Greyed text was framed instead in terms of questions to the defence witnesses, because of problems of its admissibility as evidence, e.g. newspaper reports are not admissible as evidence.
What do those Royal Arms symbolize? They symbolize the authority of this Court within the system of constitutional monarchy. By the Constitution is meant the body of the law; the framework in which all other laws are valid. The British system of constitutional monarchy has evolved over hundreds of years and is supposed to provide a system of checks and balances which is superior to a republic. English law is cumulative; the British Constitution is not a single document but a collection of statutes and edicts made over hundreds of years.
By the Crown is meant the institution of the Crown, the King or Queen, or the land and people which form the Realm. All of these three – Queen, Crown, Realm – are synonymous. This court claims to derive its authority from the Crown. The Prosecution claims to act for the Crown.
Old laws are still in force; for example only a few months ago it was stated in the House of Lords and by Tony Blair that the Act of Settlement of 1700 is still in force. In the leaflet I was mistaken in saying that the law of Treason has been repealed – the current law relating to treason directly descends from the Treason Act of 1351. I could quote many more examples of the validity of old laws.
On the Royal Arms we see “God and my right.” That right is my birthright, the rights I have according to the Common Law of England and the protection of the Crown. In the Act of Settlement it states that “the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof” and in Magna Carta it states that:
‘The best inheritance that the subject hath is the law of the realm.’
Moreover the freedom and liberties which are our birthright are granted in perpetuity. I quote the Magna Carta again:
‘We will and grant for us and our heirs, that all clerks and laymen of our land shall have their laws, liberties and free customs, as largely and wholly as when they had them best; and if any statutes have been made by us or by our ancestors or any custom brought in contrary to them, or any manner of article contained in this present charter, we will and grant that such manner of statutes and customs shall be void and frustrate for evermore.’
It is these sentiments and these parts of the British Constitution which inspired the words of the anthem: “Britain never, never, never shall be slaves.”
In other words, the rights and freedoms I have as an Englishman to criticize the government are my birthright and beyond the remit of parliament; parliament cannot take those rights away. Moreover, something which contrary to the Constitution is illegal.
‘By the constitution of a country is meant so much of its law as relates the designation and form of the legislature; the rights and functions of several parts of the legislative body; the construction, offices and jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
‘The constitution is one principal division, section or title of a code of public laws, distinguished from the rest only by the superior importance of the subject of which it treats. Therefore the terms “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” mean “legal” and “illegal.”’ (Walter Paley, Political and Moral Philosophy, 1782).
An Imperium in Imperio is a state within a state, and such a body is illegal under the British Constitution. The most powerful Imperium in Imperio in Britain today is the Board of Deputies of British Jews. This is effectively a parliament of Jews and it actively influences our laws, not least because it has bought our government.
Major benefactors to the Labour Party include Michael Levy, Bob Gavron, Maurice Hatter, David Sainsbury and Robert Earl, each of whom contributed at least one million pounds. These first three of these are now known as Lord Levy, Lord Gavron and Sir Maurice. Michael Levy’s Blind Trust thus helped Tony Blair raise £22 million for his election campaign.
The Jews have a 2,000 strong vigilante group called the Community Security Trust. The Board of Deputies of British Jews maintains extensive records on anyone who opposes them. Maintaining what is effectively a private militia and flaunting the 1984 Data Protection Act are illegal yet these activities have been condoned by the former Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
The Jewish influence in the media, in law and in government far exceeds their numbers in the population. There have been several Jewish Home Secretaries who in this position are able to control immigration and the police. Examples of Jewish Home Secretaries are Jack Straw, Michael Howard (real name Michael Hecht) and Leon Brittan (real name Leon Brittanisky).
Almost all of these influential Jews are Zionists: they believe in a sovereign Israeli state which will ultimately be the centre of a world government. It is a combination of Israeli nationalism and their conviction that they are “God’s Chosen People.” I quote a letter from Baruch Levy to Karl Marx:
‘The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will obtain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and the establishment of a World Republic.’ (Baruch Levy writing to Karl Marx).
I could have gathered many more quotes saying the same thing. However there is one example of especial importance because it not only illustrates the Jewish Imperium in Imperio but also the magnitude of the wrong I am attempting to reveal. I show the front page of the Daily Express of 24th March 1933. The real start of the Second World War, when the hidden hands started their work, was reported here in 1933. The accompanying text reads:
‘Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce, and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler’s people.’
Between 40 and 50 million people died in that war. Note that “Judea” is a distinct entity, despite the fact that the state of Israel did not exist until 1948, fifteen years later. In other words the Jews are a state within a state, an Imperium in Imperio.
The Jews’ strategy is disguised invasion: to invade a country and take it over, but to keep it hidden.
The Prosecution claims to act on behalf of the Crown, but this is untrue. By prosecuting someone for pointing out the situation today it is acting in the interests not of the Crown but of an anti-British parliament paid for and controlled by aliens: what we call the Zionist Occupation Government, or ZOG.
I am not inciting racial hatred when I point out these facts, no more than a policeman is inciting hatred against the race of criminals when he sees a crime being committed and radios for assistance. I am merely telling the British people that a crime is being committed and I tried to do that in a humorous, and therefore inoffensive, way. That crime is the take-over of our country, a crime that the founding fathers of our nation would not have hesitated to act upon.
The duty of the Crown is to maintain the laws and customs of the British people. Furthermore I believe it to be the duty of the Crown to protect the subject’s liberties and freedoms despite parliament. If this were not so there would be no advantage in having a consitituional monarchy at all.
Treason is the act of betraying; a betrayal of a trust; a breach of faith, treachery. High Treason or Treason Proper is the violation of a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state, levying war on the King’s dominions, adhering to the King’s enemies in his dominions, or aiding them in or out of the realm.
Treason Felony is seeking to divest the Queen of any of her dominions. The Crown Prosecution Service and this court is seeking to enforce laws made by foreigners. If the Queen is no longer sovereign within her dominion, she is divested. Treason Felony has taken place.
As a very simple example I can merely look in my passport: according to the government I am no longer a British subject but a British citizen.
High Treason is not a betrayal of trust at a low level. It is betrayal at the highest level, and so serious because if our leaders betray our trust then others follow. Corruption permeates every layer. This is precisely what is happening in Britain today.
In the 1990 edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England (vol. 11/1) it states that “The punishment for High Treason is death by hanging.” Since 1945 the procedure for prosecuting treason is the same as for cases of murder. This is the current law regarding treason.
Many public servants, including members of this court, have sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. By enforcing laws which are designed to impose a multi-racial society upon us, the laws and customs of the British people are being destroyed. For example, are the laws and customs of the British people being maintained in Bradford, when Asians run riot and hurl petrol bombs at a police station, or in Oldham, where even young women pushing prams have been attacked, or in parts of Leicester, where native British people are now a tiny minority? The people who have sworn the Oath of Allegiance are guilty of breaking that oath.
In the legal definition of Treason the war does not have to be openly declared. Again I quote Halsbury’s Laws of England 1990, paragraph 79:
‘The treason of levying war against the Sovereign in Her realm may be of two kinds: (1) express and direct, as where war is raised against the Sovereign or Her forces with a view to injure Her person or to imprison Her or to force Her to remove any of Her ministers or counsellors; or (2) constructive, as where there is a rising for some general public purpose.’ (Halsbury’s Laws of England 1990, para 79).
Examples given of “general public purpose” include effecting an alteration of the law and altering religion established by law. The Jews have effected many changes in our laws. Our country is by law a Protestant, Christian country yet nowadays more mosques are being built than churches.
For “Adherence to the Sovereign’s enemies,” Halsbury’s Laws of England (1990, vol. 11/1) says that “Adherence must be evidenced by an overt act done with intent to aid and assist the Sovereign’s enemies.” Prosecuting someone for revealing the Jewish State within a State is High Treason. It is to adhere to the enemies of the Crown in a constructive war against the British people.
It should not be surprising, with a constitution as old as ours, that such a situation has already been foreseen and specified in law. I am going to quote a 1495 Amendment to the Treason Act of 1351. Halsbury’s Laws of England (vol. 12, 1997) states that this is “declaratory of the common law (R v Sindercome (1657) 5 State Tr 842), and remains to the present time, with few alterations, as the law governing the offence of treason.”
The law states that by doing my true and faithful duty to the Crown against its enemies I am free from attainder. Attainder is the loss of rights as a citizen, for example being imprisoned. I am specifically protected from attainder if acting against the Queen’s enemies:
‘From henceforth no manner of person nor persones whatsoever he or they be, that attend upon the King and sovereign lord of this land for the time being in his person and do him true and faithful service of allegiance in the same, or be in other places by his commandment, in his wars within this land or without, that for the same deed and duty or allegiance he or they be in no wise convicted or attainted of high treason nor of other offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any process of law, whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit life, lands, tenements, rents, possessions, hereditaments, goods, cattles or any other things, but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss; and if any Act or Acts or other process of the law happen to be made contrary to this ordnance, then that Act or Acts or other processes of the law whatsoever they shall be, stand and be utterly void.’ (Halsbury’s Laws of England 1997, vol. 12).
There is one reference in this passage to wars, but I have already shown that the war can be constructive rather than overt. It is a battle for the mind, and I have responded in kind. The underlying principle of the law is clear: to prosecute for allegiance to the Crown is, as an earlier part of the Act states, “against all laws, reason and good conscience.”
Shortly to be in force, and to be applied retroactively in some cases, is the Human Rights Act 1998. The Crown Prosecution Service furnished me with details of this Act, because this document, drawn up by them for this case, devotes more than 50% of its pages not to British law but to what they call “European Arguments,” that is, foreign law. I shall quote from it to illustrate the lunacy which is being imposed upon us.
First of all, setting the background:
‘The Human Rights Act 1998 gives effect in domestic law to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.’
So British law is merely ‘domestic’; Britain has been relegated to the back-kitchen of the European super-state, on the basis of high-sounding allusions to Human Rights, which are elaborated in the next section:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.’
Well, this all sounds very fine. Only in the next section it says that these freedoms are subject to:
‘the protection of the reputation or rights of others’
But whose rights are supposed to be protected? You can’t give rights to one without taking them away from another, and whoever’s rights have precedence is left completely unspecified. In other words, these fine-sounding phrases are meaningless. The next section is a little more specific, however:
‘Freedom of expression “constitutes one of the essential foundations” of a democratic society, and applies “not only to information or ideas that are favourably received, or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.”’ (Handyside v. U.K., 1 E.H.R.R. 737, at para. 49).
But wait! This is getting a little too much like real freedom of expression, and this is certainly not the intention, because using the justification of “Race Hatred” and quoting a German and a Dutch case:
‘Article 17 was successfully invoked to justify the prosecution of the applicants for possessing leaflets likely to incite racial hatred and their exclusion from local elections.’
So there you have it. The Articles on Freedom of Expression, according to European law, are so vaguely drafted and self-contradictory that they can be used to exclude people from elections. This, apparently, is what the Commissioners of Brussels and Strasbourg mean by Human Rights.
Thus, I hope I have demonstrated, these laws imported from across the seas are really just a ticket for confusion and tyranny, disguised among high-flown phrases of “freedom of expression” and “democratic rights.” It is a trick to take our independence away and impose the will of foreigners upon us, regardless of the will of the British people or the rights of the individual.
Invoking this and other European laws in this court, as seems to occur daily, means that this court is not a sovereign court, a Crown Court, at all, but is subordinate to a foreign court. This is specifically disallowed in the British Constitution. It is treason.
This is not an isolated view. Tony Benn, speaking on the constitutional crisis in the House of Commons on 13th March 1989, said:
‘I was brought up to believe, and I still believe, that when people vote in an election they must be entitled to know that the party for which they vote, if it has a majority, will be able to enact laws under which they will be governed. That is no longer true.’
Viscount Tonypandy, in a letter to one of my supporters dated 6th April 1997 wrote:
‘In my opinion it would be an act of treason to yield up our inalienable right to choose our own rulers. Our sovereignty has been paid for by those who fought in both world wars to protect our rights as a nation.’
I show now two leaflets published by the Court Service, the same Court Service that administrates this court. Nine out of 15 of this series of leaflets feature Negroes and Asians, a ratio which exceeds the prevalence of ethnic minorities in the population or in employment in the Court Service. In other words, these photographs portray not the world as it is, but the world as they want it to be. Who can doubt that precisely the same multiracially obsessed clique as dominates the media is in control even of the administration of justice in this country? This court is unconstitutional and illegal. It is not acting in the interests of the British people at all.
On the 18th of July 1290, by a royal proclamation, King Edward I expelled all Jews forever from England. Writs were sent out to the sheriffs of the English shires informing them that by royal edict all Jews were to leave the English realm before November 1st 1290, any who remained were liable to be executed. The population and parliament reacted with relief and great joy (Calendar of Close Rolls, 18 Edward I, Public Records Office).
This was not an isolated incident. The Jews had first been expelled from Bury St. Edmunds in 1190, followed by Leicester in 1231, Newcastle upon Tyne, Wycombe, the County of Warwick and parts of East Anglia in 1234, Southampton in 1236, Northamptonshire in 1237, Berkhamstead in 1242, Newbury in 1243 and Cambridge in 1275. I could quote a great many more examples of expulsions of Jews from other countries, for the same reasons. In short, the Jews had ended up owning everything which, I contend, has been repeated today.
Whether the Edict of Expulsion is in force today is unclear: some say it is and some say it isn’t. In a book Who’s Who in Jewish History After the Period of the Old Testament, published in 1974, it was stated that ‘The edict has actually not been revoked to this day.’
The closest my leaflet came to incitement to racial hatred was to refer to Jews as illegal immigrants, but to say that a Jew residing in England is an illegal alien is not incitement to racial hatred, or threatening, abusive or insulting, it is a matter of law. It may be debatable, but it is a matter of law.
There is no doubt about the Act of Settlement of 1700 however, which, as noted before, is still in force:
‘No person born out of the kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the dominions thereunto belonging... shall be capable to be of the privy councill or a member of either House of Parliament...’
Examining the 1995 edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England I can see no amendment to the Act of Settlement which voids this law. Further there is no doubt that the vast majority of the British people agree in principle with this sentiment. Even if the law was amended allowing foreigners to govern us, that amendment would be unconstitutional and void.
This makes the presence of many Jews and others in parliament illegitimate and therefore unlawful. All purported laws and purported acts of parliament in which they have taken part in the voting are illegal, unconstitutional: null and void.
A similar situation exists with Negroes. In 1601, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, there were 20,000 Negroes living in London and it was decreed that:
‘Her Majestie, understanding that there are divers Blackamoors brought into this realm, of which kinde of people there are already too manie, considering how God has blessed this land with great increase of people of our own nation... those kind of people should be sent forth of the land.’
These are the precedents in English law for the expulsion of people who are not indigenous to these islands, who arrive in our country and disrupt its delicate social fabric. I, and many others, simply want these laws to be reapplied. It is not an act of hatred, or even incitement to hatred, or abusive, threatening or insulting to want this, but simply a matter of political policy. During the expulsion of 1290 between 16,000 and 17,000 Jews left England with their safe passage guaranteed by the King, and with all their moveable possessions. It was not a matter of hatred but of practicality.
The so-called Race Relations Acts are conspiracies to use acts of parliament to enforce the racial integration of subjects of the Crown. These laws are not merely incitements, or threatening, abusive or insulting, but actual acts of racial hatred against the British people.
The only non-white, to my knowledge, who has been prosecuted under these laws is Michael Defreytas, alias Michael X, who in 1970 was convicted for asserting that “White men who go with Negro women should be killed.” This legislation was intended and is being used solely against white British men – in other words, it is worse than the thing it claims to outlaw. It is an enormous hypocrisy.
The Race Relations Act of 1965 was introduced to parliament by the Russian Jew Frank Soskice, purported Labour Attorney General. Further Race Relations Acts were devised by the Board of Jewish Deputies.
In the Jewish Chronicle of 17 January 1975 it was stated that:
‘Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, 1965, dealing with incitement to racial hatred, may be amended and strengthened following representations made to the Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, QC, by the Board of Deputies.
‘In the view of the board’s Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, the weakness of the Section is its present requirement that “intent” to stir up racial hatred must be proven for any prosecution to succeed.’
Here we have a Jewish Attorney-General receiving instructions from the Jewish Board of Deputies. The Editorial in the same issue of the Jewish Chronicle stated that this amendment to the law “would better have been achieved by less publicised means.”
The 1976 Race Relations Act was amended just as the Jews had requested and then passed in the Commons by default, with only 132 of the 635 members present; 124 Labour and Liberal traitors voted for the bill with eight Tories against. In other words, 500 MP’s stayed away from the House for fear of the repercussions if they voted against the Jews’ wishes.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Neville Nagler, a synagogue official, was the head of the Home Office Department responsible for race relations matters. Whenever a Cabinet Minister made a speech on the subject of race relations, notes for the text were always drafted by Nagler, who routinely consulted with top officials at the Jewish Board of Deputies such as Geoffrey Bindman and Anthony Lester. In 1991 Nagler retired from the Home Office and became the Chief Executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The so-called Public Order Act of 1986 was placed before parliament by the purported Conservative Home Secretary, a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, Leon Brittanisky, also known as Leon Brittan, assisted by his cousin, another Lithuanian Jew, Malcolm Rivkind, also know as Malcolm Rifkind. Even discounting the 1290 Edict of Expulsion these individuals are in parliament unlawfully according to the Act of Settlement . The law under which I am being tried today is void.
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that I am wrong: that the old constitutional laws I have quoted can be happily ignored, that this court is not in a treasonous condition, and that the Crown Prosecution Service really is acting on behalf of the people of Britain, as it claims to be. Then it would be possible for an alien power to bribe and insinuate itself into our legislature and, completely legally, take over our nation.
Such a situation cannot be legal, or else we would not have a nation at all. We would be a slave state working in the interests of another nation. I say that this is precisely what is happening. The illegal Act of Parliament called the Public Order Act is intended to prevent subjects of the Crown from discussing and revealing the Jewish takeover of our country. It is a law which has been made by traitors – in other words, criminals – to prevent their exposure.
You may remember that in the recent trial of Dr. Harold Shipman, the judge said that he would have been very inclined to dismiss the case – involving, I think, fifteen murders – if the jury had learnt of Shipman’s previous criminal record by means of an email sent by the BMA. This might be regarded as a technicality. I have pointed out not one but five issues striking at the fundamental invalidity of this trial. These are not technicalities but major flaws. I shall list them:
1. The law under which I am charged defies the British consititution and is thus invalid;
2. The law defies natural justice in that it is impossible to know whether one is acting legally or not;
3. The law has been made by people who have no legitimate power to make it;
4. The court in which I am being tried is applying foreign-made laws contrary to the British Constitution.
5. I am specifically protected from attainder if acting in allegiance to the Crown. In the same way as I am immune from prosecution for murder if I kill an enemy of this country in battle, I am protected from prosecution for publishing material supporting the Crown to counter the propaganda of its enemies.
You, the jury, are not restricted to judging the minute details of an accusation. You have the right to judge the law under which the accusation is made, and if you consider that law to be contrary to the interests of the British people you can acquit with a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
This prosecution has been ordered and directed throughout from London. You have had two prosecution witnesses, only two. Here I ask you to recall what I said about humans’ capacity for hypocrisy. The first witness claims that she believes in free speech but nonetheless is willing to see me prosecuted for an election leaflet. The second [woman] thinks there is nothing wrong with having closed circuit television cameras on every street corner. I do not believe that either of these witnesses are credible.
The bottom line is: Are you going to let them put me in prison for a leaflet that was intended to be nothing more than an exercise in political satire?