by antiaristo » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:12 am
rapt,<br>It’s a difficult question, and if I knew how to do it that’s what I’d be doing.<br>I mention the TFA at every opportunity. I realise that some will see me as a sad, delusional obsessive, but I’ll pay that price for the simple possibility that one more person might have their eyes opened.<br><br>I KNOW it has had an effect already. I’ll not go further than that.<br><br>It’s certainly a lot easier when I can get into a discussion like the one I’m having with banned. Otherwise I’m playing tennis alone.<br><br>Surely there must be some that can see the intent is a merger of the two countries, and that much of what goes on in Washington is tailored to that long term goal?<br><br><br>banned,<br>The only reason we even know about this law is because the Guardian tried to force its repeal when the Human Rights Act came into force. See here for what happened<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,985799,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/monarc...99,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>My guess is that you’ve found it already. I’d like to discuss what we find in between the lines of that story.<br>You may have found the text of the judgement where it refers to this law not having been used since 1883 in a prosecution.<br>That is true, but that is not how this law is used.<br><br>It is used PRE-EMPTIVELY.<br>It is used not against ordinary people (“subjects”) but against those who hold power as agents of the State or corporate entities.<br>It has been used against me and my family. That’s why I’ve gone nowhere near my two daughters since Christmas 1994 when Victoria was six and Georgia just three years old. That’s why I’ve had no income since May 1994.<br><br>Let me give you just one example of how this law is used.<br>The invasion of Iraq.<br>There has been much criticism of how Britain went to war. We’ve always known the war was illegal, and that is exactly what the attorney general Peter (Lord) Goldsmith said in his formal opinion.<br>But strange things happened when Goldsmith was summoned to Downing Street on 13 March 2003 to meet Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan.<br>Following that meeting a revised “opinion” was released in the name of the attorney general.<br>We now know that “opinion” was actually written by Falconer and Morgan.<br>It was announced publicly in the name of the AG, who was forced to stand up in the Lords and accept it as his own. What else could he do?<br>The Treason Felony Act had been invoked against him. If he wanted to keep his job he HAD TO OBEY THE LAW.<br><br>Because be very clear.<br>Although the Guardian had focussed its attack very narrow, on the right to call for the abolition of the Monarchy by peaceful means, that was for tactical reasons because it clearly conflicted with new law, the Human Rights Act.<br><br>The Treason Felony Act is used across the board to control the apparatus of the State.<br>It is used pre-emptively.<br><br>That is why an ancient law is still on the books, and why the British will not repeal a law that has not been used to prosecute in more than one hundred and twenty years.<br><br>It’s more powerful that way.<br>It is used to suppress the English Constitution.<br><br>What? You didn’t know there was an English Constitution?<br>It’s called the Act of Settlement. It’s part of American constitutional law.<br><br>If you go to the Guardian site and call up a story related to the Monarchy it will always include a series of links at the foot of the page.<br>And the first of these is always the Act of Settlement.<br><br>In addition there is a thread where I’ve tried to lay out the constitutional issues. It’s tedious, as is the nature of these things.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm11.showMessage?topicID=137.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=137.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Please come back with your criticisms/questions<br> <p></p><i></i>
