reasoned, rather than reflexive. This is difficult in the current overcharged mood, both at Westminster and among the public. An illustration was offered last weekend, by the leak from Whitehall sources that terror suspects might be charged under treason legislation. People who seek to blow up innocent fellow citizens can certainly be described as traitors. But Britain's 20th-century experience with treason law was so muddled and unsatisfactory that few lawyers would want to go down that route again. On Tuesday the lord chancellor quashed treason speculation, but not before it had a good run in the headlines. As with every anti-terror campaign at home and abroad, the struggle against Islamist fanatics will be decided partly by the efforts of the police and intelligence services, partly by a much broader struggle for hearts and minds in Britain's Muslim community. Nothing seems more certain to foment alienation than cavalier abuse of law. Michael Howard had a rotten record as home secretary, of pursuing populist causes in defiance of both criminological and penal expert advice. His latest thrust at the judiciary suggests that, over the past decade, he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. It is entirely proper for the opposition to campaign for the amendment of human rights legislation. By contrast, it seems wholly mistaken to urge passivity on Britain's judges, when our democracy needs their participation, perhaps more than ever before. comment@guardian.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ======================================= So what’s the storyline? Those nasty politicians are ganging up on the poor Law Lords. There is so too a division of powers at the top of the State. So there! The judges are our independent heroes. But wait. Who is this leading the rebellion? Is it Lord Bingham? Didn’t he head up the BCCI Inquiry in years past? So take a look at this piece from Simon Bowers last year. BCCI returns to haunt Bank of England A court case looking at events in the 1980s could set a precedent for suing regulators Simon Bowers Saturday January 3, 2004 Guardian It was on the eve of the first creditors' meeting following the dramatic collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, with hundreds of furious and confused depositors expected to fill Wembley Arena baying for compensation, that the liquidators announced they had served writs against just about everyone connected with BCCI - including the Bank of England. No one has successfully sued the Bank, which as the former regulator enjoys immunity against all claims save those alleging dishonesty. The liquidators were claiming the Bank of England had not only made a series of breath-taking errors and omissions in its supervision of BCCI, it had done so knowing full well that depositors' life savings might be in peril. BCCI was finally shut down in 1991, amid a welter of fraud and corruption charges, with outstanding debts of $10bn. To some, demands for £850m (in today's money) in compensation from the Bank may have looked like panicky sabre-rattling on the part of liquidators at Touche Ross, now Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Eleven years on, the claim is nevertheless being doggedly pursued, with the scene set for a marathon legal battle that is expected to occupy the same courtroom as the Hutton inquiry for about a year. In two weeks' time, Gordon Pollock QC, counsel for the liquidators, will take to his feet in the high court and open the first of the 125 lever-arch files containing the hearing's core documents. His initial address is expected to take up to three months, during which time he will level countless accusations of malicious recklessness against 22 of those Bank officials who oversaw the supervision of BCCI. Among the witnesses the Bank is expected to call in its defence will be former governors Sir Eddie George, Lord Kingsdown (formerly Robin Leigh-Pemberton) and Lord (Gordon) Richardson. Other prominent names to take the stand include Brian Quinn, chairman of Celtic football club, and Peter Cooke, who headed the Bank's supervision department for much of the 1980s. Several other central players have died in the time it has taken for the case to be heard. The central allegation facing the Bank is that it deliberately perpetuated the charade of BCCI as an overseas bank, allowing it to operate outside Bank of England full regulatory control throughout the 1980s. The claim is among a series of allegations that go far beyond conclusions drawn by Lord Bingham's 1992 official report into BCCI's demise. Lord Bingham, now Britain's most senior law lord, concluded that over-worked Bank of England regulators had made an innocent mistake when they designated BCCI a Luxembourg bank in 1980. They had done so despite the fact that it was no secret that BCCI's Luxembourg holding company was a little more than a brass plate, with most meaningful operations run out of offices at 100 Leadenhall Street in the City - a stone's throw from the Bank of England. Lord Bingham said: "In applying this new and unfamiliar statutory regime [the 1979 Banking Act], it was necessary for the Bank, first of all, to understand what was meant by 'principal place of business'. That was a legal question. "Those who handled this matter in the Bank had many applications to process in a very limited time, and did not recognise this as a question to be asked. So no legal advice was sought ... The question was simply never addressed." Mr Pollock will challenge this conclusion, pointing to internal Bank papers, seen by the Guardian, which appear to show senior banking supervision officials and lawyers had indeed, from the outset, raised the question of whether BCCI should be more appropriately classified as a British bank. As early as February 1979 Frank Hall, a senior lawyer at the Bank, wrote an internal memo to colleagues concerning the imminent Banking Act. In it he said: "I should be grateful if you could let me know whether ... there are any companies which are not registered in the UK but which have their principal place of business or place of central management or control here ... but which we should not want to recognise." Copies of the memo, which was circulated among senior department officials, show several hand-written annotations. "I can't think of any, can you?" says one, to which another official replies: "No." "But for this - BCCI?" appears in the sidelines, written in the hand of Peter Cooke, the head of banking supervision. Mr Pollock will argue this critical exchange fits into a catalogue of alarming internal reports on BCCI, each of which ended in the Bank wringing its hands behind closed doors but ultimately shirking its regulatory responsibilities. He is likely to stop short of direct criticism of Lord Bingham, but his remarks may, at the very least, call into question the fullness of information supplied by the Bank to the Bingham inquiry. A string of other internal memos make clear the Bank's state of panic. In 1982 BCCI was described as "on its way to becoming the financial equivalent of the SS Titanic!". Another paper from the same year insists BCCI's status as a Luxembourg bank "has always been something of a fiction ... I believe it would be wrong for us to continue to allow a large international banking group to carry on business on a largely unsupervised basis". The following year yet another Bank analyst wrote a report on BCCI entitled "Why action is now urgently required". It suggested the Bank was left with "two basic choices": to close BCCI down or to insist it be redesignated a UK bank, under full Bank of England supervision. Later memos, Mr Pollock may suggest, show shades of cowardice behind the Bank's intransigence. "It is hard to see how we can to other than turn a blind eye ... since we have accepted [BCCI] up to now," wrote one Bank official as the charade of BCCI's Luxembourg status wore increasingly thin. Mr Cooke himself even described the late BCCI chairman Agha Abedi as "the living personification of Uriah Heep". In its defence, the Bank is expected to claim that such remarks, when read in context, do not amount to a call for BCCI to be shut down. It will accept that grave mistakes were made, but will insist there was no dishonesty involved. The Bank is likely to concede there had been internal exchanges over whether to designate BCCI a British or an overseas bank, but will characterise such discussions as fleeting and academic, with little or no bearing on the final - albeit mistaken - decision to declare BCCI a Luxembourg bank. If the high-profile case is likely to be damaging for the Bank of England's reputation, despite being stripped of its role as banking regulator since 1997, it may also prove awkward for Gordon Brown. As shadow chancellor following the collapse of BCCI, he was savage in his criticism of the Bank. "The Bank of England's so-called 'light hand' has made it a soft touch for a crooked bank," he told the Commons in 1992. "Are we not paying a heavy price for the free-for-all of the 1980s which denied regulation its proper place in the management of our financial institutions?" He went on to ask if the then Conservative government had sought the resignation of the Bank's governor, Sir Eddie. Since his move to the Treasury, however, the chancellor's indignation may well have cooled. Not least because of legal concerns over what precedent any payout by a state regulator might set. It is thought the BCCI case will be closely watched, for example, by Equitable Life policyholders, who may be considering building a similar case against the Financial Services Authority. Deloitte has so far recouped 75% of depositors' losses, having won settlements from the likes of Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the sheikh and government of Abu Dhabi, one of the United Arab Emirates. The liquidators are believed to have told the 6,500 BCCI creditors it represents in Britain that a win against the Bank could bring the recoup figure up to 87% or 88%, while costs involved in a loss would shave less than a percentage point off the existing 75%. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ==================================== And now for completeness the reader should refer to this letter to the BCCI advocate: <a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessageRange?topicID=6.topic&start=21&stop=40">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=40</a> Post 176 So you see Bingham is subject to the Treason Felony Act whenever she chooses to invoke it. The man cannot be independent – BY LAW. And all this argy-bargy between the judges and the politicians is yet more living theatre, designed to boost the perceived independence of the judiciary in Britain. For if the judiciary in Britain are not seen as independent, what happens to the financial services industry, also known as the City of London? Postscript. There is a story out this afternoon about the royal prerogative and the power to declare war. Perhaps certain people really do read this board and have discovered the provisions of the Act of Settlement regarding the waging of war. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Politics/iraq/story/0,12956,1547269,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/Politi...69,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:48 pm

When I started this thread on 6 August I used the title “Act of succession – NWO Achilles Heel” What a very tender and sensitive heel it has turned out to be! One could say the roaches are scurrying before the light. CENTURIES-OLD powers that allow the prime minister to take Britain to war without parliamentary consent will be challenged this autumn by an influential committee of peers. The House of Lords Constitution Committee is to hold an inquiry into the royal prerogative power, which allows prime ministers to deploy the Armed Forces without the backing of MPs. The inquiry will intensify the pressure on Tony Blair to give Parliament the final say over whether troops go into battle. He broke with precedent in March 2003 and offered MPs a vote before committing troops to war in Iraq, although their decision was not binding. ……. The power to declare war was historically the prerogative of the sovereign, but it has gradually shifted to the prime minister over time and he or she has no obligation to gain the approval of Parliament. Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the chairman of the committee, said that war-making powers had become one of the most important constitutional issues of the day and feelings run understandably high. …….. “The antiquated royal prerogative is more in tune with the 15th than the 21st century and there is massive support both within Parliament and the public for change. President Bush must ask Congress before being able to deploy US troops abroad, while there is no requirement for the British Parliament to even debate the issue.” <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1731659,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...59,00.html</a> Senior peers are to reopen the controversial issue of the government's power to declare war without consulting the House of Commons. Ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq there was an unprecedented full vote of the house to approve military action. The vote was, however, purely symbolic and was not binding on the government. Under the royal prerogative powers, a government can declare war and deploy armed forces without the backing or consent of parliament. Now the House of Lords select committee on the constitution is to investigate whether MPs should be given an official say ahead of military action. <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1547269,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/i...69,00.html</a> So they are going to look at the Sovereign’s monopoly power to declare war. Not democrats, mind you, but people like Lord Holme, who has never been elected by anybody. The Commons are excluded ( better than being blown up, I suppose). Be very clear about this: royal prerogative is code for Treason Felony Act. In the UK this is the de facto fundamental law – de facto by force of Freemasonry and Freemasons like Lord Holme. This is what the Independent said on 9 August 2005 * 1848 As revolutions swept across Europe, the Treason Felony Act made it an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy, even by peaceful means, in print. An attempt to repeal the law two years ago failed, so it still technically stands. But the LEGITIMATE (de jure) fundamental law is clearly the Act of Succession. And this is true for the monarchy under construction in the United States. And the Act of Succession is very clear about war. That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any person, not being a native of this Kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament; Maybe she’s gonna end up like Charles I: convicted for treason against the people and beheaded.

Act of Settlement: NWO Achilles Heel

Act of Settlement: NWO Achilles Heel

THANX

Wowza

YES

and...

Espagne

Mothers and Angels

Treason Laws

Ah-Hah!

Smokescreen?

Royal Roaches Prerogative

Who is online