Blog Posts

Huawei “the issues’ and Cisco

The issue in a nutshell is quite simply control of an advanced system of communication that can be used not only for information warfare but, psychical warfare and control.

Think of an envelope “snail mail” as we now call it. We have three systems of delivery (there are more but stick to three).

  1. The standard mail delivery system that most people can get a job delivering mail, cheques, cash but it is only as secure as the weakest postman.
  2. The DX system for lawyers mail, more secure, express delivery, still only as secure as the weakest courier.
  3. Government correspondence, vetted employees.

All three use envelopes with the address for delivery, you can make these envelopes secure, sealed, double sealed, triple enveloped, wrapped in anti tamper. BUT, depending on who you choose to deliver the envelope it is “crucial” to look at the mechanism and likelihood of potential tamper, copy and forward. Now, you could write the letter in code (encryption), BUT these are all things we do if the communication is at any time potentially compromised. It is a last resort.

Would you allow a Chinese security firm or individuals to deliver your state secrets? No! of Course not. But why, whats the risk. It is in code.

By giving them access to the delivery system (control of) is like selling the Civil Service post system (including all levels of security) to the Chinese and saying don’t worry, our messages are in code. When will you know when they have cracked the code?

The British Government decision to use Huawei at any level is completely insane and compromises our Country and Allies security.

Now let us take a look at Huawei history. They have “cloned” Cisco Systems entire portfolio of electronic routers, switches and modems even using the operating system and basic functions. In the trade at the time we used to call the kit “Blatant Cisco Clone” Cisco’s own software IOS was termed BCC. They reverse engineered the hardware and received some intellectual property rights via the Clinton China Trade agreement. see Article here for details

Now look at the control systems in place in China, people control systems, facial recognition systems that can scan 2 billion people in a few seconds via parallel computing systems. This is not good!

Then look at the people on the boards of Huawei UK, Australia etc … mostly David Camerons mates and cohorts. The Elites that seek control.

Alexander Downer – was on the board –

and Alexander Downer is comfortable with China

Now, who is Alexander Downer? He is one of the people involved with the setting up of President Trump. He was the Australian High Commissioner to the UK

Now, if you then look at the UK Board members you will see they are all cohorts of David Cameron. Hmmmm

Lord Browne under pressure to reconsider Huawei board role as firm faces US criminal charges ……

Now, how would you feel having this lot in control of a powerful technology?

Graham Moore Replies to The Daily Telegraph article by Andrew Roberts 01 02 20

It is with respect, that I reply to Andrew Roberts article of 1st February 2020.

This article goes some way to shedding light on the history of the laws of England (there is no such thing as British Law) yet fails to detail the most obvious.  

In fact, it mentions exams in the future, yet fails to mention why the curriculum syllabus and bar exams from 1970 onwards exclude Civic and Constitutional Law – rather an important point I would suggest.

The reason, I contend, is an intention by the “elites” and enemies of this Country (England), Marxists and Socialists in all forms, their enemy is our written Constitution.  The enemy always attack what they fear the most!

There is nothing more powerful than the English Constitution – but only if it is enforced.

There are many Constitutional and Ancient Laws and Customs that are forever and unalterable!  In fact, there is a case, where the Judgement states that:-

[1953] ScotCS CSIH_2, 1953 SC 396, 1953 SLT 255

Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect.  I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.

The Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain “could not” repeal or alter such “fundamental and essential” conditions. He was doubtless influenced in making this concession by the modified views expressed by Dicey in his later work entitled Thoughts on the Scottish Union, from which I take this passage (pp. 252–253):—

“The statesmen of 1707, though giving full sovereign power to the Parliament of Great Britain, clearly believed in the possibility of creating an absolutely sovereign Legislature which should yet be bound by unalterable laws.” “


“I have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the Parliament of Great Britain should be “absolutely sovereign” in the sense that that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at will.”

By reading this Judgement and Blackstone’s Commentary of the Laws of England one should now bring in one or two of these “Constitutional written Laws bound by Solemn Oath and Convention”

The Bill of Rights of 1688/9 (Public Law) clearly states;

1. The Bill of Rights 1688 “Adjudged

2. The Bill of Rights 1688 “for all time to come

3. The Bill of Rights 1688 “Forever” three times.

4. The Bill of Rights 1688 “shall stand remaine and

be the Law of this Realme forever

And by no means least:-

Supremacy: The Bill of Rights 1688 “And I doe

declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or

Potentate hath or ought to have [any Jurisdiction Power

Superiority Preeminence] or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall

within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

Moving to The Bill of Rights 1688/9 authority (private law), the most powerful authority, the Convention of the people 1688 and its outcome.

The Declaration of Rights 1688 read to and signed by both William and Mary.

This convention is as important to England as the Magna Carta of 1215 and restates “our rights”. It is the detail and record of this convention that truly holds the keys to liberty and freedom of the people.  Including the Right to Bear Arms in self-defence.  A right which was subsequently passed to and included in our American Brothers and Sisters Constitution.

The Coronation Oath Act of 1688 sworn by Her Majesty the Queen on June 2nd 1953, and the substance of that Oath, being declared still valid on July 20th 1988 by Her Majesty to both Houses of Parliament (a Declaration).

Restated and confirmed by Betty Boothroyd (speaker of the House of Commons) in Parliament as advice to the Courts in 1993.

The Crown and Parliament Act 1688, The Act of Settlement 1701 and of course the Acts of Union 1706/7 did not diminish these ancient laws and customs in fact, it enshrined it for all time to come.

So then we come to Dicey, what did he say with reference to our Constitution

“All the conventions of the constitution, said Dicey, were ‘intended to secure the ultimate supremacy of the electorate as the true political sovereign of the State’.

Constitutional maxims are ‘subordinate and subservient to the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty’. (p253)

Now to the issue of Treaties and how very illegal (unlawful, unconstitutional) and extremely dishonest they were (are), to the point of perjuring ones oath “and” Treason.

Regions: Regions are a construct of the plan to divide England, not so much Little Englanders as England is too big. I quite like England as Counties, Districts and Parishes.

Treaty of Rome 1957

1992/3 Maastricht Treaty – no referendum

1997 Amsterdam Treaty – no referendum

2001 Nice Treaty – no referendum

2007 Lisbon Treaty – no referendum

Treaty of Rome 1957 (which we were lied to about) see below:-

Initially known as the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (or EEC Treaty in short), its name has been retrospectively amended on several occasions since 1957.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 removed the word “economic” from the Treaty of Rome’s official title and, in 2009, the Lisbon Treaty renamed it the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.

As you can see there was a deliberate sleight of hand (fraud).

The regions are seriously dangerous to England, solely intended to destroy and erase England from the map and “common law”.

There are nine regions of England according to the EU mandate and plan.

However; Scotland will remain a single region (one reason it now has a single police constabulary, instead of seven).  Its National Identity remains intact.

The same for Wales and NI.  (Although the eventual intention of the EU is to create a single republic of Ireland).

Now, do you understand that Nations and Regions of the United Kingdom are in effect code for the breakup and division of England?

I agree, with Winston, but do not be fooled by Boris Johnson or any political system which believes it is sovereign.

Nothing can save England if she will not save herself,” Winston Churchill told his countrymen on St George’s Day 1933. “If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told.”

Now shall we have the first English National Referendum on English Independence?

I believe we should!

PDF link

Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 29th March 2019:

Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 29th March 2019: Extensions: prerogative power or statutory power? If an extension under Article 50(3) TEU was a prerogative power, then: 

 If extension under Article 50(3) was a matter of statute, then: 

  • The statutory position in March 2019 was that the UK would leave the EU either with a withdrawal agreement before 29th March 2019 or without a withdrawal agreement on 29th March 2019 – European Union Referendum Act 2015, referendum held on 23rd June 2016, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, the notification letter of 29th March 2017 and the provisions of Article 50 TEU. Withdrawal agreement not concluded by 29th March 2019 and so UK left EU on 29th March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement.
  • Statutory power under Section 20(4) European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was extremely limited. It was merely a power to amend a definition in the Act – the definition of ‘exit day’. (the definition of exit day had reflected the legal default position of 29th March 2019 at 11pm). Furthermore, the definition could only be amended by a Minister of the Crown to ‘ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom.’ There were only two possibilities for the day and time ‘the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom’ to change under Article 50 TEU – withdrawal agreement being concluded by 29th March 2019 or the European Council in agreement with the Member State concerned (the United Kingdom) unanimously deciding to extend the two year period. Before 30th March 2019 neither occurred, no withdrawal agreement concluded and the United Kingdom (as compared with the Prime Minister/UK Government) had not agreed to extend the two-year period. The EU treaties ceased to apply to the United Kingdom on 29th March 2019. 

 Remember Prime Minister Theresa May stated on over 100 occasions that the UK would leave the EU on 29th March 2019. She was correct in her statement.  During the Brexit saga, some of the principal actors may have believed they were doing the right thing based upon their level of knowledge and understanding at the relevant time, some may have felt they were under particular pressure to take the action which they did. Whatever the situation, such actors are not the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom in a lawfully held referendum (in which 72.21% of 46,500,001 registered voters participated) voted to leave the European Union.  ‘It was a vote to take control of our borders, laws and money’ (Mansion House speech, 2nd March 2018).   P.S. This note is provided in a spirit of goodwill. If you agree with it, please feel free to copy and paste it (together with this postscript) and send it to family, friends and contacts. Thank you and have a good day.

What could happen in the Independence fight with the deep state UK, The English Constitution?

The Supreme Court are in their second day. In my opinion this case should not be in the Supreme Court and it could backfire spectacularly for the remainers.

Why do I think it should never of been heard? Simple, and it is simple. The Declaration of Rights 1688, The Bill of Rights 1688 and The Coronation Oath act 1688. The Declaration is a valid contract, as valid as the day(s) it was written, read and agreed to in mansion house. It is still in the House of Lords archives and is in fact the only parchment rolled document, sealed and signed, that is not a statute. The conversion to law, statute, was enabled via The Crown and Parliament Act 1688, this allowed for the conversion of The Declaration of Rights 1688 into The Bill of Rights 1688 (the only statute to be termed a Bill, not an Act). Then of course we have the Oath, sworn by Her Majesty and every Monarch before her from the time of first swearing in 1688.

Article 9 of The Bill of Rights 1688 states clearly;

Freedom of Speech.

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

There were thirteen wrongs, and thirteen rights. This happened at the end of a period of heinous brutality by the Crown and Crown advisers. Evil Counsellors.

So what is my opinion on what could happen?

If the Supreme Court uphold the Law of the Land, The Constitution. Then they will rule unanimously that this is not a case for the courts to hear. They will back, Her Majesty the Queen and Her Government. To do anything else breaches their Oath of Office. To rule against the Constitution would cause the courts to be involved with politics and not the law. A very serious breach of convention and trust.

Here it comes people:

The People are Sovereign and here is what should and could happen now.

The Supreme Court rules. This is not Justiciable.

Then, Boris Johnson goes back to Parliament on the 15th October 2019 and prorogues until the end of the fixed term parliament session comes to an end. In the meantime, government will govern and the rest of Parliament will be removed as they have lied and cheated for votes, they have arrogantly gone against the will of the people and would seek to intentionally destroy the Country, rather than make decisions for us all in a positive way. (Think democrats USA against President Trump).

Bear in mind, Boris asked for a General Election, they said “NO”, he asked for a Vote of No Confidence. They said “No”. What does that mean? It means they have confidence in the Government and in effect have approved of the prorogue for the good of the Country until the end of the fixed term (if that is what Dominic Cummings decides). Then, the people will decide at a General Election.

If you think this cannot happen, think again. There is another option. Her Majesty could dissolve parliament, appoint Her own Ministers, i.e Army, Navy, Airforce generals, admirals, Air Vice Marshalls and they could appoint advisors as needed. Not martial law. But close. Becarefull what you wish for…

#BlackVulture Lord James




These questions can be put by both supporters of EU Remain and Brexit leavers.  Of course, they may not get the same answers and where ever they are able, both groups should compare both responses.  This note seeks only to present the questions and does not offer answers on the grounds these are usually quite clear, or already known.

Question 1.     Will leaving the EU mean that the UK will have fully recovered its sovereignty?

No, not entirely, although it will have repaired the damage caused by the Lisbon Treaty, there are numerous other breaches which remain.

Question 2.     Will leaving the EU mean that the British Parliament is restored to its full omniscience as required constitutionally by the Bill of Rights of 1689?

Question 3.     With the May plan, if revived, would that present a result very little different to that from remain? 

No, because it would not restore to us the right of veto which we lost with the signing of the Lisbon Treaty on 13 December 2007.  We would remain wholly subject to the laws and rules decreed and ordered from Brussels, we would have caused Her Majesty to be in put in breach of her Coronation Oath not to in any way reduce the omniscience of Parliament and we would be subject to levels of taxation imposed by Brussels sufficient to cure all the ills of the rest of Europe and our sovereignty would have been irreparably damaged.

Question 4.     Will the UK still have its monarchy and an orderly succession as we know it for future generations?

Question 5.  Will our Courts and Justice systems continue to work in accordance with the same principals and practice as we expect from our Supreme Court?

Question 6.     What is the European Defence Union and how will this affect the UK?

Question 7.     Will the UK still maintain its Army, Navy and Air Force to provide its own security and defence?

Question 8.     Will the UK still have the Pound Sterling as its main currency or will we have to adopt the Euro?

Question 9.   What is meant by Fiscal Unification of the EU?  And will it happen?

Question 10.   If so, does this mean the EU will annually set the tax rates for all Member countries at the level needed to cover the cost of rescuing all E.U. countries which are in financial crisis and need bailing out such as Italy, Greece, Poland etc.?

Question 11.    If so, will this mean a huge rise in the tax having to be paid by every UK citizen?

Question 12.    Is it true that the EU is planning to set up its own integrated intelligence and security operations?

Question 13.     If so, how will the renowned UK agencies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ work in conjunction with these, or would they become fully absorbed in the EU overall operation?

Question 14.    If so, what access would we have to the product of such an operation?

Question 15.     And how would such an integrated EU intelligence operation fit with the critical British participation with the brilliantly successful ‘Five Eyes’ global security monitoring activity embracing the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?  Would the USA trust in essential output to be accessed by European countries?

Question 16.     Madam Von der Leyen has indicated that the EU wishes to be a significant nuclear weapon power. Why?

Question 17.    Does this mean the EU would wish to assume control of the UK’s Trident fleet?

Question 18.     If so:

Who would pay for the planned replacement of Trident?

Would the USA ever be willing to allow the EU access to thermonuclear technology used by ourselves under license?

Question 19.     Will the UK maintain a fair and equal placement of the key and very valuable economically, production orders for all military equipment such as ship building, tanks and aircraft etc?  Would the UK be able to rely upon a fair share of this huge and valuable market?

Question 20.     Is there any truth that Madam Von der Leyen has recently stated that the EU might recognise a future need to introduce conscription across its territory in order to maintain military strength?

Question 21.   What enemies does the EU identify as a cause to justify its military concerns?

Question 22.     Is it true that the EU intends one single overall commission centre to conduct all foreign relations with external countries, to the exclusion of any established relations such as the UK might have?

Question 23.     Could this mean that the UK could be forced into sharing EU hostile or alien relations with countries the UK might regard as friends or even allies?

Question 24.     Is it true that the future European Defence Union will insist upon a central Command and Control structure for the strategy and deployment of all fighting forces regardless of country of origin, and that originating countries will be completely excluded from any authority in such Command and Control?

Question 25.     Is it true that the UK has already agreed to all or any of the EU’s demands for full cooperation in the European Defence Union?

Question 26.     If so, to whom will British forces swear their loyalty as they currently do to Her Majesty The Queen?

Question 27.     Given that the 1969 United Nations Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaty Making specifically prohibits trading contracts between nations, which can result in enforced national boundary lines, why has the UK not formally petitioned the UN to rule to overturn the EU’s backstop, which specifically does this?

Question 28.     Is there still time to make this petition given that it must be submitted before any formal acceptance — which would seem to be the case up to 31 October 2019?

Question 29.      Did any separate UK Government officers undertake parallel discussion with EU personnel as to key points which would have application after any principle deal negotiated by Mrs May had taken effect?  May we have full disclosure of these secondary but probably important discussions which took place and which are rumoured to be covered by separate signed protocols?  Will these now be fully accounted for?  It is believed all such discussions relate to Cabinet Office Executives.

N.B.: All the points or questions set out in this Black Vulture Report are derived entirely from ordinary press and other media comments over the last year.  Most of these derive from the broadsheet press, although its author has been able to augment this by reference to various media and similar video clips on the internet.  The latter have been particularly helpful in monitoring the very frequent and usually unambiguous comments of Madam Von der Leyen, particularly those relating to the Munich Security Conference, at which the former UK Prime Minister Mr T. Blair was present on stage.  This paper does not contain any statement or information obtained from official or confidential Government or Armed Service sources.

Lord James of Blackheath CBE

And a final question from Black Vulture himself (adds Lord James):

Will there be enough meat left on the rotting carcass of Britain, still an EU Remainer, a once proud sovereign nation, or will I be faced with the sight of a resurgent sovereignty breaking free to fly away to a new freedom and a fully sovereign existence?