I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and wish to remain so. I am aware of her solemn Coronation Oath to the nation in 1953, to govern the British people 'according to their laws and customs'.

As a loyal British subject, it is my duty to bring to your attention any actions or planned actions which may amount to treason by any individual or group of individuals, or which may occur in the future if not prevented, so that the appropriate action can be taken.

It is AN OFFENCE at Common Law ("Misprision of Treason" - see Halsbury's Statutes, 4th Edition, Vol. 11, p. 818) for any person who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he can to a Justice of the Peace.

It is an offence under Section 1, Treason Act 1795 'within the realm or without...to devise constraint of the person of our sovereign, his heirs or successors'. It is also treason to take any action which would 'overthrow (or tend to overthrow) the laws, government and happy constitution' of the United Kingdom.

Accordingly, I am supplying you with the following information about the treason that I humbly believe will undoubtedly be committed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues if he signs the Treaty of Nice incorporating certain proposals from the European Parliament (see below).

1. CIVIL DISORDER SQUAD

It is now public knowledge that at Feira in Portugal on 19 and 20 June this year a meeting of the Heads of Government of the European Union was held to debate and approve a document entitled: 'Strengthening the Common European Security and Defence Policy', which will set up a European Union 'gendarmerie', Police Riot Unit or 'civil disorder squad', initially of 5,000 men, to be 'run in parallel with the military rapid reaction force [an incipient European Army] that is being developed'. As detailed below, this civil disorder squad may, by Qualified Majority Vote of the countries of the European Union, be granted powers to arrest and detain British subjects on British soil.

For that situation to be permitted by the British Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, who is responsible for legal advice to them, would I believe be an act of treason.

2. AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE

On 12 April this year, the European Parliament approved in its plenary session, with a large majority, a resolution containing proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference leading to the new Treaty due to be signed in Nice in  December this year, which will further amend the existing Treaty of Rome.

Proposal n. 53.4 of the resolution seeks to abolish the national right of veto by the 'introduction of the co-decision procedure and Qualified Majority Voting for all (emphasis added) measures relating to the establishment of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice' - i.e. on all matters relating to the British criminal justice system. The intention is to create a new ‘Single Judicial Area’ across the European Union. Further, proposal n. 53.2 demands the recognition that 'the [European] Court of Justice has full (emphasis added) jurisdiction over all measures relating to the implementation of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice'.

3. EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE QUEEN

It is public knowledge that the said European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is not one of Her Majesty's Courts and is not subject to the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Courts, being located outside the realm.

Indeed, on the contrary, the European Court of Justice is necessarily convinced that Her Majesty's very person is subject to its own jurisdiction under Article 8 of the Treaty of European Union, signed at Maastricht, by which 'every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a 'Citizen of the [European] Union'. Indeed, Rt. Hon. John Major, the then British Prime Minister, publicly announced at the time his  government signed the Maastricht that the status of the Queen had been degraded to that of a 'Citizen of the European Union'.

4. ALIEN CONTROL OF BRITISH ARMED FORCES AND BRITISH POLICE

The Government has claimed that there are 'no plans to use the (aforementioned) civil disorder squad for law enforcement or crowd control within the European Union'. But if the above proposals to remove 'all measures' concerning the area of Freedom, Security and Justice from national control were to be incorporated into the new Treaty, this proviso could readily be reversed by Qualified Majority Voting, against which any opposition by Her Majesty's representatives would thereby be rendered powerless.

The intention to set up a single European Army and a single European Police Force has many times been publicly stated by leading politicians in the European Union, not least the European Commission President, Romano Prodi, who called for 'rapid progress' to be made towards establishing a single European Army. If majority voting were to be adopted, the said paramilitary civil disorder squad could be deployed even within the realm at the behest of European Union authorities who are not Her Majesty’s servants.

An incipient European Police Force, EUROPOL, already consisting of over 2,000 officers, has already been established. Based in The Hague, Holland, its officers have already been granted, by virtue of European Union decisions and regulations passed by our Parliament, lifetime immunity from prosecution whatever offences they may commit in the course of their duties, contrary to common law.

A civil disorder squad, such as proposed by Heads of Government in Portugal, could be deployed at the request of either the Rapid Reaction Force or EUROPOL or other organs of the European Union.

5. AN ALIEN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, AMOUNTING TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE LAWS OF BRITAIN

It has been public knowledge for more than three years that a plan has been drawn up on the orders of the European Commission, known as 'Corpus Juris' (see 9th Report by the House of Lords, Session 1998-9, House of Lords Paper 62, HMSO, 1999), which seeks to introduce a single, uniform system of criminal justice for all Member States of the European Union, with supremacy over national systems of criminal justice, which would gradually be phased out and replaced. ‘Corpus Juris’ was subsequently approved by the European Parliament by a large majority.

This plan explicitly does away with the right of British people, officially confirmed and vouchsafed by Magna Carta in 1215 and maintained for eight centuries since, to be tried by a jury of their fellow citizens (see Article 26.1 of the said 'Corpus Juris', given on page 42 in Appendix 3 of the said House of Lords Report). The Magna Carta provisions relating to jury trial remain part of the constitution of the United Kingdom as all expert commentators agree.

Moreover these rights and freedoms were reaffirmed in the Declaration of Rights 1688, and entrenched in Statute Law in the Bill of Rights 1689. Both included the words ‘And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.’

On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: ‘There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’

If 'Corpus Juris' were to be voluntarily adopted by the United Kingdom, or if it were imposed on the United Kingdom by Qualified Majority Vote of other Member States, it would 'overthrow the laws, government and happy constitution' of our country, a breach of Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795, which stands on the UK’s Statute Book to this day. To sign any Treaty which would in any way permit this to happen would unquestionably constitute the offence of treason. Further, if the veto on justice and home affairs is given up at Nice, the EU will acquire the power to impose ‘Corpus Juris’ on the UK even against the will of Parliament. The intention to impose ‘Corpus Juris’ on the UK by majority voting has already manifested itself (see section 9 below).

6. THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC HEARING SOON AFTER ARREST

The aforesaid 'Corpus Juris' also does away with the right of Britons not to be detained in custody for over 24 hours (up to 96 hours for terrorist offences and in other special circumstances) without a public hearing. At such a public hearing, the prosecution must exhibit a prima facie case.

Contrary to this most precious right of the British people, universally acknowledged to be a key safeguard against state power and tyranny, Article 20.3 (g) of the said 'Corpus Juris', given on page 40 in Appendix 3 of the said House of Lords Report, provides for the detention of suspects of crimes by a European Union Public Prosecutor, without charge or public hearing, nor obligation on the prosecution to exhibit any evidence, for periods of up to six months, renewable for three months thereafter on an unspecified number of times. In short, it amounts to a power to detain a suspect indefinitely without either trial or hearing, and would end of the centuries-old British safeguard of 'Habeas Corpus'.

7. THE MISLEADING REASSURANCE ON 'CORPUS JURIS' GIVEN TO MAGISTRATES BY LORD IRVINE OF LAIRG IN 'MAGISTRATES JOURNAL', SEPTEMBER 2000

In the September 2000 issue of 'Magistrates Journal', Lord Irvine of Lairg makes the following statement in response to concerns expressed by Magistrates about 'Corpus Juris':

‘I should also make it clear that the Corpus Juris recommendations have not [yet] been formally presented to any meeting of the Council of the European Union. Many of the recommendations, if adopted, would conflict with the legal traditions of many Member States, including the United Kingdom; however as matters stand they do not even have the status of a formal proposal’.

Lord Irvine concedes, then, that there are indeed recommendations to implement 'Corpus Juris' and that they may be considered by a future meeting of the Council of the European Union. Nowhere in his statement is there a cast-iron commitment by the Government to repudiate all aspects of 'Corpus Juris' for the United Kingdom. As shown above in this letter, 'Corpus Juris' can be implemented by the European Union by Qualified Majority Vote if the Prime Minister signs the Treaty of Nice containing the demands of the European Parliament’s resolution of 12 April 2000.

By claiming elsewhere in the 'Magistrates Journal' article that 'Corpus Juris' 'is not an appropriate way forward' Lord Irvine fails to provide a categoric rejection of it. His words are as potentially misleading as the claim made by Edward Heath at the time he signed the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community that this was 'only a trading agreement and would lead to no loss of essential national sovereignty'.

8. REMOVAL OF BRITISH VETO OVER JUDICIAL MATTERS

Please note that Proposal 53 of the resolution passed by the European Parliament's plenary session of 12 April 2000 will, if adopted in the Treaty of Nice, remove the power of veto by the Member States, including the United Kingdom, to stop the introduction by the European Union of any measures relating to 'Freedom, Security and Justice'.

9. USE OF ARTICLE 280 TO INTRODUCE 'CORPUS JURIS'

Proposal 25 of the aforesaid European Parliament resolution will, if adopted, amend Article 280 of the existing Treaty to 'allow the [European] Union to take legislative action in criminal matters in respect of fraud', while the intention of various organs of the European Union to use precisely Article 280 of the existing Treaty as a channel for the introduction of 'Corpus Juris', by Qualified Majority Voting, was explicitly manifested by representatives of the European Parliament giving evidence to the House of Lords (cited in the aforementioned House of Lords report, pages 84 & 85 of Oral Evidence).

10. REFUSAL OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO INSIST ON KEEPING A VETO OVER MATTERS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Her Majesty's Government, led by Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, voted at the summit in Portugal (see above) to approve the said proposal to set up a European Union civil disorder squad, and has not manifested any intention of vetoing the removal of justice and home affairs measures from national control, despite being publicly asked to do so (Letters page, 'Daily Telegraph', 16 June 2000). However, it has, by contrast, manifested the intention of vetoing the removal of other types of measures from national control.

11. LETTER TO CHRISTOPHER GILL M.P.

The Secretary of State for the Home Office, Mr Charles Clarke, wrote a letter dated 6 September 2000 to Mr Christopher Gill, MP for Ludlow, Shropshire, specifically referring to the issue of Qualified Majority Voting on justice and home affairs and said that the British Government 'shall judge each issue on its merits. Where Qualified Majority Voting is in British interests, we will accept it. Where not, we will not. This holds for justice and home affairs matters as for everything else'.

This letter is wholly inadequate in the face of the extreme demands of the European Parliament’s resolution to remove the veto on ‘all (emphasis added) measures concerning Freedom, Security and Justice’, and bring all related issues under the ‘full (emphasis added) jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice’ (see above).

12. THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE UNDER THE 1689 BILL OF RIGHTS MUST BE RESPECTED

The Bill of Rights 1689, still an essential part of the British constitution, included the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, which has been required to be sworn by all Crown servants, including members of the Judiciary.

Specifically, all Crown servants remain required 'not to take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects' liberties', words which are still used today as Crown servants swear (or affirm) that they 'will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law', and that they 'will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second...and will do right to all manner of people, after the law and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection, or ill will'. Crown servants will no longer be able to maintain that Oath if the 'Corpus Juris' proposals were to apply in the United Kingdom.

13. OUR CIVIL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY COMMON LAW

Lord Wilberforce reminded the House of Lords in 1997 what were - and are - the 'essential civil rights' of the British people:

‘...our essential civil rights, as guaranteed by common law, are the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule against double jeopardy; no retrospective legislation; no legislation to be given effect contrary to international law - an old principle that has been there for years; freedom of expression, and freedom of association...firmly secured already by the common law of this country, and not intended to be superseded nor modified by new inter-state obligations...’

If any part of 'Corpus Juris' were to be introduced in the United Kingdom, common law rights which Lord Wilberforce correctly described as being our essential and constitutional rights, would be eroded and undermined. That, in my humble submission, would be an act of treason against the 'laws, government and happy constitution' of the United Kingdom (Section 1, Treason Act, 1795).

14. TREASON IS BEING PLANNED

Therefore there is a clear and present danger that treason is being planned and will be committed shortly by Rt. Hon Tony Blair, Rt. Hon Robin Cook, Rt. Hon Jack Straw, and Lord Williams of Mostyn if and when they or their subordinates FAIL TO VETO the removal of matters of justice and home affairs from national control in the Treaty or other binding agreements with other Member States of the European Union.

Failing to veto the removal of justice and home affairs from national control would allow our Sovereign Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs, and all her subjects and others under her protection within her realm, to become subject to any constraints upon her and their persons as may in the future be devised by Men-at-Arms of the European Union Civil Disorder Squad acting on the orders of the European Union authorities, over which Her Majesty's servants will have lost all control due to the system of Qualified Majority Voting.

Representatives of the European Parliament have already manifested to the face of our own House of Lords (see above) their intention of imposing an alien or foreign system of justice on our people, which ignores and indeed tramples on our constitutional rights and freedoms, and which previous generations of Britons have fought and died to preserve.

Our forefathers put these constitutional rights and freedoms in place for all time precisely to safeguard our individual and personal freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and unjust convictions, and to prevent the overthrow of the laws and happy constitution of our country.

THEREFORE, for the first time since 1066, foreign Men-at-Arms, not in any way answerable to our sovereign monarch, will tread the soil of Britain and moreover will have the power to detain subjects of this Kingdom indefinitely, without trial or any public hearing, all of which will be in flagrant breach of our constitutional rights.

I, the undersigned, do provide these facts to you and other members of your bench so that you may take all necessary steps to arrest the danger of treason being committed, so that it shall not come to pass, or if it does to assure the guilty of justice.

Signed ___________________________ Full Name ______________________________________

Address ___________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Magistrate,

The Offences of Treason and Conspiracy to Commit Treason.

Thank you for your response to the information I gave you about the way in which the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Tony Blair, and his cabinet colleagues, are planning to commit treason.

It is disappointing that you are not proposing to take any further action, because I believe that in my Notice of Treason I gave adequate particulars that either the offence of treason had been committed, or that conspiracy to commit treason was taking place.

I gave clear details that if the Treaty of Nice is signed in its present form, then the British criminal legal system can be replaced by the European Union's Corpus Juris legal system by Qualified Majority Voting, since the British government does not propose to retain the British veto over home affairs and justice.


New Information, and More Evidence

Since my information was laid, the European Union has published a paper entitled "Additional Commission contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms. The criminal protection of the Community's financial interests: a European Prosecutor". In it, the EU Commission has introduced into the draft Nice Treaty an amendment under article 280a by which Corpus Juris, with its European Public Prosecutor, will be introduced.

Corpus Juris, described by the Commission as "an embryo of a future EU criminal code", will eliminate over time not only habeas corpus, trial by jury, safeguards against double jeopardy and other freedoms enshrined over 800 years of Common Law, but it will also purport to abolish Common Law itself.

The present Labour government has already made three separate attempts to introduce elements of Corpus Juris. The Home Secretary has attempted to reduce the use of trial by jury (on the alleged grounds of cost). The government has enacted legislation to stop football hooligans going abroad on the grounds that they might commit an offence when they get there - ie: merely on suspicion that they might commit an offence abroad. The Home Secretary has also proposed to give the prosecution the power to appeal against a not-guilty verdict, which will abolish our freedom from double jeopardy. That same proposal will also have the effect of eroding the obligation on the prosecution to provide the burden of proof before the accused stands at risk, contrary to common law. Finally, as a further step towards Corpus Juris, magistrates are now called District Judges, so preparing the way for the eventual line of control from the European Public Prosecutor and his professional judges in Brussels to courts in the UK, as Corpus Juris is introduced.

As reported in my information, in the September issue of the Magistrates' Journal Lord Irvine wrote of Corpus Juris: "I should also make clear that the Corpus Juris recommendations have not been formally presented to any meeting of the Council of the European Union. Many of the recommendations, if adopted, would conflict with the legal traditions of many member states, including the United Kingdom; however as matters stand they do not even have the status of a formal proposal."

As Lord Irvine must now know, as a result of the new amendment to the draft Treaty that formal proposal is now in place, and is due to be signed in December in Nice. The clear intention and effect of this crucial amendment is to seek to legitimise the EUs attempts to sidestep the protection of national systems of criminal justice, to introduce the European Public Prosecutor, to allow the European Council subsequently to draw up the rules under which he may operate, deciding this by the procedure laid down by article 251 - and that means majority voting.

So once this (new) article 280a is signed, sealed and ratified in the new Treaty, the EU Council of Ministers will be able to adopt any rules they like for the new EPP - and of course they will be looking in the direction of the rules provided in the Corpus Juris study published in 1997 under the aegis of the EU itself. With the Nice Treaty signed, any British objection will be over-ruled by QMV.


The Crime of Treason

I have further researched the offences of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, and would like to bring to your attention the following matters:

First, the Treason Act 1351 is still in place. This states that the offence of treason is committed, inter alia, "when a man be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm". This of course remains good law despite the amendments to the various Treason Acts in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The proposals for the forthcoming Treaty of Nice show that its proponents wish to undermine the British constitution further.

Under the Treason Felony Act 1848, it is treason if "any person whatsoever [including the Prime Minister] shall, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom".

It also states that it is treason if "any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to put any force or constraint upon both Houses or either House of Parliament".

My Notice of Treason showed how the powers of Her Majesty will be severely limited by the draft Treaty of Nice and transferred to the European Union. In addition, I demonstrated how essential features of our legal system such as the right to jury trial and the right to appear before a Magistrate soon after arrest would be eliminated by the European Union's Corpus Juris system.

May I refer you to the Treason case of R. v Casement (1917). In that decision, it was stated that "the offence of treason is committed by persons adhering to and giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies".

As my earlier Notice of Treason documented, the agenda of the European Union is to dismantle the constitutions of the nation-states of the European Union.

The Casement decision referred to the Treason Act 1543 which I believe still to be good law. It may be unprecedented for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to commit Treason, but then the Court itself said: "The Court is not much impressed by the fact that there is very little precedent for a trial the nature of which we are dealing with today" (All ER Reports [1916-17] page 216).

It is further stated in this decision that "The subjects of the King owe him allegiance". To transfer powers from Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government to the European Union to the extent that is envisaged suggests that the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues do not owe Her Majesty full allegiance and indeed are seeking to undermine her authority.

May I also respectfully refer you to Archbold, Section 25, dealing with "High Treason". There, the Treason Act 1351 is cited with approval. In Section 25.9, the following is a quotation from the case of Fost.C.L. (183): "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 commentary in Archbold continues: "The subjects of the King owe him allegiance".

Treason may be committed by words spoken or in writing - see the cases of R. v. Wedderburn (1746) R. v. Francia (1717) and R. v. Watson (1817).


Conspiracy to Commit Treason

According to Section 25-16 of Archbold: "Where a conspiracy is laid as an overt act, the acts of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the common design may be given in evidence against all". Seven cases are listed in support.

Section 25-28 of Archbold states this: "Every assistance given by the Queen 's subjects to her enemies, unless given from a well-grounded apprehension of immediate death in case of a refusal, is high treason within this branch of the statute: 1 Hale 159".

The case of R. v. Casement is also quoted in support of the following proposition: "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]".


Human Rights Act 1998

I have been informed - and you may wish to take legal advice on this - that under the provisions of the Human Rights Act and indeed the European Convention on Human Rights, all courts, including Magistrates, must give full reasons for reaching their decisions.

In my case, being aware that treason is about to be committed and that conspiracy to commit treason may be taking place at present, I have discharged my common law duty to my fellow subjects and to Her Majesty.

I have given detailed evidence of how this treason is being committed. I have quoted the relevant legislation. I have quoted, above, relevant case law.

My understanding of my common law duty is that anyone who knows that treason is being committed has a solemn duty to Her Majesty to ensure that those concerned are brought to justice.

May I make it clear that I am not making a formal application to the Court, nor am I necessarily seeking that a summons be issued. I am asking you as a Justice of the Peace to take whatever action you consider appropriate to ensure that treason is not committed by our government by signing the Treaty of Nice as currently drafted. I believe that it is part of your duty, now that I have provided you with relevant information, to make appropriate enquiries of the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General as to whether what I say about the Treaty of Nice is correct.

If you decide, after reading and considering this letter, that you propose to take no action at all to stop treason being committed by Tony Blair signing the Treaty of Nice in December 2000, please be kind enough to give me the full reasons for your decision that I understand I am entitled to under the Human Rights Act.

Thank you for considering the matter further. I await your reply in due course.

Yours sincerely

(Name of subject)
Subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II