JM: I am sure you will agree that it is quite ironic for an American to be talking to a Brit about hereditary titles.
LS: [Laughs] Yes, well, as an American I don't take the issue of hereditary honours too seriously, except in as far as this is part of my family history and traditions going back centuries, as outlined in my book. In my time working with Burke's Peerage I became an expert on Scots Peerage Law, Baronetage Law, Baronage Law and Chiefly Law. This knowledge about the law is reflected in my complaint against Blair, Lord Falconer and now Brown and Straw.
JM: You may be aware of the work of the UK Column and our fight against Common Purpose, which we suspect of being a Masonic conspiracy at the higher levels. Care to comment?
LS: Common Purpose certainly sounds like a front group to me. When you want to know where the real power resides in a given country, and those who you ask always speak in a very quiet, hushed voice about something - that tells you who the powers really are. Your goals are certainly admirable and I support you in them, but you really do have your work cut out for you, what with police cameras everywhere (one for every seven citizens; more than in the rest of Europe combined) and the rapid drive towards a police state in Great Britain. You know I call this period we are in now "The Quickening", and I think that sums it up quite nicely.
The "smoking gun"
JM: Given the circumstances you outline in your book, I am sure you are familiar with the original cash for honours case that led to the introduction of the law against this in the UK. Would you agree that Lord Levy appears to be the reincarnation of John Maundy-Gregory in this respect?
LS: That would have been under the Lloyd George government, correct? Yes, well I don't have any specific evidence to support this, but Levy certainly looks like a Mossad operative to me. At the bare minimum he should be considered as a key overlord and handler for NuLabour and Tony Blair. He can only really be described is a kind of shifty snake-oil salesman who speaks with a "forked tongue", if you know what I mean.
JM: And what about Peter Mandelson who you will note just (re)ascended the giddy heights?
LS: Well, aside from the fact that in my opinion Mr Mandelson is an order of magnitude worse than someone like Karl Rove, I would say that these people are just so utterly corrupt and smack in the middle of this whole stinking business up-to their eyebrows that after a while they begin to think they are invincible, and just develop this unbelievably arrogant attitude towards the world around them.
I see the whole cash-for-honours scandal as a form of over-reach arising from this pompous and inflated opinion that they have of themselves. When Baron Mandelson was ennobled, he had two people with him: Baroness Jay of Paddington (who is a really lovely lady), and Lord Falconer. Now I could rant about that fat b****d Falconer all day – he has done more than the rest of them put together to undermine and besmirch the integrity of British politics and constitutional processes, and to destroy as much of British heritage as possible.
If you take my case alone, the fact that we are talking about crimes including obstruction of justice means that it should be sufficient to put at least one senior cabinet minister in prison for a significant number of years, so this is a serious level of corruption that we are talking about here. I don't like to get too bent out of shape about them really, at the end of the day they will eventually have to face their creator and all the tea-and-crumpets-with-the-pope in the world won't help them on that day! If nothing else, just take a look at the slaughter they have caused in Iraq and other parts of the world with their policies. These things really do require an accounting if we are going to move forward from here and build a better world free from all this senseless bloodshed.
JM: The impression I got from your book was that it was somewhat rushed to print to coincide with the political events, as opposed to being a detailed account of your legal case, is that a fair statement?
LS: Yes, that is more or less what happened. I wanted to ensure that my story was part of the public record, but as political events were moving very fast it was a bit of a rush job to get the book out.
JM: Further to that, while I think that there is clear circumstantial evidence for corruption presented in your book, I was not entirely satisfied that you had proved your case to the extent required to prove criminal wrongdoing. Do you have other evidence that was not presented in the book?
LS: In the end I did leave quite a lot of things out and have been deliberately circumspect in certain areas for a variety of reasons that I prefer not to discuss at this point in time. But, as you should know from the book, I followed Scots peerage law to the tee and obviously know it extremely well, so there is absolutely no question but that the ongoing obstruction of my rightful position as a peer is against the law of the land. The Labour government even failed to follow their own legal guidelines as laid out in the Royal Warrant, establishing the Roll of the Peerage, that was issued by Lord Falconer, supposedly to clear up problems caused by their half-assed reform of the House of Lords, so you might observe that their incompetence and clownishness is almost as accomplished as their capacity for wanton corruption.
As you will no doubt be aware, these type of characters do not exactly just come right out and send you an invoice for whatever it is they want from you, but instead make subtle "suggestions" over an informal chat that perhaps all your "problems" will just go away if you can bring yourself to make a "reasonable donation". In fact, the "problems" they refer to do not exist in the real world under the legal system they should be following, but seem to just spontaneously appear out of nowhere when their expectations are not met.
Now I am a Christian and an ethical person, and I don't think that paying bribes to politicians is really the way a first world country should be conducting its political affairs, and that applies to the United States, the United Kingdom and anywhere else that claims to be a bastion of ethics and good governance. So you can call me stubborn if you want, and I am sure these guys have a few other things they would like to call me in addition to that [laughing] but, that's the way I see things and I know I am right about this.
A key point is that Tony Blair's defense of his actions, and the actions of his senior people, in the "cash for peerages" scandal was that the peerages in question were not "honours" in the traditional sense but working party positions. My case, that involved both a possible life peerage and old hereditary Scottish peerages (something clearly a matter of traditional honours even under Blair's very liberal definition of "honours" used in his defense) clearly proved that the actions of Blair and his most senior people were corrupt. They would not follow the law unless and until they received a massive "donation".
I do not pay bribes, and they caused me no untold amount of problems because of this. To this every day, the Labour government, now under Brown (and with the personal involvement of Jack Straw as Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor) refuse to follow Scots Peerage Law in my case. They still have not placed my name on the Roll of the Peerage in spite of the fact that the circumstances of my claim, under Scots Peerage Law and the rules outlined by the Royal Warrant establishing the Roll of the Peerage, clearly legally require them to do so. In my case, there is even written documents from Falconer's senior people lying about the wording of a recent Act of Parliament. When I proved their written statement to be a lie, there was no apology. When I caught them quoting English Peerage Law rules instead of the different Scots Peerage Law rules in my claim to Scots Peerages and pointed this out several times there was no apology, just a continuation of same. The flow of communication from the senior law officer in the land, at that time, the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, when a case was before the European Court of Human Rights, clearly established that they were committing obstruction of justice.
JM: In your opinion, why was the investigation shut down and what should we, the British public be doing about that? In particular, I am curious about the role of Detective Inspector John Yates, who is a name we have come across recently in connection with charges of treason that are being made around the country on our initiative – do you think he is corrupt or merely under enormous pressure by higher ups in the establishment.
LS: I personally talked at length with John Yates and with his senior detectives. They had, let me make this very clear, they had more than enough evidence, just from my case alone, to bring criminal charges against some of the highest office holders in the land. But the "fix was in". The Establishment did not want a PM and senior cabinet ministers going to Her Majesty's Prisons, so the deal reached was Blair was to resign by a certain date and no criminal charges would be brought against anyone in the Cabinet or Number 10.
JM: What is the next move for your fight over this issue and what are the prospects for success?
LS: Well the first thing to say is that under Scots Law I am the Earl of Stirling, and nothing, even the mighty New Labour, can change that. As it stands I am free to bring a very substantial lawsuit against Falconer, Blair and Straw which I am very confident would be sufficient to bankrupt all concerned.I do not like to make money off lawsuits, but this after all is a matter of principle.
To be frank, I was quite put off by the whole process - it simply was not what one would expect from the UK as a first world country. So basically I just want the British government to follow the law, including international treaties to which the UK is a signatory, not to mention their much lauded manifesto commitments to gender equality (which is a key part of my case in view of the ridiculous and obsolete law of male primogeniture).
I believe there was a bill by Lord Diamond related to this not so long ago, which I did not think was too well put together and unfortunately was subsequently defeated in House of Lords. They probably think I am a boy scout but I am damned if I am going to pay them to do things they are supposed to do anyway. I don't pay bribes, but since they are forcing the issue by continuing not to follow the law, I will bring legal action against the personal assets of several senior Labour officials under human rights legislation; there are a number of countries in the EU and in North America that claim "universal jurisdiction" in the case of human rights violations and also allow people to go after the government officials regardless of their governmental or Crown immunity and to go after their personal assets. They themselves valued a life barony/peerage at over one million pounds, this was their going rate for "donations" for a life peerage.
As my case involves one possible life barony, one hereditary earldom, two viscounties, two Scots Lordships of Parliament, a baronetcy, a chiefship of a Scottish clan, several hereditary great offices of state in Canada and Nova Scotia, and several other titles the claim is apt to be very very high. This is NOT something that I want to have to take to court but I will not allow the crooks to win. I supplied them with hundreds of years of my ancestry in my claim by right but they don't care about this, they just want money. The current refusal to follow Scots Peerage Law in my claim by Jack Straw and Gordon Brown ties them into the Blair Cash for Peerages scandal in a on-going way. Further, the refusal to allow a resettlement-by-letters patent to eliminate the sexist rules of male primogeniture, with regards to the succession to my titles, something which under Scots Peerage Law is my right to formally request, is a basic violation of human rights of myself, my sister, and her heirs and ties Straw and Brown into the past obstruction of justice issue that was before the European Court of Human Rights.
It is downright shameful to insist on maintaining odious sexist rules of male only succession to the Earldom of Stirling/etc. when Scots Peerage law allows the present Earl, myself, the right to have the Monarch change these rules. It is Jack Straw and Gordon Brown who are standing in the way of ending this gender based human rights violation. The fact that they do so in opposition to the strong support for gender equality that the Labour Party supposedly stand for, is sadly reflective of their duplicity on gender and human rights issues.
The British Constitution
JM: We are particularly interested in the constitutional issues involved with the "cash for honours" scandal. In particular you may have head the recent case of the 22 MPs who want to abandon their oath to the Monarch and are pushing for Constitutional reform to make Great Britain a "Republic".
LS: One of the most beautiful things about the UK is that you have managed to keep your heritage, and this is apparent to anyone who visits the country and can feel that kind of living history all around them. It really would be a bad thing to have one more semi retired corrupt politician appointed as head of state. The UK has the benefit of being separated from the continent and did not lose its monarchy at the end of World War 1 like other European nations, and this was a good thing in my opinion. In all my dealings with the British Royal family I have found them fair and have no complaint whatsoever against them, and so I wholeheartedly believe that the country should keep it's Monarchy as an institution regardless of all the many scandals and intrigues, and marriage problems, around the Windsor family in recent years.
JM: There has been a lot of discussion and speculation on the internet about the crisis being a kind of "economic 9/11". Do you agree with this perspective, and if so, who primarily do you think is behind it?
LS: Hmm. Well it's quite an interesting co-incidence to see that the Rockerfeller and Rothschild interests have so far seemed to have done quite well out of all this chaos. There was also the recent case of this interesting "car accident" in Austria of a "far right" political figure who was raising the issue of the global banking families, which really is the 3rd rail in all of this. You know I often get emails attacking me for not being anti-semitic by saying that "the Jews" are responsible for all this in the articles that I write, but I simply refuse to blame an entire race of people for what some people try to do. Nonetheless, it is rather interesting to note that Lady Rothschild is a key fundraiser for the Tory party. The Rothschilds have been at the game of backing both sides of every major conflict for hundreds of years, and while their basic methodology is always to make money and accrue more and more political power, there is a broader agenda. Panics and crashes always benefit a small group of "insiders", and if you look at the Great Depression this was the greatest generator of debt to the bankers on record, and it seems clear enough that fractional reserve banking goes together with wars as the biggest generator of deficit spending.
JM: What do you see as the primary solutions that are required at this point in time, and do you have any specific advice to our readers on that?
LS: I don't have any simple answers to that one. What I do see coming is truly horrific economic conditions, and a global war. And given that this is the 21st Century, we are no longer talking about regular warfare. If you take the case of Iran, which clearly has an advanced bio-war MAD capability via genetically engineered viruses we really are looking at something that approximates the horrific scenes described in the Biblical accounts of Armageddon. What is coming in the short term certainly seems to provide the casus belli for the installation of the global fascist police state that is so clearly the agenda of these evil people.
JM: In closing, do you have any other remarks or points that you would like to draw to the attention of our readers?
LS: Ok, well the essential point to remember is that my case could have put Blair and Falconer in prison and it has not ended yet. Jack Straw (Brown's Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor) is still not following the law and therefore I am not going to let this matter rest. They have tried very hard to sweep this under the rug but it is not going away. I have nothing to lose at this point in my life, so we will see in the end if justice prevails.
JM: Thank-you for your time this evening and God bless.