Constitutional Conundrum

Uk Column

What is the historical relationship between Her Majesty the Queen and her subjects? Actions to undermine the British Nation State have rarely been brought to the attention of our Courts. One of the most high profile decided cases is that of Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] 1 All ER 186.

What is the historical relationship between Her Majesty the Queen and her subjects?

Actions to undermine the British Nation State have rarely been brought to the attention of our Courts. One of the most high profile decided cases is that of Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] 1 All ER 186. The case concerned the radio broadcast of German propaganda described as an offence of ‘traitorously contriving and intending to aid and assist the…enemies of our Lord the King and his subjects did traitorously adhere to and aid and comfort the said enemies in parts beyond the seas without the realm of England by William Joyce, otherwise known as Lord Haw Haw. ………When determining the issue of whether or not Allegiance to the British Sovereign could be renounced the Court stated @ 190 that

“The natural born subject owes allegiance from his birth, the naturalised subject from his naturalisation, the alien from the day he comes within the realm. By what means and when can they cast off allegiance? The natural born subject cannot at common law at any time cast it off….nor can the naturalised subjects at common law ”.

Within his judgement Lord Jowitt LV stated that “The principle which runs through the feudal law and what I may perhaps call constitutional law requires on the one hand protection, on the other fidelity: a duty of the Sovereign Lord to protect, a duty of the liege or subject to be faithful. Treason, trahison, is the betrayal of a trust: to be faithful to the trust is the counterpart of the duty to protect”.

The European Communities (Amendment) Bill 1986

On 8th October, 1986 the House of Lords debated the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. This is what Lord Denning had to say on the question of allegiance.

“The question which I am seeking to raise before your Lordships this afternoon is: Are the subjects of Her Majesty to be compelled, for their rights and defences, to go over to Europe to courts manned by European judges with a procedure quite unknown to us, a procedure which our own courts have said is not judicial in the least but merely administrative? Are we to let British subjects go over in that way?

Now I come to the British Constitution. We have a basis which is quite unknown in Europe. Each one of us, and each judge (certainly each one here) has the oath of allegiance to the Queen and, corresponding to that in our constitution, is a duty on the Queen to protect us. By our constitution the Queen is the source and fountain of justice. It is at her behest that we have Royal Courts of Justice here; it is at her behest that our judges are Her Majesty’s judges, and it is at her behest, for the protection of all of us in response to our allegiance to her, that she sets up the courts of justice to hear and decide our disputes.

I would like to emphasise that unknown in Europe is this constitutional principle of the allegiance of the British subject on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty of the Crown to protect the British subjects. Let me remind your Lordships of the oath of allegiance. It is constitutional, the oath which every Member of your Lordships’ House takes, and it is from an Act going back 100 years or more: I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God. Every one of your Lordships knows that oath of allegiance. It is part of our fundamental constitution. Let me remind you of our judges’ oath as well: I do swear that I will well and truly serve our sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of a justice of the High Court, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.

This is also part of our Constitution: corresponding to that duty of each British subject to the Queen, the Queen herself is under corresponding duty to protect British subjects in our rights, which we have inherited all the way down the line. I remind you that the Roman Empire had the same duty. There is Paul and so on: “Can you do this to a Roman citizen?”—Civis Romanus sum. You all know that quotation. Did not Palmerston say in 1850, in his greatest speech: As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity when he could say ‘Civis Romanus sum, so also, a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong.”. That duty in England, the duty of protection of our citizens, the correlative of allegiance by the Queen, is done by provision of the police force to protect us, and by the courts of justice which she has established”.

Denning is quite clearly pointing out to the Lords that the constitutional glue that binds each and every one of us to each other and to the nation state is that of allegiance on the one hand and the reciprocal duty to protect on the other. To seek to weaken or undermine this relationship falls within the definition of Treason expressed within the case of Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] 1 All ER 186

However, this is what Lord Campbell of Alloway said later in the same debate:

“We owe, of course, a primary allegiance to the Queen. But we also owe some allegiance to the surrender of sovereignty that we accepted in order to make the system of Europe work”.

This proposition defies logical thought. For the surrendering of sovereignty automatically weakens the ability of the sovereign to protect her subjects. Let’s remind ourselves what Denning said in 1986 in respect of our Police force:

“This is also part of our Constitution: corresponding to that duty of each British subject to the Queen, the Queen herself is under corresponding duty to protect British subjects in our rights, which we have inherited all the way down the line…….. That duty in England, the duty of protection of our citizens, the correlative of allegiance by the Queen, is done by provision of the police force to protect us, and by the courts of justice which she has established”.

The Police Oath

In England & Wales the Police Oath was amended by Section 83 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

“I………………..of………………..do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.’”

I should point out to readers that the font of Human Rights laws is the United Nations. This is the text of the original Oath:

“I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without fear or affection, malice or ill will, and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

Note that the Queen is no longer addressed as ‘Our Sovereign Lady’ and that the Police now swear to ‘prevent all offences against people and property’ and not, as in the previous Oath to’ prevent ‘all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects’.

Not only has the legal relationship between the Sovereign Queen and her subjects been altered but the relationship between the Police and the individual has also been re-defined.

By removing the words ‘Our Sovereign Lady’ the writer of that oath has compiled a document which imagines the death of the sovereign which is a treasonable document under the 1351 Treason Act. It has also removed the Style and Honour of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen by law established, which is an offence of Treason contrary to the 1848 Treason Felony Act. Substituting “all people” for “Her Majesties Subjects” has the same effect. The result of this is that the legal validity of the oath is compromised and persons who have taken it are almost certainly not lawful constables.

If we turn to Magna Carta 1215 we see that Chapter 45 states:

“ We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well”.

So the end result of Parliament’s commitment to the European Union experiment has been that Parliament changed forever the relationship between the Queen and her subjects with the approval of the European Treaties, including the Single European Amendment Act.

Principles of Community law would be imposed on the inhabitants of the United Kingdom These principles would be imposed, not by European Courts of first instance on continental soil but, through the Royal Courts of justice.

The people would not be told of this. Over the following decades, as more and more legislative competencies were surrendered to Brussels by our Parliament in Westminster our common law system would be morphed into the alien ‘corpus juris’ system of the EU that so worried Lord Denning. The protections afforded by habeas corpus, the separation of powers, the presumption of innocence and the protections afforded by due process were to be swept away.

What did the case of Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] say?

“The natural born subject owes allegiance from his birth, the naturalised subject from his naturalisation, the alien from the day he comes within the realm. By what means and when can they cast off allegiance? The natural born subject cannot at common law at any time cast it off….nor can the naturalised subjects at common law ”.

Of all the mysterious processes involved in Britain`s political integration with Europe, initiated by Macmillan and engineered by Heath from 31 July 1961 to 17 October 1972, none is more remarkable than the absence of a single measure repealing any part of any of the four great Constitutional Statutes – Magna Carta of Edward 1, the Petition of Right (1627), the Bill of Rights (1688 ) and the Act of Settlement (1700). Neither have the Coronation Oath Act, the Promissory Oaths Act nor the Treason Statutes been repealed.

We should also point out to our readers that the alteration of constitutional relationship between the Queen and her subjects and the individual and our Police has been consequential to the events of 9/11. This change was obviously deliberately engineered by Traitors in our establishment. Furthermore, they also introduced legislation which inverted our past constitutional relationships by re-labelling Patriots as Domestic Terrorists.

Our conclusion is that we are now governed and our actions policed WITHOUT CONSENT.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s