“Conspiracy to commit a misconduct in Public Office”

 London 20^th November 2012

Today, British Crown Prosecutor’s, charged, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, two executives who had previously worked at the “News of the World” newspaper, with the criminal offence of, “Conspiracy to commit misconduct in Public Office”.

Now, this is very interesting: because, presumably, when these two face trial; the trial will be held before a Judge; a, Member, of the British Judiciary. Yet, what is so interesting, is the fact, that, the British Judiciary has, for the last three hundred and twenty four years, been committing, exactly the same offence. For, all this time and, even now today, the entire British Judiciary, has ‘conspired with each other’ to lie to and, deceive, the British People, that, it is, LAW, that denies, all ‘challenge’ to ‘elected’ Parliament in their Courts. And, for that denial, of the right, to challenge ‘elected’ Parliament in the Courts, the British Judiciary has conspired and deceived the British People, that, “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, prevents that challenge.

This, assertion, lies, and deceit, of the British Judiciary, is the clear stark ‘evidence’ that they, “Conspire to commit misconduct in Public Office”.

In consequence; I assert, that no Member of the British Judiciary is, fit to try, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, for the same criminal offence.

 

The proof that the British Judiciary lie, deceive, cheat, and manipulate, LAW, to their own ends; and, exercise, unlawful  power; rests in the fact, that the “Bill of Rights 1689”, far from denying the British People the right to challenge Parliament in the Courts; actually, provides the ‘precedent’ in British, LAW, whereby anyone may challenge Parliament in the Courts, whenever, Parliament, ‘Prejudice the People”.

 "Article 9" of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, reads:
 
"That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament"
 
But, the "Rights Committee" of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, who created that Bill; made provisions within the Bill, for the protection of "The People". The, ‘Committee’, in creating that Bill and, the ‘rights’ Parliament was claiming from the King, were well aware, and, they knew, that the Bill was only required and necessary, to protect Parliament, from a King. It was never required or designed in order to protect Parliament from, “The People”.  However, the ‘Committee’ was concerned that their Bill, might be misinterpreted and be misused.

So, they, specifically determined, in the Bill, in the paragraph inserted, directly below the listed number of 'rights' Parliament, claimed, from the KING; that, when Parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" or, any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; that, Parliament must comply with the conditions set out in, the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed". This, Statute' determines, that, in Parliament applying “Article 9”; nothing, "SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE."

 This is the text of that Statute:

“The Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

 Here is the stark vivid proof that the British Judiciary is corrupt.

 

Gordon J Sheppard