Standards and Privileges: Treason

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4115
  • +75/-0
Standards and Privileges: Treason
« on: January 22, 2016, 10:33:05 PM »
From an e mail thread
Standards and Privileges: Parliamentary double standards and unexplained privileges exposed.


Reprinted from Freedom Today, the journal of the Freedom Association


Who paid Kenneth Clarke's Hotel Bill?

Following the publication in 1994 of Treason at Maastricht, by Norris McWhirter and Rodney Atkinson [writes Freedom Association member, Lynn Riley] in which, to their eternal credit, they recounted not only the saga of the treason charges that they had laid against the British signatories of the Maastricht Treaty, but also, for the first time in Britain, exposed the Bilderberg Group - Rodney asked me to send letters to The Rt. Hon Tony Blair, MP and The Rt. Hon Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP. I was to ask them who had paid their expenses to the 1993 Bilderberg meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece, and, if they had received funding, to confirm that they had entered the facts in the Register of Member's Interests.

I live in rural obscurity; perhaps that is why I received two interesting responses. Neither had expected to be questioned on the secretive meeting and they responded in different ways. Tony Blair proceeded to register his trip (it is required that registration be immediate, so his late registration could not exonerate him from his breach of the rules). He confirmed to me that his conference expenses and flights were paid by Bilderberg, and that they "...have been recorded in the Register of Members' Interests". Clarke said he had paid his own expenses.

I confronted Mr Clarke with Blair's response, asking why he had to pay his expenses while Blair had not. I also asked for confirmation that the meeting had agreed to implement a supra-national currency (now known as the 'euro' to be launched within six months of writing) and abolish the pound sterling.

On 6 September 1995 I received a peach of a letter, annotated by hand, from Clarke. He said he had paid for his flight but was accommodated at Bilderberg's expense. He went on to say:

"I do not remember the subject of international currencies ever being raised but I can assure you that I am totally unaware of anybody contemplating any agreement on the abolition of national currencies'. I do not believe there was anybody there who would have contemplated such an agreement or that it would have had the slightest effect." (2015 - in the light of the launch of the Euro and its destruction of Southern Europe and Ireland, Clarke is now proved to be a liar and we are proved to have been correct to be worried sick! We only just managed, through huge, consistent and enduring effort by a very few, to hang onto the £ Sterling).

While we considered the issue of the currency of utmost importance and Clarke's abysmal ignorance of the meaning of the euro quite frightening, there was no means to further that issue, so we latched on to his expenses lie and reported him to Sir Gordon Downey on the much lesser charge of non-declaration of funds received.

Eventually The Standards and Privileges Committee, following Sir Gordon's advice, condemned Mr Clarke in a report numbered ISBN 010 201 298 9 (£2.55 from HMSO). This was the first time the existence of the Bilderberg Group had been acknowledged in an official document available to the public. That might have been the end of this story and I could have concluded by urging others to combine, as Rodney Atkinson and I had done, to expose political corruption, but in his report, Sir Gordon said that Clarke had obtained finance from "sponsors unknown". We submitted evidence that these "sponsors" had a political agenda which was incompatible with the continued existence of the UK as a sovereign democratic nation, and that Clarke was subjected to undue political influence bought and paid for by the unknown sponsors. In addition, Clarke was continuing to lie about his expenses and had provided no evidence that he had paid for his flight. Downey said that he had consulted Clarke and accepted his word. He refused to investigate or require documentary evidence that Clarke had paid for his flight. He also refused to consult Bilderberg or investigate the ‘unknown’ sponsors.

The contrast between Downey's conduct of this case and that of Neil Hamilton's, in which Downey refused to accept Hamilton's word, and consulted all and sundry, eventually finding against Hamilton's version of events, was stark. Moreover Hamilton was a mere backbencher accused of accepting gifts from a rich individual, whereas Clarke, a former Home Secretary and Chancellor, was subjected to undue political influence from a major industrial sponsor with a very specific agenda (a United States of Europe). We did everything we could to persuade Downey to investigate the further allegations and proofs with which we had furnished him - to no avail.

Eventually I received another peach of a letter - this time from Downey - quoting the guidance from the House: "It is not sufficient to make an unsubstantiated allegation and expect the Committee to assemble the supporting evidence."

This was obviously not relevant to my complaint, because this had been upheld by the Committee and then the House, so it was obviously not vexatious, nor comprised of "unsubstantiated allegations". Downey went on to advise me that: "...further communications, whether to me or the press, are not covered by Parliamentary privilege or privilege at law. You may, therefore, wish to consult a legal adviser".

I have never enjoyed 'parliamentary privilege' and this was a barefaced attempt to threaten me with legal action if I persisted in requiring my evidence to be investigated. Though a very strong letter to that effect was sent to Sir Gordon by return, no action has ever been taken. Thanks are due to Leolin Price QC who represented me at this point pro bono. 

Indeed Downey has recently refused to investigate Paddy Ashdown, who admits attending a Bilderberg Conference and entering nothing in the Register of Members’ Interests - because, he says, the registrar told him that as the gift was received outside the country, registration was not required. This 'rule' would have saved Neil Hamilton's bacon, as the Paris Ritz is also situated 'outside the country'. Rodney Atkinson reported Ashdown to Sir Gordon, who has refused even to confront the errant registrar. No MP - not even Martin Bell, whose stated purpose is to ‘stamp out sleaze' is prepared to raise the issue of a senior member of the then government behaving in a manner which disgraces Parliament and is an actual threat to the existence of the nation.

We must face the fact that not only are we blighted by MPs and leaders of political parties who are blatant liars - no wonder Parliament is distrusted and despised - but worse, we have a Parliamentary Commissioner responsible for 'standards' who not only refuses to investigate the conduct of MPs but even threatens those public spirited enough to report that conduct.

Future generations of free thinking Englishmen will wonder at the servile, cowardly and corrupt third raters whom we have allowed to lead us to this disaster, and puzzle at their ancestors who allowed themselves to be hi-jacked en masse. They will have every reason to be thoroughly ashamed of us.

As for Mr Clarke - a Privy Counsellor who has sworn allegiance to the Queen, yet has helped to reduce her to a common citizen of the new country called Europe, a QC who has helped to subordinate what Churchill considered to be our greatest contribution to civilisation, the English Common Law, to that of a foreign power, a representative of the people in our sovereign Parliament who has reduced its status to less than that of a banana republic - I  agree with David Mellor when he advised the Conservative Party before the '97 election that they should all 'hang together' (or they would hang separately), the only difference is that he was being 'hip' and advocating unity, I was serious - we have the technology!

Lynn Atkinson (original 1995; updated 1998)
Andy will you pass this on?

There was no costs to the laying of Misprision case that Norris and Rodney took. That is one of the reasons it was brilliant - it used our constitution which we seek to protect for this very reason,  it gives us power over money and influence.

The cases (7 in England and 8 in Scotland) were accepted by the Magistrates Court, the first step and passed up. It went straight to the Attorney General (this in itself is amazing), Sir Nicholas Lyle, who is the Governments lawyer. He is accountable to the House of Lords. He waited until the House of Lords was in recess, then he sat in his own Judgement (remember he is the Governments lawyer and advised them that they could do this treason) in violation of our Constitution again (no man can sit in his own judgement) - you see why it's called our Glorious Constitution and why we should protect it with our lives as all pious generations for 800 years have done?) and ruled that there was no case to answer.

This pointed up a loophole which should have been tested in Court, to who ever is the Attorney General accountable when the HoL is in recess? But none of these billionaires who each have their own 'Leave ' campaign, would fund it.

However the treason laws that were used were repealed. BUT this case can be continued under the laws that pertained when it was started, and there is no limitation point (it remains live) because it is criminal. However everybody took their own treason charges - after the laws were repealed - so they were laughed out of court. All because of ego!

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Standards and Privileges - Lynn

Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:42:13 +0000



Andrew maybe you could pass this on, look at the intellectual fight we have fought for years when
Owen Patterson, for example, was calling us 'headbangers'! Now a stalwart and 'hero' of the Save
Britain brigade!

We are giving away thousand of books to help this cause. Would you ask your contacts if they want a
box to distribute. I am funding the postage as we'll, but they must make sure that the books are
distributed to people who can use the bullets therein!


From: John
 Subject: RE: Democracy or Dictatorship -- Your Choice
 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:01:26 +0000

Yes I am and the dyed in the wool replies. I'm terrible on names, but the case you quote re Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter was the one I referred to. Your info re the attorney General taking it over is different to what I read. I thought that they ran out of money. Your version makes sense. What we are up against is huge. Underestimating it is foolish.
The huge number of Brexit groups need to stop playing with the issue. I feel completely useless because I cannot get the Brexit groups to realise the seriousness of the situation. You mentioned John Bingley and his book. A book only plays into the NWO plans. To oppose them is simple.  A book invites a book full of replies.. What they are doing is unlawful.If it is wrong then it should be stopped. All these Brexit sites are blowing their own trumpets and boosting their own egos. If it's wrong it's wrong . Full stop. Simple people like me understand this but most simple people do not know what is happening because the realities are hidden from them. Surely it is up to the numerous Brexit groups to inform them that the present situation is illegal and wrong.

Subject: Re: Democracy or Dictatorship -- Your Choice
 From: B and A
 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 16:15:40 +0000
 CC:  To: John
 Well, as you must know Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter did their best to challenge the government of the day on this very issue.  Indeed they looked like being successful, so the then Attorney General took over the case, citing national importance, and gently kicked it into the long grass, where it has remained.

I do though totally agree with you when writing letters one should remind people of the lies and duplicity that has always attended this issue.

A recent letter of mine published cited Edward Heath’s suppression of his Attorney General’s advice which apparently surprised and upset died in the wool Conservatives.  I can send you a copy if you are interested.


On 17 Jan 2016, at 12:16, john  wrote:

Bluntly you are wrong. The top law officer in the land, the attorney general, wrote to Edward Heath stating that it is would be against our law to sign the original treaty. Are you going to argue with that?. 
You should publish the letter under the heading such as "Top law officer declared that signing the EU treaty would be unlawful". Most will not read the letter , but the headline will stick..

You state that there will be endless legal arguments as if that would harm those who want to leave. So it might. Better to argue that the whole process is illegal than waste time over the huge amount of opposite views and opinions that just confuse people.

Keep it very simple. The whole process was unlawful and was kept hidden from the public for 30 years.

That deceit should get more people onside.

Why do you think Cameron is bringing in the Extremism bill and why they want to give us an all new constitution. You are fighting international controllers who control what goes on in parliament. Even if the public vote to leave they will propose using the Lisbon treaty. They cannot argue against the fact that the treaties are illegal.

Twice last year the Supreme court upheld our common law being superior to statute law.

Keep it simple. The EU is against our law.

Subject: Re: Democracy or Dictatorship -- Your Choice
 From: B and A  Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 11:43:41 +0000
To argue that all EU treaties are against our constitution could involve the OUT campaign in endless legal arguments and would surely be a distraction from our purpose of exiting from the Evil Union, although without a doubt any treaty that is based upon a lie, as told by Edward Heath, is arguably invalid under the Vienna Convention on treaties.   

Sadly we have to start from where we are and try and win the referendum.  Of course we should be clear as to how we then exit, should this happy day come.  Although firmly believing Article 50 is a trap set by the Enarques if we tell the EU we intend to leave we surely invoke Article 50, Gordon Brown having signed the Lisbon Treaty and our Queen having affirmed it.  If at the same parliament, in the light of the referendum result, were to repeal ECA72 as they agree is within their power, we immediately return to being a self-governing country and can put two fingers up to Brussels.

Perhaps our best hope is that the EU collapses within the next six months due to migrationary pressures and collapse of the Eurozone.   Fingers crossed.



On 17 Jan 2016, at 10:27, Sonya wrote:




From: John
 Sent: 17/01/2016 09:15:46 GMT Standard Time
 Subj: 4 Freedom: EU referendum "once-in-a-lifetime" decision

Hello Simon, The below is a round robin which I think applies to your organisation. All the Gloucestershir UKIP councillors refuse to discuss the illegality of EU treaties. Tim. Congdon and Nigel Farage  and Douglas Carswell will not discuss it.


From your website you state that you want to leave the EU. No one with similar views will discuss the method of exit apart from those who advocate using the Lisbon treaty to exit.

To me this will play into the hands of the people who want to stay in. Even they admit that there are so many clauses in the treaty that it will take two years to discuss it. During this time the stock market will be jittery which will worry people who probably will make many who wanted out to change their mind and demand another referendum. Worse than that the treaty will be subject to qualified majority voting. So we probably will be barred from leaving.

If people like Nigel Farage would discuss the fact that all EU treaties are against our constitution and therefore illegal, he could demand that parliament obeys the rule of law so that we could leave within a week. No doubt the stock market would react for a short time but the exit would be swift.

The evidence for the illegal treaties starts with the attorney General's letter to Edward Heath indicating that signing the treaty of Rome would be unlawful. This letter is now available to view on the English Constitution Group's website.

This illegality should become a matter of general public discussion. Will your organisation help us get our country back so we can return to the rule of law;Our law

« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 10:42:57 PM by the leveller »

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk