Around half of the material served on the “CPS” on 6 and 7 June 2000 was inadmissible as evidence, and the remainder the judge found it expedient to ignore. The material below is, I believe, admissible as evidence.

The first item, the statement, was made by someone who was unwilling to attend court as a defence witness. In this case the prosecution are able to object to its admission into evidence, which they did. It is useful here as a model statement because I am told it is just the sort of thing that impresses juries.

Group 1. A statement by an Avenues resident as follows:

‘To whom it may concern,

‘I know Mr. Sheppard... and I believe he was a resident in the area. I have no trouble with Mr. Sheppard and have always found him a polite, inoffensive young man.

‘I did see this leaflet distributed during June of 1999 and I did not find it offensive, depending on ones view and mood of the day, one could even say it was quite amusing in parts.

‘We get all kinds of leaflets and newsletters pushed through our letterboxes around here and I believe it is down to the individual to decide the material he or she wishes to read or discard.

‘No-one can agree with everything printed and it would be a sad world if everyone thought the same way. But if Mr. Sheppard is responsible for upsetting someone with this leaflet then there’s no accounting for another person’s level of insecurity.

‘I do not agree with some of the content in the local labour party newsletters so it goes straight in the bin, its hardly a case for calling in the local police who surely have far more important things to look into.’

Group 3. Miscellaneous evidence of Treason

• Transcript of Hansard dated 13 March 1989 detailing Mr Tony Benn’s speech to the House of Commons about a High Court judgement on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988:

  ‘For the first time in the history of Parliament an Act passed by both Houses and the regulations under it have been set aside.’

• Extract from the Skeleton Argument for Committal Proceedings from the CPS, especially the following:

  ‘Under the Act it is unlawful for any public authority, including a court or tribunal at any level, to act in a manner which is incompatible with a Convention right (s.6). Convention rights thus take precedence over any rule of common law or equity and over most delegated legislation.’

Group 4. Evidence of the treasonous Imperium in Imperio and other illegal activities of Jewish organisations

• The ‘National Board of Deputies of British Jews’ stated aims and activities, from the National Directory of Action against Racial Harassment, especially on page 432, where it states that its activities include:
  
  

  ‘Investigation to identify the publishers and distributors of anti-Semitic literature; supply of intelligence information to the police service leading to prosecution and conviction.’

• A copy of pages of Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol. 11(1), 1990, para 79, especially ‘Levying war against the Sovereign... The treason of levying war against the Sovereign in Her realm may be of two kinds... (2) constructive, as where there is a rising for some general public purpose...’ Among the public purposes instanced are: ‘to effect an alteration of the law; to alter religion established by law...’

Group 5. Evidence of complicity in the treasonous conspiracy by the Court Service and its acting against the wishes and interests of the British people

• Copies of nine out of fifteen leaflets published by the Court Service prominently featuring Negroes and Asiatics
• A copy of pages of Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol. 11(1), 1990, para 80, especially:

  ‘Adherence to the Sovereign’s enemies... Adherence must be evidenced by an overt act done with intent to aid and assist the Sovereign’s enemies. A person is adherent to the sovereign’s enemies who does an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the Sovereign’s enemies in the conduct of a war against the Sovereign or which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the Sovereign and of the country to resist or attack the enemies of the Sovereign and the country...’

Group 6. A summary of evidence of the illicit nature of the Jewish-made laws

• A copy of pages of Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol. 10, 1995, the Act of Settlement (1700), especially:

  ‘That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid no person born out of the kindoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be... made a denizen (except such as [are] born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the privy councill or a member of either House of Parliament...’

• An extract from The Jewish Year Book 1998 by Judge Aron Owen, p. 200, especially:

  ‘In 1290, Edward personally decreed the expulsion of Jews from England. During the reign of Charles I (1625-49) the number of Jews in England steadily increased. Menasseh ben Israel (1604-57) of Amsterdam made a direct appeal to Cromwell to authorize readmission. His ‘Humble Addresses’ presented to the Lord Protector in October 1655 urged the revocation of the edict of 1290 and entreated that the Jews be accorded the right of public worship and the right to trade freely. No formal announcement was ever made of the Jews ‘readmission.’’

• The original text of the proclamation:

  ‘Eodem anno omnes Judei, cum eorum bonis, filiis, et uxoribus, circa festum Omnium Sanctorum, terram Angliae et Aquitaniae, concedente rege Edwardo, exulantur.’

  Translation:

  ‘To the same end in the year, all Jews, with their goods, children and wives, around the festival of All Saints, are banished from the land of England and of Aquitaine, King Edward having conceded.’

Group 7. The legal basis of my claim to freedom from attainder arising from revealing the take-over of our nation

• A copy of pages of Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol. 12, 1997, the Treason Act 1495 ‘Persons serving the King for the time being, in war, shall not be attainted of treason, etc.,’ especially [1] which finishes ‘if any Act or Acts or other process of the Law hereafter... happen to be made contrary to this ordinance, then that Act or other processes of the law whatsoever they shall be, stand and be utterly void.’