NOTICE OF TREASON
Treason Act 1351
Section 3, Treason Felony Act, 1848
Laying of Information
Names of Suspect
Rt. Hon Peter Benjamin Mandelson "Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead"
Address of Suspect: C/o 10 Downing Street, LONDON SW1
Date:__________________________
To: The Chairman of the Bench,______CARLISLE____________ Magistrates Court,
(Address:)____ Magistrates' Court _____________________________________
_____________Rickergate _______________________________________________
______________CARLISLE ________________________________________________
______________Cumbria __________________________________________________
______________CA3 8QH______________________________________________
Misprision of Treason
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 or misconduct in a public office 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.
Accordingly, I am supplying you with the following information about the treason and misconduct in a public office that I humbly believe will or has undoubtedly been committed by Peter Benjamin Mandelson .
(1) Perjury of the Oath of Allegiance;
Took an engagement in the nature of an oath; Intending to bind the accused; To commit treason.
(2) Treason Felony, seeking to divest the Queen of her dominion, since he will be seeking to impose laws made by foreigners within her dominion;
(3) and Treason Proper or High Treason, adhering to the Queen’s enemies within or without the Realm.’
In November of 2004 Pursuant to Article 213 (2) (ex157(2)) of the treaty establishing the European Community, Peter Benjamin Mandelson; Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead not being a person compelled to do so, took an engagement in the nature of an oath intending to bind the said accused to commit an offence namely treason. He freely gave a solemn Oath before the Court of Justice of the European Union “To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.”
This being treason and misconduct in a public office in direct contradiction to the Oaths he swore as a Member of Parliament for Hartlepool and that, which he swore as a member of Her Majesties Privy Council.
Parliamentary Oath
I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me
God.
Privy counsellors Oath;
You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen’s Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God.
Juramentum est indivisibile, et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. (An oath is indivisible; it cannot be in part true and in part false).
May I remind the court that, ignorance is no excuse and Halsbury's Laws of England confirms that a breach of Magna Carta is an offence at common law. This provision is the reason why Crown servants take Oaths. The Bill of Right 1689 specifies the form of the oath and the current wording of the parliamentary oath was established in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.
May I 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".
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. An oath recently sworn by the said Peter Benjamin Mandelson to the Court of Justice of the European Union, demonstrates his wish to perjure his oath of allegiance and to undermine the British constitution.
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).
See also (Specifically)
R v. John Eadon (1813) ER 1064, R v William Edgar (1817) ER 145
Under the Treason Felony Act 1848, it is treason if "any person whatsoever [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".
Treaty establishing the European Community Article 213 (2) (ex157 (2)) The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks. The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.
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".
The Casement decision referred to the Treason Act 1543, which I believe still to be good law. It may be unprecedented for an appointed UK commissioner 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 Peter Benjamin Mandelson does not owe Her Majesty full allegiance and indeed is seeking to undermine her authority.
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]".
The offence of misconduct in public office was defined in Russell On Crime, 12th Edition (1964) (J W Cecil Turner) in this way:
"Where a public officer is guilty of misbehaviour in office by neglecting a duty imposed upon him either at common law or by statute, he commits a misdemeanour and is liable to indictment unless another remedy is substituted by statute. The liability exists whether he is a common law or a statutory officer; and a person holding an office of important trust and of consequence to the public, under letters patent or derivatively from such authority, is liable to indictment for not faithfully discharging the office."
In R v Wyat (1705) 1 Salk 380, it was held, that where an officer neglects a duty incumbent upon him, either by common law or statute, he is for his default indictable.
Lord Mansfield stated in R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug K B 32:
"Here there are two principles applicable: first, that a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office; this is true, by whomsoever and in whatsoever way the officer is appointed…… secondly, where there is a breach of trust, fraud or imposition, in a matter concerning the public, though as between individuals it would only be actionable, yet as between the King and the subject it is indictable. That such should be the rule is essential to the existence of the country".
In R v Borron (1820) 3 B&Ald 432, a criminal information was applied for against a magistrate. Abbott CJ stated, at page 434:
"…..They [magistrates] are indeed, like every other subject of this kingdom, answerable to the law for the faithful and upright discharge of their trust and duties. But, whenever they have been challenged upon this head, either by way of indictment, or application to this Court for a criminal information, the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive, or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error. In the former case, alone, they have become the objects of punishment. To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom."
In R v Llewellyn-Jones [1968] 1 QB 429, the Registrar of a County Court was convicted of offences of misbehaviour in a public office. The indictment charged "misbehaviour in a public office, contrary to common law" and alleged that court orders had been made "with the intention of gaining improper personal advantage and without proper regard to the interest of [a named person]". On appeal to this court, it was submitted that, in the absence of allegations of fraud or dishonesty in the counts of the indictment, the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence were not present. Giving the judgment of the court, Lord Parker CJ referred to Bembridge and to Borron and stated, at page 436G:
"Accordingly the court proposed to take the same line as the trial judge did when he came to rule on the argument presented before him, when he said that he did not propose to attempt to give an exhaustive definition of what was covered by misbehaviour in a public office, it being sufficient to say that in his opinion what was alleged and what he proposed should be alleged in the count was sufficient. This court proposed to take the same line and to look at the words of the indictment, and looking at those words the court is satisfied that at any rate what is there alleged, if proved, would constitute the offence at common law of misbehaviour in a public office.
Assuming in [Counsel’s] favour that there must be some element of dishonesty involved, a dishonest motive, a fraudulent motive, it seems to this court that that is inherent in the words of the count. It is really impossible to conceive of a case in which action of this sort is not taken with the intention of gaining personal advantage and without regard to the interests of the beneficiary. It is true the word "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" does not there appear, but it is inherent in the description of the offence."
This information has been laid by:
Anoneumouse, Carlisle, Cumbria, CAX XXX
N.B. Practice Directions by the Lord Chief Justice for the Classification of the Business of the Crown Court and Allocation to Crown Court Centres
With the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and pursuant to sections 75(1) and (2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, I direct that, with effect from October 16th 2001, the following directions shall supersede those given on May 26, 1995 as amended:
Classification
For the purposes of trial in the Crown Court, offences are to be classified as follows:
Class 1:
(1)Misprision of treason and treason felony.
(2) Murder.
(3) Genocide.
(4) Torture, hostage-taking and offences under the War Crimes Act 1991
(5) An offence under the Official Secrets Acts.
(6) Soliciting, incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above offences.
.
Section 3, Treason Felony Act, 1848
Laying of Information
Names of Suspect
Rt. Hon Peter Benjamin Mandelson "Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead"
Address of Suspect: C/o 10 Downing Street, LONDON SW1
Date:__________________________
To: The Chairman of the Bench,______CARLISLE____________ Magistrates Court,
(Address:)____ Magistrates' Court _____________________________________
_____________Rickergate _______________________________________________
______________CARLISLE ________________________________________________
______________Cumbria __________________________________________________
______________CA3 8QH______________________________________________
Misprision of Treason
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 or misconduct in a public office 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.
Accordingly, I am supplying you with the following information about the treason and misconduct in a public office that I humbly believe will or has undoubtedly been committed by Peter Benjamin Mandelson .
(1) Perjury of the Oath of Allegiance;
Took an engagement in the nature of an oath; Intending to bind the accused; To commit treason.
(2) Treason Felony, seeking to divest the Queen of her dominion, since he will be seeking to impose laws made by foreigners within her dominion;
(3) and Treason Proper or High Treason, adhering to the Queen’s enemies within or without the Realm.’
In November of 2004 Pursuant to Article 213 (2) (ex157(2)) of the treaty establishing the European Community, Peter Benjamin Mandelson; Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead not being a person compelled to do so, took an engagement in the nature of an oath intending to bind the said accused to commit an offence namely treason. He freely gave a solemn Oath before the Court of Justice of the European Union “To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.”
This being treason and misconduct in a public office in direct contradiction to the Oaths he swore as a Member of Parliament for Hartlepool and that, which he swore as a member of Her Majesties Privy Council.
Parliamentary Oath
I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me
God.
Privy counsellors Oath;
You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen’s Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God.
Juramentum est indivisibile, et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. (An oath is indivisible; it cannot be in part true and in part false).
May I remind the court that, ignorance is no excuse and Halsbury's Laws of England confirms that a breach of Magna Carta is an offence at common law. This provision is the reason why Crown servants take Oaths. The Bill of Right 1689 specifies the form of the oath and the current wording of the parliamentary oath was established in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.
May I 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".
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. An oath recently sworn by the said Peter Benjamin Mandelson to the Court of Justice of the European Union, demonstrates his wish to perjure his oath of allegiance and to undermine the British constitution.
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).
See also (Specifically)
R v. John Eadon (1813) ER 1064, R v William Edgar (1817) ER 145
Under the Treason Felony Act 1848, it is treason if "any person whatsoever [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".
Treaty establishing the European Community Article 213 (2) (ex157 (2)) The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks. The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.
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".
The Casement decision referred to the Treason Act 1543, which I believe still to be good law. It may be unprecedented for an appointed UK commissioner 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 Peter Benjamin Mandelson does not owe Her Majesty full allegiance and indeed is seeking to undermine her authority.
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]".
The offence of misconduct in public office was defined in Russell On Crime, 12th Edition (1964) (J W Cecil Turner) in this way:
"Where a public officer is guilty of misbehaviour in office by neglecting a duty imposed upon him either at common law or by statute, he commits a misdemeanour and is liable to indictment unless another remedy is substituted by statute. The liability exists whether he is a common law or a statutory officer; and a person holding an office of important trust and of consequence to the public, under letters patent or derivatively from such authority, is liable to indictment for not faithfully discharging the office."
In R v Wyat (1705) 1 Salk 380, it was held, that where an officer neglects a duty incumbent upon him, either by common law or statute, he is for his default indictable.
Lord Mansfield stated in R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug K B 32:
"Here there are two principles applicable: first, that a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office; this is true, by whomsoever and in whatsoever way the officer is appointed…… secondly, where there is a breach of trust, fraud or imposition, in a matter concerning the public, though as between individuals it would only be actionable, yet as between the King and the subject it is indictable. That such should be the rule is essential to the existence of the country".
In R v Borron (1820) 3 B&Ald 432, a criminal information was applied for against a magistrate. Abbott CJ stated, at page 434:
"…..They [magistrates] are indeed, like every other subject of this kingdom, answerable to the law for the faithful and upright discharge of their trust and duties. But, whenever they have been challenged upon this head, either by way of indictment, or application to this Court for a criminal information, the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive, or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error. In the former case, alone, they have become the objects of punishment. To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom."
In R v Llewellyn-Jones [1968] 1 QB 429, the Registrar of a County Court was convicted of offences of misbehaviour in a public office. The indictment charged "misbehaviour in a public office, contrary to common law" and alleged that court orders had been made "with the intention of gaining improper personal advantage and without proper regard to the interest of [a named person]". On appeal to this court, it was submitted that, in the absence of allegations of fraud or dishonesty in the counts of the indictment, the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence were not present. Giving the judgment of the court, Lord Parker CJ referred to Bembridge and to Borron and stated, at page 436G:
"Accordingly the court proposed to take the same line as the trial judge did when he came to rule on the argument presented before him, when he said that he did not propose to attempt to give an exhaustive definition of what was covered by misbehaviour in a public office, it being sufficient to say that in his opinion what was alleged and what he proposed should be alleged in the count was sufficient. This court proposed to take the same line and to look at the words of the indictment, and looking at those words the court is satisfied that at any rate what is there alleged, if proved, would constitute the offence at common law of misbehaviour in a public office.
Assuming in [Counsel’s] favour that there must be some element of dishonesty involved, a dishonest motive, a fraudulent motive, it seems to this court that that is inherent in the words of the count. It is really impossible to conceive of a case in which action of this sort is not taken with the intention of gaining personal advantage and without regard to the interests of the beneficiary. It is true the word "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" does not there appear, but it is inherent in the description of the offence."
This information has been laid by:
Anoneumouse, Carlisle, Cumbria, CAX XXX
N.B. Practice Directions by the Lord Chief Justice for the Classification of the Business of the Crown Court and Allocation to Crown Court Centres
With the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and pursuant to sections 75(1) and (2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, I direct that, with effect from October 16th 2001, the following directions shall supersede those given on May 26, 1995 as amended:
Classification
For the purposes of trial in the Crown Court, offences are to be classified as follows:
Class 1:
(1)Misprision of treason and treason felony.
(2) Murder.
(3) Genocide.
(4) Torture, hostage-taking and offences under the War Crimes Act 1991
(5) An offence under the Official Secrets Acts.
(6) Soliciting, incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above offences.
.
posted by Anoneumouse at 3:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home