Address removed

5^th July 2009.

Lord Chief Justice Phillips of Worth Matravers,

Senior Lord of Appeal,

House of Lords,

London, SW1A OPW.

Dear Lord Phillips,

I have read this week that the Highest Court in Germany has ruled that the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with their Constitution although it has withheld approval for Ratification. As I, along with many people in this Country believe our Common Law Constitution is the best in the world, I would like the Highest Court in this land of ours to examine whether the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with our Common Law Constitution and Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath. Of particular concern - although there are a great many more - I put forward these named headlines.

Supreme Court. “The freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament.” A very basic understanding in our ‘democracy’ brought about by the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The Supreme Court in the USA struck down Congress in 1803, and the European Court of Justice, an outside ‘body’ may strike down our Parliament. Will our Supreme Court be able to strike down our Parliament or will the European Court of Justice make the final decision? Or perhaps, The Court of Human Rights to which the EU will become a party? In following the debates on the issue of having a Supreme Court here in the UK, it did seem to be the ‘suggestion’ of the European Union. Sadly, the House of Lords and the people of this Country are losers in these changes. However, maybe the first matter the Supreme Court may deal with, I hope and Pray, is the compatibility or not, of the Treaty of Lisbon, which includes all previous EU Treaties, to our Common Law Constitution and the solemn Coronation Oath made by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to whom we all owe true allegiance. Our allegiance and protection of the Crown is being hampered by EU legislation and the Treaties signed and ratified by our Government, and by those that have served in the EU and appear to put the EU before this, their country. It is the people’s bound duty to protect the Crown and their Country. Twice in living memory we have fought two World Wars so to do. Looking at forward EU Legislation and the “Opt ins” and ‘opt outs’, I recognise the fact, we eventually “Opt in” where there may have been an “opt out”.

The Royal Prerogative. I take here the smallest Article (47) in the Treaty of Lisbon, “The Union shall have Legal Personality”. This article is for the EU to “speak with one voice” to ratify Treaties on behalf of all 27 Countries (War making Power? There is no mention that this is not so) As far as the UK is concerned our Government uses the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown for many things and particularly so for ratifying Treaties. The power of the Crown is used through the Royal Prerogative. It is held in trust by Government Ministers and to pass on to the next maybe different Government to use. Through Article 47, it means that our Government has given the Royal Prerogative to foreigners to use through the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. The power of the British Crown is the ultimate authority (sovereignty) of Parliament and its Treaty making instrument, the Royal Prerogative. It is not in the authority of Government to give away this Royal Prerogative to anyone and certainly not to foreigners, for it is not theirs to give, it belongs to The British Crown.

Has Government in ratifying this Treaty revoked the power of the Crown as exercised by Government denying the exclusive authority of the British Government to use the Royal Prerogative in those areas they have agreed to allow the EU to use the powers of the Royal Prerogative in their stead? In the doing, the EU “Binds the Crown and Government”. Not only is our Government made subservient to the EU, the Crown is also by this action. I write of “The Crown”, for I recognise that the power of the Crown is the ultimate authority (sovereignty) of Parliament and that power, (sovereignty) is used by Government through the Royal Prerogative. It is that sovereign power they have given away to the European Union for Article 47. As the EU Treaties are designed for all time and the EU is planning for the next 50 years, it would seem to be a gift of which there is no return, given by a temporary Government, binding every new future Government and future Heirs to the throne. I submit this was not in the gift of ministers and that they could, at a future date, be held guilty of sedition against the State.

The Queen as an EU Citizen? Although this disgraceful episode began through the Treaty of Maastricht, it is given more depth in “Lisbon”. On one of the Royal web sites is, Reading like an abdication, “Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is now a citizen of the European Union”. In our Courts, people bow to the person who may be representing the Crown in those Courts. The news that Her Majesty is now just a citizen of the EU has gone as far a field as Australia. I am ashamed for and of those that brought this about and deeply more so for those that would continue this action. Their solemn Oath of Allegiance is to Her Majesty, it is not to be taken lightly. I feel I have no need to pursue this matter for I am sure you Sir, are acutely aware of all the implications that this EU Citizenship for our beloved Queen brings with it, although I am quite prepared to defend the British Crown to the best of my ability, if need be.

I turn to the full and new article 188R The Solidarity Clause now introduced into the Treaty of Lisbon which, unlike NATO where we have a choice, Article 188R compels the Member states to act together in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack”. I have in mind the separate AGREEMENT, (also in the Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003) in which Article188R will have dramatic effect. (I also note that the Eurogendarmerie can enter this Country fully armed even though we are not party to it-see Clause 5 Treaty of Velsen) This is the first paragraph of the AGREEMENT.

“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.

These forces also have been given immunity. The people had their RIGHT to hold guns for their protection, (Bill of Rights) removed after Dunblane, and Michael James Burke lost his appeal for his ‘right’ to have a gun as in the Bill of Rights 1688. Foreign armed forces and police can enter this country fully armed yet the people may not be armed even though their Common Law Constitution clearly says they may. The present Government has signed that Agreement (EU Directive). We need to ask what reaction the people will have to the sight of foreign troops here in the UK fully armed!! (I noted the debate in Parliament re “Hot pursuit” when guns were to be left on another shore).

I am trying Sir, only for our Law Lords to compare the Treaty of Lisbon’s compatibility to our own Common Law Constitution and Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath for I believe our Common Law Constitution to be no less important to the British people than Germany’s Constitution, is to the people of Germany. To be able to withdraw the Treaty of Lisbon before all 27 states ratify it, if needs be, and for it to be put before the people in a referendum so that the sovereign people of this Country may have a say, for without the sovereign people voting for MP’s there would be no Parliament at all.

I, sir, along with the vast majority of people here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have very little faith or trust in those that presently sit on the Green Benches of the House of Commons, in the magnificent Palace of Westminster. None have listened to the people, yet I find the people’s mood strange. The European Parliament election was very marked by a coming together of the people without words or deeds and without any leadership. They also voted in a way that they have not normally done – many of course did not vote at all. It seemed like a warning except that no one actually "started it". Perhaps this is why the British remain a mystery to some and underestimated by others?

Our MP’s seem too wrapped up in their own affairs to bother about the people. Yet the people are angry, an anger that started by the Telegraph News Paper revealing to the people the abuse their elected representatives have taken with their money. It is an anger that is not diminishing. The people are beginning to realise the extent they have been betrayed, not just by the money but in the ratification of a very integrating constitutional EU Treaty in which there may be no turning back if it is ratified by all.

I regret bitterly at having to write this letter, although I cannot shirk the duty I am honour bound towards our beloved Queen.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Palmer JP.

(Copy to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)

The reply. (I have had to type out for you because I do not have a Scanner)

Address removed

13 July 2009

Dear Mrs Palmer

Thank you very much for your letter dated 5 July addressed to Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers.

With regard to the issues that you have raised in your letter unless the matter is before Lord Phillips or any of the Law Lords in their judicial capacity, it would by inappropriate for any of them to comment on the various issues which you have raised. None of the Lords of appeal in Ordinary take part in the legislative business of the House and therefore it would be inappropriate for them to enter into debate on political issues which may later come before them in their judicial capacity.

I am sorry that Lord Phillips is unable to be of any help.

Yours sincerely

Signature here.

Miss A Onatade

Office Manager.

And the reply from Buckingham Palace.

I have today received a reply from Buckingham Palace to my letter sent to Lord Chief Justice Phillips of Worth Matravers, dated 5th July 2009. The reply is dated 4th August and reads;-

Dear Mrs Palmer, The Private Secretary has asked me to thank you for your letter of 6th July, I am to say that her Majesty has taken careful note of your views you express regarding the Treaty of Lisbon,

Yours sincerely

Mrs Sonia Bonici, Senior Correspondence Officer.

I found the wording of this letter rather strange, compared to others from the palace.!

Labels: Lisbon illegalities