• 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
« on: July 09, 2016, 06:39:02 PM »
Please start reading this thread from the bottom upwards

My point is that the barrister is using an argument that can be challenged whereas our constitution cannot.
It's no good trying through the courts or parliament it needs public opinion to force the issue where the media and parliament have to report it. The Kilmuir letter sets out the illegality or more correctly treason.
John T.
From: roger
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 17:33:27 +0100
To: Rodney


My question (regarding proof that Heath was bribed) relates to EU treaties, not the EC Act. Yes there is a view that, if the EC Act is repealed, or struck down, our obligations relating to the other treaties will also fall away.

But some believe that the EU Treaty obligations would stand, after the EC Act is no longer.   Here is a view from a Barrister.

"The true answer to the treaties is that they are not binding on the UK. That is because, as exposed by the late Christopher Story, both UK signatories to the Treaty of Rome (via the Treaty of Brussels) were on the German payroll, that is to say our delegates were corrupted. Under the Vienna Convention on International Treaty Law a state whose delegates are bought and paid for by another state signatory is not bound by the corruptly obtained signatures, as Christopher, to his credit, understood."

Hence my question.



On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Rodney wrote:

Sorry I should have been clearer

Treaty law and the Governments treaty making powers (under Crown Prerogative) are sufficient to sign - and therefore to unsign - a Treaty

Parliament did not need to approve the Treaty itself

That is why Hurd rightly said that Parliament could not overturn the Maastricht Treaty (or any other treaty in fact!)

Of course Parliament had to pass the resulting legislation - the 1972 and other Acts - BUT that is a separate issue


On 9 Jul 2016, at 16:00, DON HANK  wrote:

If I understood correctly, you said that the original treaty was signed without the approval of Parliament. If this is so and if their approval would have been needed by law, then that is probably the most vital point. I anxiously await your article on this at
If this is true and if approval would have been neeed, then I assume the EC treaty was not valid. In that case, each of us must see to it that this article gets forwarded far and wide and posted on Facebook and other social media.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
Don Hank

From: johntimbrell
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:08:43 +0000

From:  Kate
Sent: 09 July 2016 11:20:02

When truth is buried it grows, it chokes, it gathers such an explosive force that on the day it bursts out it blows up everything with it.

Emile Zola
My reply. Thank you Kate, I hope that I live to see it.I cannot see why so many cannot transfer what they accept as a given that applies to all people to the parliament that is controlling them.
 That if you are caught doing something wrong you have to stop doing it. The government cannot debate whether to continue with an unlawful action. They can however choose not to debate the petition and can go through the charade of discussing the Lisbon Treaty or the 1972 act if you allow it.

Talking of court action is also a diversion. The public know something is wrong but they cannot put their finger on it. Show and explain why it is wrong to them and they will force the MPs to come into line.

Those doubters amongst you should think of the 12 Chief constables who each and separately accepted the later crime complaints of treason against Hurd Major and Maude. They were squashed by the establishment for the same reason as Rodney's and Norris's were. The establishment would collapse if the unlawfulness is  exposed.

The establishment know this and have successfully fought long and hard to keep it from the public.

Will you not do everything in your power to stop them. You will not be losing much.- only your time.

I'm replying to individuals on facebook and youtube when they comment about Brexit etc. Just adding a comment gets lost amongst the rest. It is a waste of time writing to MPs or others of a similar mind. The public needs to be alerted so they can force the media to discuss it. Then watch Emile Zola's statement come true.  Except that the police firemen nurses and council workers will continue working. They will just be released from the evil controlled bosses. The transport will continue running. People will still buy and sell. Lets lance the boil before it becomes a cancer. JohnT

Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:33:22 -0400
From: dave


Surely the Treaty of Rome adoption depended up ECA72?


Repeal one and the other falls, but John Timbrell is arguing that ECA72 is null and void anyway.





-----Original Message-----
From: Rodney
 Sent: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:07

But the 1972 repeal is a purely domestic matter

Rescinding the Treaties us the key


 Sent from my iPhone

 On 9 Jul 2016, at 09:42, Kate

On bbc radio4 'any questions' last night (repeated today lunchtime).

Gisela Stuart clearly stated that the 1972 ECA must be repealed ..

She is the only MP I have heard to date stating this.



I agree

The whole eurofascist project by the UK establishment has been illegal and immoral at every stage

Did you see the constitutional treason charges laid by Norris McWhirter and myself in 1993? (book Treason at Masstricht 1994)


Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Jul 2016, at 09:16, Paul Talbot-Jenkins

We don't need to repeal any acts of Parliament made since 1970 because Magna Carta nullifies anything that seeks to diminish it, a self protection clause specifically inserted into the charter for a safeguard against just such ambitions of the crown and tyrants. Britain has had no legitimate government since Wilson set out to repeal most of Magna Carta, thus interfering with our constitution. I believe that the Church of England must accept some of the responsibility since Magna Carta was meant to read out in church every year for the education of the congregations.

With best wishes


"Semper veritas"

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Jul 2016, at 08:53, Roger Arthur

Thanks John.

As we know the 1972 EC Act was unlawful and ran counter to constitutional law.

But since neither MPs, nor the Judiciary, will acknowledge that, we must continue to challenge MPs to repeal the Act.



Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Jul 2016, at 08:46, john T
Ever one to break things down to the basic elements, I am constantly amazed how so called intelligent people when discussing a problem bring in many extraneous matters which only serve to confuse the issue to the extent that nothing is done or achieved.
One could say that this confusion is by design to protect people from prosecution. I do not think that is correct because people on the "right" side also seem to be unable to think clearly and neglect to put forward arguments which cannot be countered by the "wrong" side.

The Chilcot report quite clearly states that Tony Blair misinformed parliament. OK it is couched in language such as that Blair exaggerated the evidence of weapons of mass destruction and underplayed the doubts that they existed.

To me that is a matter for a jury to decide. Did Blair's conduct amount to an intention to deceive or was he so negligent that the facts he presented as true were due to his negligence.

This is exactly the situation that occurs in a murder charge where a jury has to decide if the perpetrator intended the death of the victim or was so negligent that it occurred anyway. If there was intent then the offence is murder. If there was negligence to such a degree that a normal person would not have been so negligent then the offence is manslaughter.

One might think as it seems the majority of of so called clever people do, that a murder charge against Blair is inappropriate.

I think the opposite and cite the case of Derek Bentley who was hanged for murder when his partner in crime with a gun shot a policeman dead . Bentley was hanged because he shouted to his partner, "Let him have it".

Blair several times went into parliament and whether by negligence or design convinced parliament that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had the ability and intention of using them. All the British soldiers believed that they were acting lawfully because of Blair's lies or negligence or deceit. All weapons fired and people killed were as a direct result of Blair's deceit or negligence.

I believe that Blair should be charged with murder. Talk of impeachment or stripping him of various honours to me is just muddying the waters.

My other example is the Brexit confusion. Of course it suits the remainers to confuse the issue, but that does not explain why the Brexiteers should join in with the confusion.

Again I see the solution as simple. Prime Minister Edward Heath signed the first treaty knowing it was unlawful. He deceived parliament by stating that the treaty did not give away any sovereignty (control) to another state. Any doubt about that is removed by Heath's own memoirs where he admitted that he deceived parliament.

To simplistic me I see the issue is just the same as when someone is caught fiddling the books. They have to stop doing it.

 All this talk of article 50 or repeal of the 1972 act is just a smokescreen which the remainers use to their advantage.

That does not explain why the Brexiteers play along by putting more fuel on the fire and making more smoke.

The British constitution is quite clear on the subject as the Kilmuir letter shows.

The international law on treaties is quite clear where it states that any treaty where one party has been fraudulent or dishonest is null and void.

Any shock horror response that some will say will occur by following this process should be countered withe the statement that any law declared null and void would revert back to the old law that it replaced.

There is no reason that the present trading arrangements with the EU could not continue because an agreement between countries on how to trade does not need ratifying by parliament. So we might choose to follow EU rules regarding such things as standardising electrical goods for example because that is what one normally does to comply with the wishes of the purchaser.

I've been working away on this for some time and by challenging the prominent Eurosceptics I find that many know of the Kilmuir letter but they are too frightened or care much more for their lucrative positions to talk in public about the Kilmuir letter.

The brutal truth, Mr and Mrs Average, is that if you want your country back you will have to put time and effort into exposing this truth. I am now using Facebook again after being previously barred for posting too much, (at least that was the excuse they used). The petition which can be reached by Googling "Lord Kilmuir's letter. Parliament petitions site" is climbing gradually  (7950 to date). At 10,000 the government has to comment on it. At the very least they have to admit the letter exists. Are you confused about all the arguments about the way forward? Don't you think that the remainers will win the day.? The Lisbon treaty is undemocratic as Cameron stated when in opposition. To simplistic me the answer is simple. We stop acting unlawfully and tell the EU criminals we will not subsidise them further. The European peoples will force the EU criminals to accept our decision because they still will want to sell their goods to us to maintain their standard of living. JohnT

« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 06:43:02 PM by the leveller »

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk