show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Edward Heath's Treason

  • 1 Replies
  • 1959 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4013
  • +75/-0
Edward Heath's Treason
« on: April 14, 2017, 05:24:10 PM »

By far, Heath’s more serious offence is that of treason wilfully committed against the Queen, the nation and each individual in Britain when he knowingly signed the UK to foreign rule under the guise of “a common trading agreement with Europe”.  His treason has never been investigated. 
 
The opportunity to require the Wiltshire Police to do just that is here.  NOW.  Treason is the most serious crime in English law.
 
Please read the attached.  It is more than sufficient evidence of treason by Heath for the police to open an investigation and uncover his guilt on many counts.  It must become public.
 
The CD “Shoe-horned Into The EU  -  Swallow it whole, swallow it now”  that is mentioned (http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-related-downloads/) makes unbelievable reading.
 
You might even feel angry enough to submit your own copy of this evidence to Wiltshire Police adding your wait to requiring them to look into Heath’s many acts of treason.  His was the most grievous act of treason in British history. 
 
PLEASE  -  DO THIS FOR YOUR COUNTRY.
 
Rex
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Statement of Facts - Treason by Edward Heath Updated.doc
56 KB
 
FW: Letter to Wiltshire Chief Constable
43 KB
 
Letter to Chief Constable Mike Veale - Heath Treason.doc
51 KB
 
The Kilmuir Letter.pdf
126 KB
 
Political Record of Edward Heath.doc
26 KB
 
FCO 30.1048 - They Knew It Was Treason.doc
343 KB
 

 Show all 7 attachments (647 KB) Download all Save all to OneDrive - Personal
You may know that Wiltshire police are investigating allegations of paedophilia against the late Edward Heath in Operation Conifer. ()
 
By far, Heath’s more serious offence is that of treason wilfully committed against the Queen, the nation and each individual in Britain when he knowingly signed the UK to foreign rule under the guise of “a common trading agreement with Europe”.  His treason has never been investigated. 
 
The opportunity to require the Wiltshire Police to do just that is here.  NOW.  Treason is the most serious crime in English law.
 
Please read the attached.  It is more than sufficient evidence of treason by Heath for the police to open an investigation and uncover his guilt on many counts.  It must become public.
 
The CD “Shoe-horned Into The EU  -  Swallow it whole, swallow it now”  that is mentioned (http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-related-downloads/) makes unbelievable reading.
 
You might even feel angry enough to submit your own copy of this evidence to Wiltshire Police adding your wait to requiring them to look into Heath’s many acts of treason.  His was the most grievous act of treason in British history. 
 
PLEASE  -  DO THIS FOR YOUR COUNTRY.
 
RexSTATEMENT OF FACTS
 
 
 
Acts Of High Treason Committed By The Late Edward Heath MP
 
 
Treason is treachery, a betraying or a breach of faith and in law denotes the grave crime of treachery toward the Sovereign as Head of the State and any betraying of the State itself. (Moriarty’s Police Law.  17th edition, page 202.)  Treason is the offence of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. (Blacks Law Dictionary.)  Treason is to betray or violate one’s duty of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to one’s own people, thus to one’s country in support of another intention, state, power or authority.  It is disloyalty, duplicity and to undermine your own country.  Regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation, treason is in law still a hanging offence.
 
 
 
The following is not an exhaustive research of the matter but shows nonetheless that treason was committed knowingly and wilfully by former Prime Minister, the late Edward Heath MP, against the English Constitution, Her Majesty The Queen, Her subjects the British people and the United Kingdom as a sovereign nation state.
 
Treason is not a geographical crime but one directed against the Monarchy, each individual in the country and the nation state as a whole.  Any police force to which it is reported has a lawful duty unlimited by its administrative boundaries, to investigate and prosecute treason for the highest, most grievous crime that it is  -  more serious even, than multiple murder as it is against the nation itself and precipitates injury to or the death of the sovereign nation state.
 
1.  The English Constitution is inalienable and inviolable.  It remains in lawful force as it was written.  It comprises among others, the Common Law of England, Magna Carta 1215, the 1351 Treason Act, the Act of Praemunire 1392, the Act of Supremacy 1559, The Petition of Rights 1628, Habeas Corpus 1679, the Coronation Oath Acts 1688 and 1953, The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1700, the Treason Act 1795 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.  These laws are the unconditional birth right of the British people (Act of Settlement 1700 S4).
 
2.  At Her Coronation in 1953, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II took an oath to her subjects before God and the World that she would govern Britain (and the Empire) according its laws and customs which include English Constitutional and Common Law.  English, in this sense, is the historic name referring to the entirety of the United Kingdom.  She further undertook to “maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England ….and government thereof, as by law established in England”.  The Articles of Religion of the Church of England state “The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm.…doth appertain and is not, nor ought to be subject to any Foreign Jurisdiction....”. 
 
3.  Edward Heath MP as a British subject and passport holder owed from birth a lifetime duty of loyalty and allegiance to the Crown.  He had sworn additional solemn oaths of allegiance as a politician and as Prime Minister, to Her Majesty the Queen (and through Her to Her subjects).  Heath had an absolute and lifelong clear duty to honour and support Her Majesty in upholding Her
Statement of Facts  -  Treason by Edward Heath 2
Coronation oaths to Her subjects that She took before God.  The British Prime Minister is required to swear three oaths:
 
a.  The Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch, required of all MPs and Lords before they are allowed to take their seats or vote (Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 8(2) - Constitutional Law, para. 32; para. 524, note 1.)
 
b.  The Privy Councillor's Oath, as a condition of being admitted to the Cabinet. (Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 8(2) - Constitutional Law, para. 523.) also (HC Hansard Vol 317 Col 182) and (Inglorious Revolution pages 45-46.)  The Privy Councillor's Oath is summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England and include “to be a true and faithful servant of the Crown….not to countenance any word or deed against the Monarch….but to withstand the same to the utmost of his power, and to reveal it to the Monarch or the Privy Council….to bear faith and allegiance to the Crown….and to defend its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates and generally to act in all things as true and faithful servants of the Crown”.   To break this oath, as with any oath of allegiance to the Queen, is a clear act of high treason.  High treason at Common Law is any breach of allegiance to the Sovereign.
 
c.  The Oath of Office as First Lord of the Treasury, the formal office held by the Prime Minister (Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 8(2) - Constitutional Law, para. 923.)  The Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office are set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 and include :  “You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States or Potentates...”.
 
4.  In July 1960 Heath was appointed Lord Privy Seal in Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government.  From 1961 he was involved with Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) created by the Treaty of Rome in March 1957 and known as “the Common Market”.  His strong personal conviction and commitment for Britain to join the European community followed the sentiment of Jean Monnet, the founding father of what is now the European Union, in a letter to a friend on 30 April 1952 which in showing an intention to lie and deceive nations’ peoples, stated, "Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening.  This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."  That Heath concurred shows that he, too, was willing to lie and deceive to that end.  In the early 1970s Heath also entered negotiations with the fascist dictatorship then in power in Spain about the status of the British dependency of Gibraltar.  Without consulting the people of Gibraltar and over their heads, he offered Spain political and cultural access to the island as a step toward "persuading" the inhabitants to give up their British sovereignty.  This was a yet another act of treason against British subjects, against their will.
 
5.  In late 1970 Heath was compelled to seek the advice of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, as to constitutional implications of Britain signing the Treaty of Rome.  Lord Kilmuir’s letter a copy of which is enclosed, made clear that serious constitutional problems would prevent Britain joining the EEC.   These included :  “It is clear ….that the Council of Ministers could….make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.  For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons.       we should have therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments (in other words that it was no longer a Parliament) we could only comply with our
Statement of Facts  -  Treason by Edward Heath 3
obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgment on the legislative proposals put before it.  ….in this respect Parliament here has in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position.  But the letter also indicated ways in which that conflict of interest could be subverted.  It shows that Heath was prepared to commit sedition and treason in order to take Britain into the EEC and the letter was by Heath’s order, kept secret for 30 years such that when it was finally released for public knowledge it would be too late for anyone to remedy the situation as Britain would by then be irrevocably lost in the European federal state.  Such intention to so eliminate any possible return of independence for Britain was an act of outright treason contrary to the Acts listed above.   
 
6.  Heath, therefore, had been advised in no uncertain terms and was well aware that joining the European Community would compel Britain to sacrifice her sovereignty, independence and right to self governance.  It was clear that this would seriously impact upon Her Majesty’s Honour, the supremacy of Her Parliament, independence of Her courts and the lives of the British people by subordinating the nation and its internal affairs to an alien power in Europe far beyond any control of the British people.  This is treason expressly forbidden by the constitutional laws listed above, designed to keep England free from all foreign interference.   
 
7.  As to the loss of sovereignty, a witness Lord Thorneycroft was present in Heath’s private office when Lord Kilmuir’s letter to Heath was delivered.  It was later reported by Lord Thorneycroft that Heath read the letter and went as white as a sheet.  He folded the letter, put it in his pocket and said, “No one must see this, least of all the Cabinet.”  Heath went ahead and signed the Treaty anyway.  After becoming British Prime Minister in June 1970, Heath went to Brussels on 22 January 1972 and signed the Treaty of Rome, otherwise “European Communities Act 1972” (ECA1972), which took effect on 1 January 1973.  Heath had surrendered the Her Majesty The Queen and the British nation to foreign rule, the most grievous act of high treason in British history far beyond his lawful authority and entirely contrary to the Constitutional and Common Law of England listed above.
 
8.  Even the Queen may not surrender Britain, its sovereignty, independence or self determination to a foreign power, unless lost in war, as it is contrary to English Constitutional and Common Law to which she is also subject.  As the Supreme Governor of England, Her Majesty cannot by the Constitutional Law allow foreign law to be imposed upon her subjects.  She is in any case obliged by law to pass the Crown to her successors, as she received it.  In his doing so, however, Heath had placed himself above the Queen.  This he cannot do.  It moreover imagines the death of Her Majesty.  Both of these are major acts of high treason against the Sovereign, directly contrary to, among others :-
 
a.  The 1351 Treason Act  (Compassing the death of the Sovereign, Levying war against the Sovereign in the realm and Adhering to the Sovereign’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere.)
 
b.  Treason Act 1795  (S1  -  It is illegal within the realm or without to devise constraint of the person of our sovereign his heirs or successors.  This includes deposing our Sovereign Queen as a suzerain.) Though Anthony Blair repealed this law in 1998, Heath was guilty of treason under its terms in the 1970’s.
 
c.  The Treason Felony Act 1848 (Depriving the Sovereign of the Crown, Levying war against the Sovereign in order by force or constraint to compel Her to change Her measures or counsels or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament and to 'Move or Stir' any foreigner to invade by any means the United Kingdom or any other country belonging to the Sovereign.)
Statement of Facts  -  Treason by Edward Heath 4
 
d.  The Common Law of England.   
 
Treason when committed is directed not just against the Monarch, Her Majesty Queen and the nation state as a whole, but to each individual of the nation’s people.  It is the intentional serious injury or death of the sovereign nation state.
 
9.  Well aware of the implications of joining Europe and of his deceit and criminal act, Heath lied to Parliament and to the people (thus also, to the Queen) that “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty.” (Heath 07/1971) (http://www.totalpolitics.com/quotes/?tag=Edward+Heath&count=24) and “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified” (Heath, January 1973) (https://nickclarkecambs.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/eu-political-union-the-history-of-the-ukpeople-being-deceived-the-opening-scene).  To the question by Peter Sissons on BBC Question time on 1 November 1990, "The single currency, a United States of Europe, was all that in your mind when you took Britain in?  Heath publicly admitted, “Of course, yes”.  He publicly admitted on TV (now recorded for all time in video archive) that he knowingly deceived the people of Britain. 
 
10.  In lying to and deceiving the nation about the true purpose of his European negotiations, Heath wilfully betrayed the people of Britain into foreign rule.  That in itself is yet another major act of high treason but he also went so far as to hold breakfast meetings at the London Connaught Hotel with civil servants, the BBC, ITV and the Press to ensure removal of all anti-EEC feelings within the media and to replace them with only positive and favourable reporting and promotion of it for public consumption.  This, too, was high treason by deceiving the sovereign people of Britain with media disinformation and propaganda contrary to the nation’s patriotism, natural instinct and interests.  Heath’s actions were in breach of the Bill of Rights 1689 which include, …“that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.”  (http://namastepublishing.co.uk/how-ted-heath-and-others-set-out-to-subvert-the-constitution/)
 
11.  The tripartite constitutional arrangement of Parliament as expressed in Chief Justice of the King’s Bench Sir William Blackstones’ “Commentaries On The Laws of England” was laid down in 1295 and was designed never to be changed or undermined in any way and to prevent for all time, any unlawful power-grab or subordination of it by any person or body.  Heath’s clear intention by surrendering Britain to European rule was to remove power from the Government in Westminster to an unelected alien supremacy beyond all control of the British people and based in Brussels.  Intention to undermine and destroy the English Constitution is treason (R vs Thistlewood 1820) and contrary to the above listed Constitutional and Common Laws of England.
 
12.  Through Heath’s precipitating action in collaborating with Brussels and his signing the European Communities Act in 1972, the Queen has been forced and constrained by the actions of a succession of Her ministers to break Her sacred oath of office contrary to English Constitutional Law.  It is the levying of war against the Crown and the sovereign people of this country contrary to the treason Acts.  Heath’s actions were plainly not in the interests of his country of naturalised and sworn allegiance and are therefore major acts of high Treason against the State of the United Kingdom.
 
13.  Heath’s treachery in deceiving and betraying the nation into foreign rule and removal of Her Majesty’s sovereignty are still cloaked in an embarrassed silence.  He led the asset stripping of Britain to an illegal foreign power and the destruction of our fishing, agricultural and manufacturing industries very much to Britain's detriment.  The absolute subordination and demolition of our country are outright treason and rest upon Heath’s shoulders as the originator.
Statement of Facts  -  Treason by Edward Heath 5
 
For betraying his country and giving it away to foreign control and for his services to the European Union, Heath was awarded £75,000 in the guise of the Charlemagne Prize, a prize originally established by the Nazis and which after WWII had been re-launched by "former Nazis" such as Kurt Pfeiffer and Peter Mennicken.  Accepting reward for surrendering Britain to a foreign power was high treason.
 
These facts are beyond dispute :-   
a.  The will of the British people is in law, superior to Her Majesty and Her Parliament.  Acting against the known interest of the British nation in signing the nation away to foreign rule is by  definition a major act of treason contrary to English Common and Constitutional Law.
b.  Heath knowingly and wilfully gave away his Queen and country to foreign rule by a foreign power.  It was the most grievous act of high treason in British history.
c.  Wilful deceit and lying to the British nation for others’ political gain is an act of treason.
d.  The intentional destruction of the English Constitution and its law is a major act of treason
e.  Any Act or Treaty concluded by means of fraud, perjury or treason cannot stand and is ultra vires, null and void.  The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA1972) signed by Heath is such an Act as by the invalidity of treaties so signed under the Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties 1969 and 1986, it has no legitimacy.  Heath’s knowing attempt to sign away his country for his own and others gain was treason.
f.  Signing such an Act while knowing its true purpose of surrendering Britain to foreign rule was a major act of treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Act of Praemunire, an act of treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1689/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
g.  The instant Heath put pen to paper to sign the ECA1972, he dismissed himself from lawful office as his act was outright treason, far beyond his lawful and official authority.  Treason has no legitimacy. 
h.  In signing the ECA1972 without the authority or consent of the Monarch and the nation to do so, Heath placed himself above the Queen, an act imagining the death of Her Majesty, itself a major act of treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848. 
i.  Heath’s then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly having no legitimacy or power to govern.   
j.  Heath’s acting against the nation’s known interests, intention to surrender Britain’s sovereignty, using willful deception to deliberately mislead and betray the nation and in acting in the political interests of a foreign power are effectively to declare war on the British Crown and the nation.  That is high treason contrary to (among others) the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848 listed above.
k.  The Monarch is the living embodiment of the Constitution and Her Sovereignty represents the supremacy of the Constitution.  Heath’s intention to foreseeably abolish the Monarchy and Constitution was an act of outright high treason. 
l.  To purposely undermine the Constitution of the United Kingdom is an act of treason (R vs Thistlewood 1820) 
Statement of Facts  -  Treason by Edward Heath 6
m.  No person including Her Majesty, is above the law.  Heath could have and ought to have been be arrested and prosecuted for his acts of treason against Britain.
 
In any trial for treason, the points to prove beyond all reasonable doubt are :-
 
Did the person do the acts alleged in the charge ?
 
Does the person have a duty of allegiance to the head of state (Her Majesty The Queen), her subjects (the British people) and the United Kingdom as a sovereign nation state, the offender’s country of birth and to which a duty of loyalty and allegiance is owed ? 
 
All of the above will prove beyond reasonable doubt that Heath is guilty of High Treason.  His actions and statements are on record for all time as having been done and said by him knowingly and deliberately.  This evidence is incontrovertible fact recorded in history.   
 
The following are particularly relevant
 
Laws against establishing a foreign power in England http://www.heretical.com/mkilliam/treason.html
 
Edward Heath and a letter from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office 1972. http://www.theeuroprobe.org/edward-heath-and-a-letter-from-the-foriegn-commonwealth-office1972/
 
Heath lied to us. http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/britain-europe-bruges-group/
 
Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally? http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html
 
Heath and 1970 http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=91#heath
 
Foreign and Commonwealth Office file FCO 30/1048  -  selected and annotated extracts:  http://www.euexit.com/fco-30-1048.html
 
“Shoehorned Into The EU”  -  Over 600 pages of Foreign and Commonwealth Office documentary evidence of treason by Britain’s politicians, released into the public domain. http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-related-downloads/
=====================================================
Letter to Wiltshire Chief Constable
 
Mike Veale 
Chief Constable
Wiltshire Police HQ
London Road
Devizes
SN10 2DN
 
10 April 2017
 
Sir,
 
HISTORICAL CRIMES
 
Today, I watched your video open letter presentation about the historical abuse allegations against Edward Heath, one time Prime Minister.  I note your use of the word ‘proportionate’ which normally when used by a constable today is a get out of jail free card.
 
However I also noted the fact that you claimed your investigation would be an impartial thorough investigation and that the closer the person is to the State, the greater is the obligation to fully investigate on behalf of the public.  Also that the college of policing guidelines state that you have a positive duty to investigate cases.
 
I had the great misfortune to meet Edward Heath when I was working in his house in Chelsea and he was the most odious man I have ever met.  Had I known then what I know now, I would have dragged him kicking and screaming to the nearest police station.
 
Enclosed are over 400 pages of official government papers obtained under the 30 year rule by Mr David Barnby who gave them to me to read as being of historical interest, my having an interest in English history.  On the 19th May 1986 for my sins however, I was attested into the Metropolitan Police as a special constable.  My bedtime reading was the last edition of Moriarty’s Police Law, the last police book on police law ever to include offences against the state.  So ten minutes into my reading my historian’s hat was thrown into the corner and I was wearing my police officer’s helmet and thinking, “My God, this is sedition”.
 
The papers I am sending you evidence quite clearly that Edward Heath set up a conspiracy to subvert the English Constitution, the major offence at common law of sedition and to hand this ancient Kingdom over to a foreign power lock, stock and barrel  -  the major offence of TREASON.
 
I make this allegation that Edward Heath, whilst holding the highest political office in the land, set up a conspiracy to betray Britain for financial gain.  He was in fact given £60,000 by the EEC for being the best politician in Europe, a disguised but very public payment for his sedition and treason.
 
Edward Heath lived in your force area and is currently buried in Salisbury Cathedral opposite his last home which, the last time I heard, was dedicated as a museum to him.
 
The government papers I enclose are marked confidential, restricted, secret or have a foreign office stamp on them and are signed by those whose hands they passed through, these people being just the tip of the iceberg.  If I were still a serving police officer, I would be collecting the personnel diaries, computers and other papers from Heath’s entire collection as well as from his cabinet and every civil servant involved in these most serious crimes.  Crimes, I would suggest, far more serious than the alleged child abuse you are currently investigating, serious though those allegations are.
 
I am aware that today’s police are not trained in offences against the state.  So I will give some examples of the various treason offences.  Treason in essence is a betrayal of the Sovereign or the State and this can occur in a number of ways.  Edward Heath’s treason was a betrayal of the State for which the EEC paid him £60.000.  In the 1970’s £60,000 was a considerable amount of money which today would probably run into the millions.  The money he received was publicly dressed up as an award for being the best politician in the EEC. 
 
Definitions of treason
 
It is a definition of treason to so run down the Kingdom’s armed forces such that they are no longer able to defend this country.
 
It is a definition of treason to so run down the farming and fishing industries so that they can no longer feed the nation’s population.
 
It is a definition of treason to so run down our manufacturing industry that we can no longer meet our own needs
 
It is a definition of treason to sell off English assets to foreign owners.  This is the ancient crime defined by the 1351 Act of Provisos which King Edward III considered an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England.
 
It is a definition of treason to import foreign law into this country, to have any of the King’s subjects excommunicated by a bishop on the orders of the Pope or to draw any of the King’s subjects out of this country to be tried in a foreign court.  These are crimes under the 1351 Act of Praemunire that King Edward III considered to be an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England.
 
It is a definition of treason to allow or encourage immigration to this country such that it replaces the indigenous population and religion.
 
All of the above treasons have been committed and are ongoing largely as the result of Heath’s treasonable actions.
 
You will note that I referred to Edward Heath holding the highest political office in the land, not as you stated the highest office in the land.  The highest office in the land is held by her most Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II who is in law the Supreme Governor of England from which all her other titles, supremacies and superiorities flow and to whom you and I both took our oaths of office as constables and to whom we both owe a duty of loyalty and allegiance which over rides everything else.
 
The Act of Provisos was repealed in the 1948 Criminal Law Revision Act;  the Act of Praemunire was repealed in the 1967 Criminal Law Act.  But the question we must ask ourselves is, is the honour and dignity of King Edward III any greater than the honour and dignity of Queen Elizabeth II ?   Of course it cannot be.  They both hold the Office of the Crown.  And the Office of the Crown is unchangeable so if an act was treason to King Edward III, it will also be treason for Queen Elizabeth II.
 
I request and require you to investigate the allegations of sedition and treason evidenced in the enclosed papers.  Pay particular attention to the foreign office note which clearly states that it is important for our politicians to obtain positions of authority ready for the day when the European Parliament takes over our country.  This note was written in the 1970’s more than 40 years ago and is a clear admission that they were selling Her Majesty, Her Kingdom and each individual member of the British public to a greater Europe.  You also need to note the contents of the Lord Kilmuir letter and the legal opinion given by Leolin Price QC who did not give the legal opinion he was asked for, but instead tried to get me to take out a private prosecution.  On querying this, he gave an amended opinion stating that the case was arguable.  If it is legally arguable, it is a legal requirement that you investigate the allegation in accordance with your oath of office.
 
Also enclosed is the allegation of treason against Major, Hurd and Maude over the Maastricht treason which rides on the back of the Heath treason, where they attempted the constitutional impossibility of making Her Majesty a mere citizen of Europe.  This was an act of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act which is still fully in force to this day.  I further enclose a book written by David Barnby about the Heath documents he obtained from the Public Record Office.  I also include my own book on the English Constitution which you should read before anything else as you most importantly need to understand the basic principles of the English Constitution.
 
Respectfully submitted
 
Albert Burgess
 ====================================================
Chief Constable M Veale Wiltshire Police Headquarters London Road Devizes Wiltshire SN10 2DN
 
 
 
 
(Your address)
 
 
12 April 2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dear Chief Constable
 
Extension of Project Conifer
 
After watching your video open letter () on Youtube about Operation Conifer, there is a far more serious and sinister matter relating to the late Edward Heath MP that you should also investigate in the public interest.  As serious as the allegations of his paedophilia are, the much more grave issue of Heath’s high treason against Her Majesty the Queen, the English Constitution, established English Law, the British Government and every individual member of the British nation has never been investigated even though considerable clear evidence exists to support the claim. 
 
Enclosed are a Statement of Facts that provides basic details of the case for treason against Heath and a CD “Shoe-Horned into the EU”.  The CD contains well over 600 pages of evidential government papers including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office file FCO30/1048, a transcript of whose pages I have printed out for your convenience.  All of these official documents were kept secret from the British public for 30 years on the express order of Heath with the intention that their eventual release to the public domain would come far too late for Britain to be able to leave the EEC/EU.   
 
Also enclosed is a copy of Lord Kilmuir’s advice to Heath about the constitutional implications that would arise from Heath’s planned political action, which action he undertook anyway in full knowledge that it would be an act of treason.  The enclosed material is not exhaustive as to the treason evidence against Heath.  You will find considerable further evidence in other government papers, Hansard, magazine and newspaper articles and particularly in TV and press archives, upon your investigation of the matter. 
 
Though an elected public official, Heath did not hold the highest office in the land as you state, since that position can be held only by the reigning Monarch, Her Majesty the Queen.  As British Prime Minister, Heath not only owed a lifetime duty of loyalty and allegiance to the Crown from birth, but he had additionally sworn three parliamentary oaths of allegiance before taking office in Westminster, all of which he knowingly and wilfully violated contrary to the known interests of the British nation, for his own financial gain and for foreign political benefit.  He deliberately gave away his queen and country to foreign rule.  Heath’s actions are unquestionably acts of treason of the first magnitude, the
most grievous in British history and are major breaches of English Constitutional and Common Law as detailed in the accompanying Statement of Facts. 
 
You have been designated to investigate Edward Heath for the crime of paedophilia.  As a member of the British public living in Wiltshire reporting and providing basic evidence of the most serious crime in English law having been committed by Heath, I require you in the public interest and as a matter of paramount importance to the British nation to undertake an equally thorough criminal investigation of Heath’s treason and follow it wherever it takes you, without fear or favour.   
 
Will you please acknowledge receipt of this material, confirm the opening of your investigation of the matter and provide me with the allocated major crime book number, that I may follow its progress.  As a member of the British public, it is my duty according to English Common Law to ensure I that do everything in my power to bring such serious allegation to police notice and satisfy myself that the alleged crime is fully and properly investigated.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
(Your name and email)
======================================================
The Kilmuir Letter
In answer to a request by Edward Heath MP on 30 November 1960, the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir replied making it clear that there were serious problems with the limitations imposed by English Constitutional and Common Law on Britain’s joining the then EEC.  Lord Kilmuir mentions ways in which the Constitution will conflict with Heath’s plans but he also indicates ways of subverting that conflict. The additional comments inserted in redin the Kilmuir letter below show very clearly that the Heath Government was fully prepared to commit acts of sedition and treason in order to take the UK into the EEC.  Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir.
My Dear Ted, You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome.   I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me.   I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation.   At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious, that does not mean that I consider them conclusive.   I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.
He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is a very clear act of Treason because our Constitution expressly forbids any such surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which states: Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war.
The ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John.  He held it only in trust for those who follow him and by the law of kingship, he must pass it on to his successors in the state in which he received it.  In any case, the money that the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid because England’s Kings were NOT vassal Kings to the Pope nor was the money legitimately owed.
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:a)Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community; b) The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the Community;
The English Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign.  The Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power nor even, to our own parliament because they are mere servants of the Monarch.  Sovereignty itself cannot be given away as it resides with the people who entrust it to the Monarch for his/her lifetime and the Monarch is obliged by law to pass that sovereignty on to any successor as it was received.
c) Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.
It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign.  The European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign.  Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.
The position of Parliament: It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land. There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:
It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England.  This is illegal under the 1351 Treason Act.  Also the 1351 Act of Premunire which was brought in by King Edward III because he believed it an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England to have laws imposed upon his Kingdom by a foreign power.  It was illegal that any of his subjects be taken out of England to be tried in a foreign court or for his Bishops to excomminicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope. It is a further Praemunire to allow foreign laws to effect England as this is entirely contrary to the Act of Praemunire 1392, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations requiring action by us.   The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it.
A parallel [to the position of Britain and the EU] would be, for instance, the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passed British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada.  In this respect Parliament here would have in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
No such power exists for Parliament to do this.  This would be an act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act,  a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Act of Praemunire, an act of Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
It would in theory, be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community.   For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons.  Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act
on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable, we should therefore have to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster.   In short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.
There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs.   And it would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Act of Praemunire and Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Regarding Treaty-making powers: The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and OEEC restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval.  But to transfer to the Council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition.
There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of the sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body.   To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state.   I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case.
Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved:  as you know, treaty-making power is vested in the Crown.  Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation, to take two examples, and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents.   But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.
This is a complete surrender of our Sovereignty, a clear act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Independence of the Courts There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’  --  to accept that court’s decision.  You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it.  I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important.  I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them.   I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objections to them.   But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this state, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on.
Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their full weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale.  In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty:  My concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.
Yours ever, David
It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of Law to the domination of a foreign court outside Her Majesty’s control.
************************
THE POLITICAL RECORD OF EDWARD HEATH
    Lies to Parliament and people (covered up for 30 years)   Sir Edward was so convinced of the benefits for Britain of joining the European Economic Community that he was prepared to lie about it. On the implications of our joining the then E.E.C. in 1972, he said: "There will be no loss of essential national sovereignty". On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue at the time he said it. His notorious answer was "Of course, yes"   Heath knew he was telling a lie in 1970 because he had been obliged to commission a study of the constitutional implications of membership of the EEC. The Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir who conducted the study wrote to Heath (in a letter kept secret for 30 years) that:
It is clear …..that the Council of Ministers could …… make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. 
we should have therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments (in other words that it was no longer a Parliament) we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgment on the legislative proposals put before it. 
…..in this respect Parliament here has in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position,    Betrayal of Her Majesty’s Sovereignty   The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom swears an oath which includes    “You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States or Potentates...”   I need hardly remind you of  the Articles of Religion of the Church of England which state “The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm..... doth appertain and is not, nor ought to be subject to any Foreign Jurisdiction...”. A position which Heath deliberately and deceitfully overturned by doing what Lord Kilmuir specifically warned would be an unprecedented surrender of constitutional power.   
 2
It was Kenneth Clarke who confirmed in Parliament that Her Majesty the Queen was now a "citizen of the European Union" - and therefore no longer a sovereign but a Suzerain.   Awarded Charlemagne Prize (founded by Nazis)   For betraying his country and for his services to the European Union Heath was awarded £75,000 and the Charlemagne Prize, a prize originally established by the Nazis and after the war re-launched by "former Nazis" like Kurt Pfeiffer and the Aachen Professor Peter Mennicken (who had taken over his Chair from an expelled Jew)    Negotiated with Fascist Spain to give away Gibraltar over the heads of its inhabitants.     In the early 1970s Prime Minister Heath started negotiations. In 1973 Spain was a fascist dictatorship and yet Heath was prepared to negotiate with that country the status of a British dependency with a democratic government against the wishes of its people. Heath also offered Spain political and cultural access to Gibraltar to start the process of "persuading" the Gibraltarians to give up British sovereignty.   Leasehold reform gave him right to buy in Salisbury Close depriving the Church of its assets.   Heath took advantage of the Conservative Government’s Leasehold Reform Act to force the Church of England to sell him the freehold of his house in Salisbury Close. This legislation was oppressive and illiberal and overturned the basic principles of democratic property rights.   Apologist for and beneficiary of Chinese communism    Edward Heath was a close friend of Chinese Communism (a regime which executed thousands of dissidents every year) and he benefited greatly from association with a number of large Chinese corporations, the remuneration from which he never declared to Parliament. He was on record as saying in defence of Chinese totalitarianism that “you can’t have a democracy with so many people”. Doubtless this is what he had in mind in building a Europe of 500million people by anti democratic means.
 
This is an email from Westminster Abbey. This email may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient and/or receive this email in error, please accept our apology. If so, you should not disclose the contents to any other person, nor place any reliance upon it, or copy, produce or forward all or any of it in any form. We should be obliged if you would immediately telephone us on 020 7222 5152 or email [email protected] and then delete the message from your system. _________________________________
FCO 30/1048: Heath Knew It Was Treason
  This classified government document dated April 1971 remained secret until it was released under the 30 year rule. It proves Heath's government knew the 1972 EEC Treaty would lead to the loss of sovereignty, and was therefore treason. They had a stunningly accurate picture of the EU, which never was the EEC (an Economic Community), expecting Britain to be abolished after the turn of the century.  The authors, all civil servants or ministers, are very pro EU, their intent is clearly to conceal the loss of sovereignty. But they understood perfectly it would all be abolished. In public Heath's government all lied the treaty would not affect our sovereignty.  This includes Douglas Hurd, still an active senior Conservative, who is also both a liar and a traitor, a point we put to him at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool. He assured us his connections in the legal profession would ensure he was never convicted.   Here are just a few of the damning sentences:   Parliament controlled 11. Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action. For the first time. Parliament is binding its successors.   Increasing loss of sovereignty The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome "to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples ". Small threats to sovereignty, like Burgess, Blunt and Maclean's selling secrets to the Russians, attract 30 year jail sentences. The penalty for actually loosing even small parts of it until 1998 was "to hang by the neck until dead."   King Charles 1st was executed for treason that was, by comparison, relatively minor.  Lord Haw Haw (“Germany Calling” - William Joyce) was hanged for treason on 3rd January 1946. His efforts on behalf of Germany were tiny by comparison with Edward Heath’s.   Our law subservient 12. (ii) The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court's decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute. The writ of a foreign power is not allowed under the British Constitution, which Heath was breaking.   Predicting monetary and military union 18..but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy.  If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.   No withdrawal, sovereignty diminished 22.   Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member states can hardly lose the "last resort" ability to withdraw in much less than three decades.  The Community's development could produce before then a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful.    If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty (and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and practical would indeed be diminished.   Disinformation After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community.    Transfer of the Executive 24 (ii) The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government.    Erosion of sovereignty 24 (v) ...The more the Community is developed ... the more Parliamentary sovereignty will be eroded. ...The right ... to withdraw will remain for a very considerable time. ...The sovereignty of the State will surely remain unchallenged for this century at least.   The EU Bureaucracy will rule 25.   The impact of entry upon sovereignty is closely related to the blurring of distinctions between domestic political and foreign affairs, to the greater political responsibility of the bureaucracy of the Community and the lack of effective democratic control.   The writers understanding of the future of the EU was bang on. They wanted the bureaucracy to take over from the democracy. The loss of sovereignty was desirable for them, legally traitors working deep inside our government.
 
FCO 30/1048 Transcribe  -  Heath Knew It Was Treason 2
A Case for Treason FCO 30 1048 Download the orginal FCO 30 1048 (Large download - can take up to 15 minutes)  This is the transcribe of the document FCO 30 1048
 
 
Folio No
Reference Date
101 AE (71) 7th Meeting
17.06.71
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr SinclairThe Legal Advisers have helped me in redrafting the opening passage of that draft and The above listed Cabinet document(s), which was/were enclosed on this file, has/have been removed and destroyed. For complete series of Cabinet documents see CAB (CABINET OFFICE) CLASSES Signed Margaret Shatwell      Dated 21.12.00   TMr Logan FACTSHEET ON SOVEREIGNTY 1)    You will wish to show Mr Royle Mr Rippon's minute below. 2)    Meanwhile I submit a draft let ter from you to the Lord President's Private Secretary.  I hope I have not gone too far in voicing our continued worries about question and Answer No 16. EID feel it would be better to leave this out. W.J.Adams European Communities Information Unit             1st July 1971 Copy to: Mr Pakenham Mr Statham Mr Watts (Legal Advisers)   LETTER PLP Davies Esq Office of the Lord President            Mr Logan I enclose a draft on Sovereignty for inclusion in the Factsheet series "Britain and Europe". It has been cleared with the Minister and with the Law Officers. You will recall that we are committed to a Factsheet on Sovereignty.  We are rather worried about the impact on Parliamentary opinion of Question and Answer No 16. There is no way so far as we can see of softening the wording.  The fact of the primacy of community legislation cannot be disguised.  But I feel that there is a case for omitting it altogether.  If the Lord President agrees with this view, we shall however have to go back to the Law Officers. The Legal Advisers consider that this is a central question and that MP's would be bound to ask why we had dodged this matter. As usual, time is very short. The absolute deadline for getting a text to the COI is not later than Monday, 5th July, if we are to achieve our publication target of Thursday/Friday, 15/16th July. The proposal is to issue this Factsheet in a join edition with the new Factsheet on the Free Movement of Labour which, as you know, the Department of Employment want us to publish urgently.   SOVEREIGNTY Sovereignty is a complicated subject which can be debated at length. Such a debate would be out of place in this Factsheet. It is thought to be more helpful for the Factsheet to single out some of the practical questions which arise in this context and to answer them as simply as possible. 1)  Would the position of the Monarchy be affected? Joining the Common Market would not affect the position of the Monarch. Three of the existing members of the European Communities are Monarchies, and two of the other applicant States are also Monarchies. 2)  Would the constitutional position of the Crown Parliament be affected by entry into the European Communities? Entry into the European Communities would not in itself have any effect upon the constitutional position of the Crown in Parliament.   3) By entering the European Commun


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4013
  • +75/-0
Re: Edward Heath's Treason
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2017, 06:13:11 PM »
Download Save to OneDrive - Personal



Dear Chief Constable.
                                         I note that you have made a public statement about the allegations of pedophilia and murder alleged to have been committed by the deceased Edward Heath. I note that you stated that pressure had been placed on you to stop this investigation. I write to offer you support for what must be a difficult decision for you to continue with the investigation. The Mail criticism of you was stupid because to suggest that you stop the investigation would stop you researching what is important history. If our prime minister laid himself open to blackmail then that is an important historical fact.
I believe that Heath was indeed blackmailed. How else would he commit treason by signing away my sovereignty after being advised by the attorney general in the now published letter that signing, what became the treaty of Rome, was against our constitution.
I appreciate the pressures that some in our establishment place on your shoulders. 
The crime complaint accepted by your predecessor regarding the treason by those signing the Maastricht treaty, as detailed in your force crime number,
5411010866 has been sat on by the Met Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe' who has now stated that the reporting of such crime was vexatious. In reality, by stating that he has criticised your predecessor for accepting the crime.You must know that Heri De Bracton's judgement that police officers must investigate crime because not to do so would be to take away the authority of the courts. Bernard Hogan Howe has obviously has succumbed under establishment pressure.

If you find comments like this helpful please feel free to use them.

 Yours sincerely, John Timbrell.




email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL