against
John Major, Francis Maude and Douglas Hurd.
I have attached BELOW the first 5 pages consisting of the allegation as a taster!
The other 39 pages contain copies of pages from a number of law books and other EU papers can be downloaded from this link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ni1kgf8nedaogk/Mastricht%20Treason.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ni1kgf8nedaogk/Mastricht%20Treason.pdf
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ENGLISH
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
OR
‘TREASON AT
MAASTRICHT’
INDEX
Page
1 - 5 Treason Allegation
6 - 14 Maastricht Treaty
15 – 21 Select Documents of English
Constitutional History, Adams and Stephens London Macmillan & Co Ltd 1921
22 – 32 Sir Mathew Hales Chief Justice of the
Kings Bench, Prerogatives of the King
Vol 92 Seldon Society 1975 from an original written in 1713.
33 – 44 Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of
England 1765 By Forgotten Books
Allegation
1. The Treaty on
European Union (Official Journal C 191, 29 July 1992) (item 1) was an
international treaty signed by the High Contracting Parties, which included Her
Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Treaty stated that it:
"RESOLVED to
mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with the
establishment of the European Communities."
and it:
"RESOLVED to
establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries."
Article 8 expanded
on these resolutions. Under the heading "Citizenship of the Union"
article 8 said:
"1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby
established.
Every person
holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
2. Citizens of the
Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to
the duties imposed thereby."
This treaty was
later made part of UK and Northern Ireland domestic law by an Act of Parliament
namely the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 (c.32).
John Major was
Prime Minister during the time when negotiations on the Treaty were being
conducted and he was the Minister responsible for advising the Queen to sign.
When he came back from the negotiations in Maastricht he said that HM the Queen
was now a citizen of Europe. In view of Article 8 of the Treaty and the words
in the recitals, quoted above, this is an accurate statement of the Treaty's
legal effect. There were two plenipotentiaries designated by Her Majesty the
Queen in the Treaty - these were Rt. Hon.Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Hon. Francis Maude, Financial
Secretary to the Treasury. They were recorded as having agreed to article 8.
3. The question for
the police is whether the signing of this Treaty was one which was legal under
the English Constitution.
That England does
have a very ancient constitution is clear. It goes back (at least) to the days
of King Alfred (b.841) who recorded the laws and customs of all the old
kingdoms over which he ruled in a book called 'the Dome' (taken from Doom
meaning punishment). Each of Alfred's laws was based on the teachings of Holy
Scripture. Alfred showed the Dome to the Witan (councillors of a Saxon King) who agreed that it
contained good law. It was issued throughout Alfred's England as the King's
law.
This forms the
basis of our modern English constitution. It has been argued that it no longer
applied after the Norman Conquest. However, it is most apparent from the
Doomsday book compiled by William the Conqueror in 1086 that the former laws
were then in force (see Government of England p8 para (2) (item 3) and
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England p199 (item 4)).
From the time of
King Alfred there has been a tradition of refusal to accept foreign
interference in England's affairs. During the reign of that king, he decided
upon a suitable candidate for Archbishop, but the Pope had other ideas, sending
him an Archbishop from Rome. Alfred returned the Pope's choice but the Pope sent
him back to Alfred again with a message that he, the Pope, appointed every king
in the world and if Alfred wanted to remain king he would have to accept the
Archbishop chosen by him. Despite this, Alfred sent the Archbishop back to the
Pope with another message: that he was elected King by the English and would do
what was in their best interest.
This theme in
constitutional law was subsequently developed. King John, in 1213, was having a
great deal of trouble from the Barons and the population generally. He had been
using foreign mercenaries to suppress the population because his own soldiers
refused to do so. And he enraged the Barons by taking advantage of their wives.
Fearing for his own safety, he handed over England to Archbishop Pandolph, the
Papal legate, receiving it back again to rule as a vassal king to the Pope for
payment of 1000 marks a year. John's Concession of the Kingdom to the Pope and
the Oath of Fealty he took are at document 25 (p38-39) of English
Constitutional Documents (item 2). This is also mentioned at p16-17 of item 3.
King John died in
1216. His son, King Henry III was a minor and John appointed as his guardian
the Earl of Pembroke, one of those who had supported King John in surrendering
England to the Pope. The rent was paid during the King's minority (see p17 of
item 3). On reaching an age when he was able to rule in his own right, he
informed the Pope that, he, Henry, was the sole arbiter of all things to do
with the Church in England and that he answered directly to God and not the
Pope. Henry ceased paying the 1000 marks a year to the Pope and rejected claim
that he was a vassal king to Rome (p17 of item 3). The Earl of Pembroke was,
with the others who assisted King John in surrendering England to the Pope,
tried as a traitor and dealt with according to law. The vast majority of the
barons refused to accept the Pope's authority, it should be said.
Subsequently, in
1366, King Edward III received a letter from the Pope demanding the 1000 marks
a year for every year that it had not been paid and threatening action if the
monies were not received. Edward III spoke to the bishops and the Lords, who
spoke to the Commons. This is recorded at p 130 of English Constitutional
Documents (item 2) and at p17 of item 3.
First the bishops,
then the lords and finally the commons came to Edward and told him that England
had not been King John's to give away. Under English law. John had only held
England in trust for his successors and therefore the agreement between the
Pope and King John was not valid. By giving England to the Pope, John had
broken the law. The money was not owed and should not be paid.
It will be noted
from p130 of item 2 that Edward III prayed the prelates, dukes, earls and
barons for their advice and good council. The prelates asked the king to take
counsel by themselves alone and to answer on the morrow. On the said morrow,
first the prelates by themselves, and then the other dukes, earls, barons and
the great men answered. They said that neither the said King John, nor any
other could put himself, nor his realm, nor his people in such subjection
without their assent and accord. And the commons having been questioned upon
this and having taken counsel together answered in like manner.
This is a major
constitutional ruling. It is important to note that the King consulted the
prelates, the other dukes, earls, barons and great men and then the commons
separately. King Edward III attended his parliaments and this discussion was
held in his absence. As such, it can only be reversed by a meeting of the three
estates of England and not by Parliament.
It is important in
this context to understand that the king is not one of the three estates of the
kingdom. He is head of the three estates and not one of them. This appears as
by many evident instances, so especially by two: namely the confirmation of the
peace with France sent over by the King to be approved by the three estates viz
the Lords spiritual and the Lords temporal and the commons, Rot. Parl. 9 H.5
[pt.1] n. [18] and in the usurpation of Richard III the instrument whereof is
sent into the parliament to be confirmed by the three estates, Rot Parl. 1R.3
[n.1]. The King is sovereign and head of the three estates and as every person
by his allegiance owes a subjection to the king as his sovereign, so these
three estates taken apart as three several bodies or taken collectively as
making up one body in parliament owe their subjection to the king as their head
and accordingly profess it (see p13 of item 3). The recognitions of this are in
1 Eliz, cap 3 and 1 Jac. Cap. 1(p11 of item 3).
It should be stated
that by the custom and practice of parliament the King must be present. All our
Kings and Queens up to and including Queen Anne attended Parliament. It was not
until King George I, who spoke no English that the King ceased to attend
Parliament and ceased to take part in Government. From that date (1720) the
Commons have taken every opportunity to assume the Royal Prerogative, claiming
that the Bill of Rights 1689 transferred sovereignty to Parliament. It does not
do so: sovereignty remains with the King or Queen.
This major
constitutional ruling by the three estates decided that the king only holds
England in trust for those who follow on and has no authority to dispose of the
kingdom to anyone. This is well expressed at p11 of item 3. It states:
"That the supreme administration of this monarchy is lodged in the King,
and that not only titular, but really". In 26 Hen, cap 1, it is stated,
"The King, our sovereign Lord, his heirs and successors kings of England
shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head of the church of
England". 1 Eliz. Cap 3 " The three estates the realm assembled in
parliament, viz the Lords spiritual, lords temporal, and commons do recognise that the queen "is and in very deed and
of the most mere right ought to be, by the laws of God and the laws and
statutes of this realm" etc. The supreme administration annexed to the
person of the prince or monarch is not subjected to any other power on earth,
either without the kingdom or within it (p11 item 3). It is also stated at p12
of item 3 "As there is no subjection of the crown to foreign
ecclesiastical power, so neither to a foreign temporal power" (see the
example given there).
The king cannot
even decide who succeeds him on his death: this is laid down in the Common Law
of England. The subject of succession to the Crown is explored in detail in
Blackstone's Commentaries on the laws of England in the third chapter entitled
'of the king and His TITLE' (item 4). At p 191 -2 Blackstone makes the point
that the title is in general hereditary and that has been the case since the
union of the heptarchy
in King Egbert. The importance of this can be shown by Henry II who was the
undoubted heir of William the Conqueror: but he was lineally descended from
Edmund Ironside, the last
of the race of the Saxon hereditary kings (see item 4 at p 200). After an
interruption during the reign of King John (see item 4 at p 201), a clear and
indisputable title vested in Henry III and from him to Richard II the crown
descended in the true hereditary line.
There was a further
interruption when Henry, earl of Richmond asserted his title to the Crown and
became Henry VII. However, he married Margaret of York, eldest daughter of
Edward IV and thereby gained his best title to the Crown. Thus, Henry VIII, the
issue of the marriage, succeeded to the crown by clear indisputable hereditary
right (p204-5 of item 4).
During the reign of
Henry VlIl, by a statute (28 Hen VIII c. 7), the crown was settled on the
King's children by Queen Jane Seymour and his future wives; and in defect of
such children to such persons as the kings by letters patent, or last will and
testament should limit and appoint the same. This was not a power that would
have been valid in any sense unless it was vested in the king by statute.
However, it was never carried into execution; for by the statute 35 Hen. VIII
c. 1 the Kings two daughters were legitimated again (see item 4 p200 and also
p18 of item 3). Whilst this might seem to be inconsistent with the ruling of
1366, as it should have been by the three estates meeting separately, it cannot
overturn that ruling. That can only be done by the three estates meeting
separately. We submit that this power was not valid: and in any event was never
exercised.
Further details of
the hereditary descent of the Crown are contained at item 4 - on page 208
concerning the title to the throne of James I, who united in his person every
possible claim by hereditary right to the English as well as the Scottish
throne, being the heir both of Egbert and William the Conqueror. This shows
that the title to the throne is not in the king's own gift, but is down by the
Common Law and by statute. The present position is that the crown is limited to
the heirs of the body of Princess Sophia, who are protestant members of the
Church of England, and married to none but Protestants (see 12 &13 W. Ill
c. 2 and item 4 p216).
It would be well to
deal with what Hale says in The Rights of the Crown in chapter 2 (see p15 of
item 3). He comments: "And as the people cannot take away any of the
powers thus settled in the Crown so on the other part the king cannot without
the consent of the people transfer the regal power dignity to another. He may
grant prerogatives of interest, privileges and franchises, he may delegate a
prorex or custos regni in his absence without assent of Parliament. But to
resign his kingdom or grant the allegiance of his people to another, this he
cannot do without consent of his kingdom." relation
is reciprocal. The subject hath an interest in the protection of his
prince, which he may not lose without his consent, and that in
parliament". We believe that Hale is wrong on this issue. A set out above
it is only the three estates of England and not a Parliament in session, that
can reverse the ruling made in the year 1366 during the reign of Edward III.
4. This issue
can be approached from another direction. Edward III also claimed the Kingdom
of France. Parliament made him sign an undertaking that, as King of France,
Edward could have say in how England was governed. This undertaking is
contained at page 105 of item 2 (English Constitutional Documents). It records
that "our said realm of England nor the people of the same what estate or
condition they be, shall not in any time to come be put into subjection nor in
obeisance of us, nor of our heirs nor successors as kings of France."
In Government of
England (at p10 of item 3) this is set out in the following manner:
“It is most certain
that the English Government is monarchical and so hath been time out of mind well before the coming in of William I as since. And
this monarchy is of that dignity and antiquity that it gives not place to the
crown of France or Spain".
The German emperor
has claimed some kind of superintendence over all those territories which were
under the imperium orbis Romani, as to make tabellions and notaries. However,
he never prevailed in England - see p13 of item 3.
Although before
Henry VIII the Pope did exercise ecclesiastical power in England the King would
curb it at his pleasure. The King was careful to ensure that the collection of
Peter pence might be taken not of as an arms
and not as recognition of subjection. After the Act of Parliament against provisions
in 35 E.1, there ensued a more quick and sharp Act in 27 E. 3 St. 1. Cap 1
against provisions from Rome and those that put them in execution (see p12 of
item 3). This controlled Papal authority in England.
On page 13 of item
3 it is then stated that as the monarchical power of our English monarch hath
no dependence upon any foreign state or power, so neither is it subject to the
power of the people either distributively, collectively or representatively. The reason is stated: the people have either
by express or tacit consent transferred the sovereignty unto the king according
to the just intents thereof. Consequently, the people or three estates cannot
without the concurrence or consent of the king resume the whole regal power or
any part thereof. The example given is that of Richard II who was deposed and
resigned the crown and absolved his subjects from their homage - despite that
this did not excuse Henry IV from a usurpation.
5. In those
circumstances, we respectfully submit that the strict legal constitutional
position is that Queen Elizabeth II has exceeded, by signing the Treaty of
Maastricht, her authority, because she is forbidden the right to give assent to
any treaty which transfers sovereignty to a foreign power. Parliament, which
operates in the Queen’s name, is unable to do what the Queen is forbidden by
law from doing. Only the estates of England, meeting in the same way as in the
reign of Edward III can do this. No such meeting has taken place. This is the
case with all EU/EEC Treaties, which have been contrary to the Common and
Constitutional Laws of England, and constitute High Treason against the laws
and people of England.
6. We would
respectfully suggest that it is your duty to open an investigation for High
Treason into John Major, who was Prime Minister at the time, who advised the
Queen to sign this Treaty and into Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude who acted as
plenipotentiaries in signing the treaty.
7.
Please allocate a major crime number to this matter.
Posts
