You’re Not Gonna Believe This…! Scotland Yard replies after delay of more than three years If you have a long memory you may remember John Gouriet and me petitioning the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, then Sir Ian Blair, on 23 March 2007, asking him to investigate the actions of the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair), Chancellor of the Exchequer (Gordon Brown), Lord Chancellor (Charlie Falconer) and two other key Labour cronies – Alan Johnson, Minister for Education and Jimmy Hood, chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, with a view to prosecution for various malfeasances in government. Today is 4 November 2010. Today I finally received a brief reply, dated 25 October 2010. It took more than three years to write and more than a week to travel by first-class post from Scotland Yard in central London to Hampshire. But why reply now? Something smells fishy to me. The original submission had been hand-delivered to Scotland Yard at midday on 23 March 2007 by myself and the late, great John Gouriet, past campaign director of the Freedom Association and then chairman of Defenders of the Realm. We chose the date as it was the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome and we knew celebrations were planned in London, Berlin and Brussels. We set out to spoil the party. We invited the Metropolitan Police to investigate the activities of the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet and Nu- Labour, and hold them accountable under the law. Our supporting documents presented prima facie evidence of contempt of statute, breaches of the British constitution, and breaches of their oaths of office. The documents also invited the Metropolitan Police to consider other possible offences under the law. We deliberately left that door open. We argued that all five men knew that they were party to the transfer of public funds to a recipient (the EU) known to be corrupt. Each, separately, had also been involved in other breaches of their oaths of office relating to Britain’s membership of the EU. So why a reply now, more than three years later? Who or what prompted it? Certainly not me. Previous reminders and requests for information on progress received no meaningful replies. In the end I admit we gave up. I had not pursued Scotland Yard for longer than I can now recall. Eventually, John and I just accepted the reality – that no-one in government or law-enforcement had the courage to stand up and do what was clearly right in law and by the British people. Then, sadly, and as we all know, John Gouriet died a few short weeks ago. Did his obituaries in the national press ring a few bells in Scotland Yard’s hierarchy? Perhaps the new Home Secretary asked a few quiet questions about Scotland Yard’s reactions to those events of the Blair years. Certainly the Tory front bench had been kept informed. Did it take John’s passing finally to elicit the following weasel words from the laziest member of Scotland Yard’s senior staff? The notorious Janet Williams, a legend for procrastination and non-replies to our letters of enquiry, finally wrote to me, on 25 October 2010, as follows: Dear Mr Mote I refer to your letter dated 23rd March 2007 addressed to DAC John Yates and contained a request to investigate five MPs (sic). AS Yates responded to you on the 27th March 2007 referring the matter to myself. On the 2nd April 2007 I wrote to you acknowledging receipt of his letter (sic). DCS Nigel Mawer reviewed the matter with the assistance of the Department of Legal Services who came to the conclusion that taking into account all the circumstances it was unlikely that any enquiry would lead to a prosecution. DCS Mawer wrote to you on the 8th May 2007 to inform you of the result of his review, but I understand this letter was not received. [How long has she known this?] I have enclosed a copy of the letter for your information. Yours sincerely Janet Williams. Leaving aside Williams’ deplorable grammar, the disingenuous reference to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and Chancellor of the Exchequer as being amongst ‘five MPs’ is quite breathtaking. In any case, they were not “five MPs”. She got that wrong as well. Falconer was a member of the Upper House. The brief letter she attached, allegedly written by Mawer on 8th May 2007, is equally revealing. It starts by apologising for the delay – but if it had been written on that day there would have been no delay requiring an apology. We had delivered our documents a mere five weeks earlier. Any serious investigation was bound to take many weeks. Mawer’s alleged letter went on : “…it is unlikely that any enquiry would lead to a prosecution…no further action will be taken…” Frankly, I don’t believe a word. I would need a great deal of persuading that such a letter was written in May 2007. I may be cynical – with good reason – but when you see, smell and feel a wet fish it probably is a wet fish. So the real question today, over three years later, is this : what has happened recently to spark such a belated and evidently embarrassed response? It is impossible to believe that Williams wrote it voluntarily. Belated internal arse-covering is a far more likely explanation. Perhaps John Gouriet has achieved yet another small victory, even in his passing. I would like to think so. For those with the stomach for it, here in full is the press notice we published on 23 March 2007, and which – as usual – the British media totally ignored. : While EU celebrates 50th Birthday - The European Union’s elite are in Berlin this weekend to start their extravagant ‘celebrations’ of the 50thanniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established what became the European Union. Back in London, with no fanfares, more weighty matters relating to the UK’s membership of the EU are being drawn to the attention of the Metropolitan Police. In Berlin the EU’s German presidency is still trying to agree a 50th anniversary text on alleged EU achievements, values and future challenges – and whether or not the euro should even get a mention. Back in the UK, on Friday 23 March 2007 John Gouriet, (chairman, Defenders of the Realm, and director, Voters Research Association) and Ashley Mote MEP, (Independent, SE England) presented documents to Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates (currently in charge of the cash for honours investigation) at New Scotland Yard. The documents invite the Metropolitan Police to investigate the activities of the Prime Minister and other senior members of the Cabinet, and hold them accountable under the law. The documents argue a prima facie case of misfeasance or malfeasance, contempt of statute, breaches of the British constitution and breaches of their oaths of office. The documents also invite the Metropolitan Police to consider other possible offences under the law. The papers prepared by John Gouriet are based on the fundamental premise that the act of joining the EU was unconstitutional because no parliament elected by the sovereign British people had or has the authority to surrender that sovereignty to others. The sovereignty of the British people is their birthright, enshrined in common and statute law, based on legally binding contracts between the monarch and British subjects. Only conquest by force could deprive the British people of their sovereign rights. The Metropolitan Police are therefore asked to investigate the following ministers with a view to prosecutions under the law : * The Rt. Hon. Anthony Charles Linton Blair MP, Prime Minister, for misfeasance, contempt of statute, breach of the British Constitution and oaths of office, for deceiving HM the Queen on numerous occasions since 1997 amounting to treason. * The Rt. Hon. The Lord Falconer, Lord Chancellor, for misfeasance, contempt of statute, breach of the British Constitution and oaths of office, and treason. * The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP, Secretary of State for Education, for contempt of statute, breach of the British Constitution and oaths of office. * The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, for misfeasance in unlawful disbursement of many billions of pounds Sterling since he became Chancellor in 1997 to a body whose accounts have not been signed off as correct for twelve successive years and where fraud and corruption is endemic, thereby occasioning actual loss and waste of public funds, contrary to the Government Resources Act, 2000. * Mr. Jimmy Hood MP (Labour), Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, for misfeasance in failing to ensure that his committee fully scrutinises the directives being imposed by the EU on the UK and adequately advises or informs Parliament and the general public accordingly of the implications contained therein. (ends) Notes to Editors: Background notes and extracts: a) The British people have been gravely affected by the loss of lawful independent governance in the United Kingdom (UK), as a result of the impact of EU directives and policies imposed on government activities, national life and future prospects of Great Britain. The EU functions by swamping the parliaments of member states with regulations and directives. At the last count they run to over 600,000 pages. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam 1993 ‘fast-track’ procedures permit laws to be adopted in member states immediately after their first reading in the European Parliament. The proportion of fast-track legislation passed into member state law after first reading has increased from 20 per cent five years ago to 60 per cent of all legislation today. In all, over 70 per cent of legislation annually being imposed on Britain now emanates from the EU without Westminster being able to change a single comma. b) Our ancient and enduring Constitution provides entrenched legal safeguards that should clearly limit the government of the day in its activities and oblige it to govern at all times in accordance with the laws of the UK. c) It is clear that not only by the act of joining the then EEC in 1973, but on numerous occasions since in the form of treaties, acceptance of directives and other measures, successive British governments, Labour and Conservative, ministers and parliamentary committees have exceeded their lawful authority. Individuals have breached their oaths of office and the British Constitution. Furthermore by advising and requiring HM The Queen to assent to their unlawful acts, they have at various times deceived Her. They have also placed Her in breach of Her Coronation Oath sworn in June 1953 to govern the people of the United Kingdom in accordance with British laws in force and the custom. This is treason. d) There is a common misconception in learned legal and political circles in Britain that imagines supreme power resides solely with Parliament, or more accurately the government of the day and the Prime Minister. It is claimed that any law, however controversial or contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom, may therefore be made, if necessary by invoking the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book. It can also just as easily be unmade by repeal or by simply introducing a new law to replace it and this includes constitutional law. This deliberately false interpretation of our ancient, well-proven and effective Constitution has even been published in a booklet Inside Britain – A Guide to the UK Constitution, sponsored by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and the Education Secretary, Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP and distributed to schools and seats of learning throughout Britain by a charity on whose board of trustees sits Mrs Blair, the Prime Minister’s wife, using public money unlawfully for party propaganda purposes. We submit that it is an entirely false, misleading and treasonous publication on behalf of which the Lord Chancellor as principal sponsor has abused his high office. ‘Parliament may not destroy its own omnipotence’ (Sir Robert Megarry Vice-Chancellor). e) HM The Queen summed up the historical reality of our constitutional arrangements in Her address to both Houses of Parliament on 20th July 1988 to mark the 300th anniversary of the ‘Glorious Revolution’; Her speech included these words: “The Revolution Settlement put into practice the cardinal principles of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the separation of powers, ushering in an epoch of freedom under the law … Experience has taught that peoples can enjoy the full fruits of liberty, security and justice only when they are represented in a sovereign legislature whose laws are interpreted by an independent judiciary. The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of parliamentary democracy rests …” The Sovereign retains the power and the duty to dissolve Parliament, refuse assent to Bills that conflict with the Constitution and/or are contrary to the national interest. The Sovereign is not bound to accept the advice of Her politically biased ministers, especially when it is judged not to be impartial or in the national interest. f) The late Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, presiding in the Court of Appeal (January 1977 Gouriet v. the Attorney General and Union of Post Office Workers and others); “To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago ‘Be you never so high, the law is above you’ … Is the Attorney General to be the final arbiter as to whether the law should be enforced or not? … I say that he has no prerogative to suspend or dispense with the laws of England. If he does not give his consent, then any citizen of the land, adversely affected, may ask this court that the law be enforced. … We have but one prejudice. That is to uphold the law.” Those words go to the very heart of this plaint against the proposed defendants and were echoed by Sir Edward Coke “No one, be he king or commoner is above the law”. The supremacy of the law is our essential safeguard against tyranny. g) The Tort of Misfeasance in Public Office originated in the premise that public powers are to be exercised for the public good. Parliament intends statutory powers to be exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred. The tort was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences. The offence of malfeasance takes the reckless element a stage further h) The offence of Misconduct in Public Office was defined in Russell on Crime (12th edn 1964 JW Cecil Taylor) ‘Where a public officer is guilty of misbehaviour in office by neglecting a duty imposed upon him either at common law or by statute, he commits a misdemeanour and is liable to statute unless another remedy is substituted by statute. The liability exists whether he is a common law or statutory officer; and a person holding an office of important trust and of consequence to the public, under letters patent or derivatively from such authority, is liable for not faithfully discharging that office’. i) Treason. According to Baroness Scotland replying to Lord Tebbit on 17 November 2004 (HL4921) “Treason remains a criminal offence under the Treason Acts of 1351, 1702, 1795 and 1842 and the Treason Felony Act 1848”, although the 1795 Act had in fact been repealed during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998 which inter alia abolished the death penalty for treason and piracy. Nevertheless treason still ranks above murder as the most serious crime of all. However the Treason Act (1351) is still in place and states ‘that treason is committed when a man be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm’. Under the Treason Felony Act (1848) it is treason if ‘any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen (Elizabeth) from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom’. Archbold Sect 25 quotes ‘High Treason being an offence committed against the duty of allegiance, it may be proper to consider from whom and to whom allegiance is due. With regard to natural born subjects, there can be no doubt. They owe allegiance to the Crown at all times and in all places. Natural allegiance is founded on the relation every man standeth in to the Crown, considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a member. The duty of allegiance ariseth out of it and is inseparably connected with it. The subjects of the King owe him allegiance.’ In the treason case of R. v. Casement (1917) ‘Any act done by a British subject which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the Queen and of the country to resist or attack the enemies of the Queen and country, constitutes giving aid and comfort to her enemies within the meaning of the Treason Act (1351)’. EU law and the EU Constitution that is intended to give it formal legitimacy and supremacy over all national law is not treasonable as it stands but the act of accepting and practising its provisions as superior to and at the expense of existing British law, by overriding the British Constitution would undoubtedly be treason (see R. v. Thistlewood 1820) (notes end) 
4 November 2010 Met Police Asked to Investigate Blair Cabinet
New Offences Alleged Over EU
Contempt of Statute : Breaches of the British Constitution :
Breaches of Oaths of Office : Malfeasance all cited
To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com
Click www.ashleymote.co.uk to visit the site now.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Posts
