The media was not allowed to discuss the substance of Magna Carta.

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
The machinery to keep the UK as part of the EU was decided long before the referendum was announced.
The referendum is just a safety valve to placate those citizens upset by the way they have little say in how their affairs are decided. It's a bit like last years Magna Carta celebrations. Yes there was a party and much pomp and pagentry but the media was not allowed to discuss the substance of  Magna Carta.

Any mention of habeus corpus; the power given under Magna Carta to order the government to produce a prisoner and then justify in open court why the prisoner was being detained, had been silently discarded by the government and Ministry of Justice.There was very litte discussion of this because of the censorship and the celebrations which  diverted the public's mind of the real importance of Magna Carta.

The are able to do this by the clerks in the high court referring all such complaints to the administrative side of the courts.

Here an understanding of how the courts work is necessary.

At a time which is not certain, because I doubt that it was recorded, but I guess about ten years ago, one could go to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand and lay a complaint at common law that someone had caused you harm or loss. There would be no charge to lay such complaint, neither would there be any court costs because as Magna Carta dictates justice should be free and available to all.

About that time Lord Levenson introduced his Guide to the Queens Bench.


 In this he describes the three different catagories of Queens Bench but omits the fourth, the common law court of record. Who knows precisely why he did that; but a fair guess is that any one UK resident could make a complaint at common law that his prime minister had caused him harm by giving away his sovereignty. The judge in a common law court goes on his oath of office. If he does not follow precedent he can be sued. In all other courts although the man with a sheeps wool wig (Wolf in sheep's clothing?) is called a judge in law he is not a judge. He is just a clerk working for the company known as the ministry of justice.This is why they are called administrative courts which conduct the business of the court. These pretend judges cannot be sued because the rules of the business, a statute also called an act with exactly the same meaning as a stage act, created by parliament,  has given these clerks a protected status. This means that they do not have to follow the rules of law that the rest of the population have to do. You might now understand why some very strange decisions are made by these pretend judges.

One persistent man was able to get past the Clerks at Royal courts of justice but when he tried to present his case at common law, the judge said he had no jurisdiction because he refused to go on his oath of office.

You might now be wondering what this has to do with the referendum. It's because Cameron has already stated that he will use the Lisbon treaty to leave the EU if the vote is to leave. Bear in mind that when in opposition, Cameron rubbished the Lisbon treaty. He knows that it was designed by unelected bureaucrats to make it difficult for any country to leave and anyway is subject to qualified majority voting.

After June the 23rd. the population will breathe a sigh of relief that It's all over and leave it to the politicians to get on with it; after all isn't that what we pay them for.?.

This is where Cameron and Osbourne are correct. All parties agree that it will take at least two years of negotiations during which time the uncertainty will cause the predicted depression  in the economy. This will reverse most of the opinions of the leave group who will change their mind and agree to stay in.

During which time in the parliament will vote through the bill waiting in the wings having already been debated just waiting for it to be signed into law.


This act not reported in the media removes from the queen the duty  to veto a bill that is against her subject's sovereignty.

You might be puzzling and wonder what this has to do with parliament's duty to act in the public's interest. Wonder no more.

Before 1972 when Prime minister Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome for us to join the common market, now the EU. he asked the top law officer at the time the legal implications of signing the treaty.This man, the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir described our constition evolving from Magna Carta and even before, and wrote that by giving away our sovereignty to another state would be illegal. Heath  still signed it and misled parliament by stating that there was no loss of sovereignty. Before he died he admitted his conduct in his memoirs.

Here an understanding of the international law of treaties will help you see what the government's problem is and what is really is motivating them. Any treaty where fraud or deception is used is immediately null and void. So since 1972 when more illegal treaties have been signed the government has kept this fact from you. The letter was hidden under the thirty year rule but was prised from the archives by an activist. Then the government machine was cranked up to block any move to expose the subject to the public. The media know of the letter but dare not discuss it. The eurosceptic politicians know of the letter but will not admit in public to it's existence. So you have the British public in a state of confusion with all the lying statistics from both sides of the brexit argument. Don't you think that their minds would be clarified if they knew that we had joined the EU by power mad controllers who lied to them.

There is one silver lining to this cloud. The governments censorship must have been so good that the parliament petitions committee did not realise the significance of a petition presented to them.

"We require Lord Kilmuir's letter to Edward Heath be debated in parliament". The letter can be read from a link on this site.


If this petition got to 10,000 before 23rd June, the government has to comment on it. This should release those previously censored as the letter's existence would be acknowledged on a government's own site.

The problem is that the petition has such a boring and obscure title and more importantly even the so called alternative media with the notable exception of Don Hank and Rodney Atkinson whose site "Freenations" promotes it. Rodney Atkinson was the man who together with Norris McWhirter took John Major, Francis Maude and Douglas Hurd to court for Misprison of treason for signing the MaastrichtTreaty. The attorney general then took it over and said there was no case to answer; presumably when not being on his oath of office.

So  dear reader, if you live in the UK, please sign the petition and get everyone you know to sign it.

Think about it; if you are caught doing something wrong you have to stop doing it. Get this letter's contents into the public domain and you can then demand that the treaties be declared null and void so that the laws that gave away our sovereignty back to 1972 would revert back to the position pertaining in 1972. Follow the thought through and you will realise that our exclusive 12 mile fishing boundary would be returned over night. Alright there might be some stock market jitters but the jitters felt by the other EU countries would cause them to consider what best suits them is for our trading arrangements to remain the same. The European army and other evils we could just walk away without too much trouble. So please do not let these politicians confuse you by their convoluted rhetoric. The matter is clear and simple. The EU treaties are against our laws. We the people need to get this fact out to one and all.

. JohnT

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk