-----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, 21 May 2001 19:52 Subject: Fw: H.M. the Queen Letter to >Hello John > >Wondered if you had received this. > >Ken Costello > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ron Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:01 PM >Subject: H.M. the Queen Letter to > > >> Hello Ken, >> Strange how things work !! I was conversing with you yesterday and >> after that I received this from another fellow in Alberta, Canada. The >> website address's I previously mentioned are DetaxCanada.org and >> Patriotsonguard.org With patriots we are presently delivering Flyers >> in the city of Calgary to eliminate the Flouride in the water system. >> This program really works. In Canada I believe we can be recognized for >> the stepping down of a City Police chief, 4 court judges, Police being >> transferred to other locations, even a Banker moving to another town. >> We have to use our own Media to deliver the Truth !!! >> Blessings, >> : Calvin-Ronald: Clifford >> (Ron) >> P.S. >> I belive that what you sent me yesterday will be posted on >> Patriotsonguard.org in a few days. Here Fred has a counter on his >> website and he can track the # of hits he gets and where they come >> from. He tells me that the RCMP and Ottawa, (the Federal Gov't) are in >> there 4-5 times a day. You should write Fred a note. >> Ron >> >> Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB >> Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The >> Queen >> Buckingham Palace >> London >> >> 23 March 2001 >> >> >> You were kind enough to invite a letter of >> amplification to accompany >> our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you. >> >> The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major >> constitutional importance. It >> directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and >> undermines oaths of >> loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters >> cannot be considered >> merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They >> directly concern the >> Crown, the constitution and every British subject, >> including generations >> yet unborn. >> >> We find ourselves living in exceptional times, >> which call for >> exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her >> Majesty, which >> exercises rights unused for over 300 years - >> clause 61 of Magna Carta, >> which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of >> Rights. >> >> As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: >> ...and, laying the >> transgression before us, petition to have that >> transgression redressed >> without delay...And we shall procure nothing from >> anyone, directly or >> indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions >> and liberties might be >> revoked or diminished; and if any such things has >> been procured, let it >> be void and null. >> >> We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the >> Royal Assent from any >> Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because >> there is clear >> evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that >> it is in direct >> conflict with the Constitution of the United >> Kingdom. It conflicts with >> Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of >> Rights and, above all, >> with Her Majestys Coronation Oath and the Oaths of >> Office of Her >> Majestys ministers. Every one of these >> protections stand to this day, >> which is why they are now being invoked by our >> petition. >> >> Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majestys >> obligations under >> the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly >> promised to govern the >> peoples of the United Kingdom according to the >> Statutes in Parliament >> agreed on and according to their laws and >> customs. Her Majesty also >> swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by >> law do or shall >> appertain to any of them. >> >> >From the spiritual point of view, it is >> unimaginable that Her Majesty >> would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. >> From a secular point >> of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract. >> >> Recent statements by ministers, and by the >> previous prime minister, >> confirm that they would not advise any measure >> which might tend to >> breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majestys >> promise to her loyal >> subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her >> ministers. Conversely, >> it is their duty to advise in accordance with the >> Coronation Oath. They >> cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they >> gain or remain in power >> without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the >> Treaty of Nice >> represents precisely such a breach, and it has now >> been signed by the >> foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative. >> >> Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says >> of the Royal >> Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of >> the Crown were >> attached to it for the benefit of the people. >> They form part of, and >> are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law >> itself . De prerogativa >> regis is merely declaratory of the common law... >> >> The duties arising from the relation of sovereign >> and subject are >> reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and >> governance of his >> dominions according to law, is the duty of the >> sovereign; and allegiance >> and subjection, with reference to the same >> criterion, the constitution >> and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty >> of the governed We >> have alreadyobserved that the prerogatives are >> vested in him for the >> benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is >> under, and not above, >> the laws. >> >> For such words to have meaning, the act of signing >> the Treaty of Nice by >> the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers >> have de facto >> renounced their oaths of allegiance. >> >> Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking >> ratification of the >> Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for >> Her Majesty to >> dissolve Parliament, or for the government to >> resign and fight an >> election on the issue. The ex-government would >> then be faced with >> seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of >> loyalty under a new >> constitution as part of their new manifesto. This >> would distil the >> issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it >> would allow the people of >> the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they >> wished the constitution >> to be breached in this way, their rights and >> freedoms to be curtailed, >> and the position, powers and responsibilities of >> their sovereign to be >> diminished. >> >> Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who >> have supported our >> petition, no such option exists. >> As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put >> it: all usurped and >> foreign power and authoritymay forever be clearly >> extinguished, and >> never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign >> prince, person, >> prelate, state, or potentateshall at any time >> after the last day of >> this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise >> any manner of power, >> jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence >> or privilegewithin >> this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be >> clearly abolished out >> of this realm, for ever. >> >> So it is clear that no-one - neither sovereign, >> nor parliament, nor >> government, nor people - may tamper with, >> dismantle, destroy or >> surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of >> it, and trustees. We >> inherited these rights, and we have a supreme >> responsibility to pass >> them in good order to future generations. They >> are not ours to discard >> or diminish. >> >> Which is why oaths of allegiance place an >> essential limitation on >> parliament's power, and the Queens Coronation Oath >> is crucial. The >> Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious >> obligation, a sworn >> obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory >> obligation, a common >> law obligation, a customary obligation, an >> obligation on all who swear >> allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it >> is sworn for the >> nation, the commonwealth and all dominions. >> >> The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and >> all subordinate oaths >> are bound by its limitations. The armed services >> swear allegiance to >> the sovereign, not to the government of the day. >> This helps clarify the >> principle that allegiance is necessary, and not >> optional - an essential >> part of the checks and balances of our >> constitution. Without these >> oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have >> little to protect us from >> government by tyranny. >> >> We return now to our reasons for stating that the >> Treaty of Nice is >> unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several >> such clauses. We >> draw particular attention to article 191, which >> seeks to restrict the >> political freedom of Her Majestys subjects. >> >> The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down >> regulations governing >> political parties at European level [ie: in the >> EU] and withdraw or >> prevent the funding of political parties which do >> not contribute to >> forming a European awareness. This is a clear >> restriction of free >> speech and free political association. It also >> introduces two >> particularly abhorrent propositions - taxation >> without representation >> and the use of state sanctions to suppress public >> opinion. >> >> Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of >> Rights says so. It >> cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is >> rightfully inscribed on >> our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. >> - Libertatis >> Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People. >> >> It has been suggested to us that a referendum or >> plebiscite might be an >> acceptable response to the question of >> ratification of the Treaty of >> Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum >> or plebiscite which >> purported to make lawful the infringement of our >> common law rights would >> itself be unlawful. >> >> We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna >> Carta says: We will >> appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or >> other officials, only men >> that know the law of the realm and are minded to >> keep it well.... How >> can such officers of the Crown organize such a >> referendum or plebiscite? >> >> These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 >> and 4 of the Bill of >> Rights: >> >> 1. That the pretended power of Suspending of >> Lawes or the Execution of >> Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of >> Parlyament is illegall. >> (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.) >> >> 2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with >> Lawes or the Execution >> of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene >> assumed and exercised of >> late is illegall. >> >> 4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the >> Crowne by pretence of >> Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer >> time or in other >> manner than the same is or shall be granted is >> Illegall. (This is >> further protection of our common law rights.) >> >> In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered >> for Royal Assent we >> respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an >> opportunity to examine >> the opinion of those who seek to alter our >> constitution by contrary >> advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of >> Magna Carta and the >> Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the >> undersigned, and others - have >> formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be >> available for >> consultation and to monitor the present situation >> as it develops >> ..until redress has been obtained. >> >> We are and remain Her Majestys most loyal and >> obedient subjects. >> >> >> Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & >> Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
