STOPPING THE HIGH
SPEED TRAIN PROJECT IN THE UK
CAN STOP THIS HS2 PROJECT, FROM GOING
AHEAD.
ALL IT WILL TAKE IS SUPREME COURAGE - COMPLETE ABANDONMENT OF POLITICAL
PARTY LOYALTIES - AND A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY IN ORDER TO EMPLOY THE
BEST LEARNED LEGAL COUNSEL TO ACT ON THE CAMPAIGNS BEHALF, BY DOING AS INSTRUCTED.
THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS HS2 PROJECT, RIGHT IN ITS TRACKS, IS TO CHALLENGE, IN LAW, THE ACTUAL LEGALITY OF THIS PRESENT COALITION ADMINISTRATION MASQUERADING AS GOVERNMENT; THAT WAS NOT 'ELECTED' AT ALL.
1. The 'Peoples Vote' in the General Election of 2010 determined two things: (a), that no political party should have a majority in parliament; and, (b), that there should be a, "Conservative led Minority Government". THAT WAS THE ONLY LEGAL AND LAWFUL DETERMINATION OF THE PEOPLES VOTE IN THAT GENERAL ELECTION.
2. Leaders of the political parties elected to parliament in that election did not like that result; so they decided that they could 'ignore the peoples vote' and thence to proceed to create this present coalition administration, entirely on their own.
3. In 'ignoring the peoples vote' in this way, they, "PREJUDICED THE PEOPLE"; and, the "prejudice of the people" is wholly outlawed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".
4. In consequence, and, by, 'precedent of law', this present coalition administration, has no legality at all.
5. When parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689"; the Act whereby parliament claims its "Supremacy"; or, any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; parliament must comply with the 'conditions for applying that, 'Act', as are set out in the 'overruling paragraph of that Bill, known as, "The Said Rights Claimed".
6. This is that paragraph:
THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS HS2 PROJECT, RIGHT IN ITS TRACKS, IS TO CHALLENGE, IN LAW, THE ACTUAL LEGALITY OF THIS PRESENT COALITION ADMINISTRATION MASQUERADING AS GOVERNMENT; THAT WAS NOT 'ELECTED' AT ALL.
1. The 'Peoples Vote' in the General Election of 2010 determined two things: (a), that no political party should have a majority in parliament; and, (b), that there should be a, "Conservative led Minority Government". THAT WAS THE ONLY LEGAL AND LAWFUL DETERMINATION OF THE PEOPLES VOTE IN THAT GENERAL ELECTION.
2. Leaders of the political parties elected to parliament in that election did not like that result; so they decided that they could 'ignore the peoples vote' and thence to proceed to create this present coalition administration, entirely on their own.
3. In 'ignoring the peoples vote' in this way, they, "PREJUDICED THE PEOPLE"; and, the "prejudice of the people" is wholly outlawed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".
4. In consequence, and, by, 'precedent of law', this present coalition administration, has no legality at all.
5. When parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689"; the Act whereby parliament claims its "Supremacy"; or, any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; parliament must comply with the 'conditions for applying that, 'Act', as are set out in the 'overruling paragraph of that Bill, known as, "The Said Rights Claimed".
6. This is that paragraph:
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”History:
The "Rights Committee" of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 who created this Bill, they knew that the Bill was only necessary in order to protect Parliament from the interferences of a King. Parliament, in offering the throne to PRINCE WILLIAM OF ORANGE, did not want to put up with the troubles it had experienced from the previous King, James II. So, the, "Declaration of Rights", (as it was then; it did not become the actual "Bill of Rights" until December 13th 1689, when it received the "Royal Assent" and, became, Law), was solely intended for a King. It was never created or intended to protect Parliament from the People. Yet, that is the way both Parliament and the Judiciary has been using this 'Bill', for the last 300 years or more.
The "Rights Committee" fearful that their Bill and it's true intent might be misunderstood or misinterpreted, inserted into the Bill, the necessary paragraph in order to protect the People; so, directly below and following the 13 'Articles' or 'Rights' Parliament was claiming from the King, the "Rights Committee" inserted the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed".
This paragraph "The Said Rights Claimed" makes it abundantly clear by 'precedent' of LAW; that when Parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" or any of the other "Premises" of the Bill; that, NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.
Regarding instructions for legal counsel:
The entire
BRITISH JUDICIARY has ‘conspired to pervert the course of justice’, by
repeatedly during the last three hundred and twenty four years, denied, the
British People of their right to test, question, or challenge ‘elected’
Parliament, from within LAW; in the British Courts. From the very first day
that the “Bill of Rights” received the “Royal Assent” in December 1689 and,
became LAW; the BRITISH JUDICIARY has always denied “The British People” access
to the Courts, in order to bring such actions against Parliament; they, have
always asserted and ruled, that, “Article 9” of that,"Bill of Rights 1689",
prevented all challenge in LAW.
Yet, this
is a complete and a wicked LIE, and, a ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice’.
"Article
9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" reads as follows:
"That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings
of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court of Place out
of Parlyament."But, for parliament to 'enact' "Article 9" or any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; Parliament must comply with the conditions set out, within that Bill, in the paragraph known as, "The Said Rights Claimed"
Therefore, the “Statute in
Force/Bill of Rights 1689/”The Said Rights Claimed” as, the ‘precedent’ of LAW,
makes it abundantly clear, that anyone may challenge Parliament, in the Courts,
whenever Parliament, ‘prejudice’ “The People”.
Note: Legal Counsel is
bound to advise that parliament may not be challenged in the Courts.This is rubbish. Counsel will have to be instructed: that anyone may challenge parliament in the Courts, whenever parliament 'prejudice the people'.
There is also one other very interesting thing, about all this:
QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND; The, ‘Reigning Monarch’, of England.
The British People do not endure their 'subjugation' to the
"Reigning Monarch" of England, for as long as a Monarch shall reign,
for nothing. "Allegiance is given to the Liege
Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord. The British Monarchy
has not been created in order that the "Reigning Monarch"
shall open new establishments, host garden parties, or travel the globe promoting
British, goods and prestige. The Monarchy has been created with one purpose
alone. That is to provide the protection of the people.
Each 'Reigning Monarch" of England sitting upon the throne, is required by precedent of law to honour the "Original Contract", and, to provide, the protection of, "Subjects of the Crown". They are required to 'Act as Head of Government", to monitor parliament, and, to see that the laws and Bills passed by parliament, have been created honestly, and, that they are in the interests, of the welfare of the British people.
And, failure to provide that protection, by, precedent of law, abdicates the throne.
Each 'Reigning Monarch" of England sitting upon the throne, is required by precedent of law to honour the "Original Contract", and, to provide, the protection of, "Subjects of the Crown". They are required to 'Act as Head of Government", to monitor parliament, and, to see that the laws and Bills passed by parliament, have been created honestly, and, that they are in the interests, of the welfare of the British people.
And, failure to provide that protection, by, precedent of law, abdicates the throne.
King James II was removed from the throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament).
The CONVENTION determined that he had, "Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People"; and, they ruled that thereby, he had abdicated the throne. The CONVENTION declared that the throne was vacant. And, Prince William of Orange, became the next King.
In a most important debate of both Lords and Commons, held in the "Painted Chamber" of the Commons in early 1688, debating the words: "Abdicate" and "The Vacancy of the Throne"; in respect, to the "Lineal Descent", (all subsequent Monarchs occupying the throne), the CONVENTION determined this:
"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor broke the contract, they too can be Deposed".
Each 'Reigning Monarch' of England is provided with two 'legal instruments' in order to assist them to protect, "Subjects of the Crown", these two instruments are, The "Royal Assent" and The "Royal Prerogative"
The "Royal Assent" provides that the "Reigning Monarch" has the responsibility and duty, to vet the laws and Bills passed by parliament, granting or refusing 'Assent' as the case may be.
It is interesting to
note, that the last time a ‘Reigning Monarch’ refused to grant the ‘Royal Assent’ was
Queen Anne, on 11th March, in 1704, in respect of the “Bill for
settling of Militia in Scotland”.
The ‘evidence’ is therefore seen here in abundance: this is how the “Reigning Monarch’s’ of, our land, have failed to protect the British People.
The ‘evidence’ is therefore seen here in abundance: this is how the “Reigning Monarch’s’ of, our land, have failed to protect the British People.
In consequence today, we, British, have a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting upon the throne enjoying all the privileges of Monarchy; yet, who fails to honour the "Original Contract" and provide the protection of Her Subjects. Today, ELIZABETH THE SECOND sits passively upon the throne franking and rubber stamping every piece of paper laid before her by Parliament. We, no longer have a 'Reigning Monarch'. We have a village sub-postmistress.
The "Royal Prerogative" provides the
"Reigning Monarch" with three options:
A. To encourage Ministers of Government.
B. To warn Ministers of Government.
C. Whenever the wishes of the People are in direct conflict with the
actions of the Legislators (Parliament), to order the immediate dissolution of Parliament.
In the aftermath of 'The People's Vote' of the General
Election of 2010 when the leaders of the political parties chose to 'ignore'
the "Wishes of the People" and, then proceeded to create this present
coalition administration entirely on their own; here was the situation where (C) above, should
have been applied.
In failing to honour
the "Original Contract" and protect Her Subjects, in this regard; in
truth and reality, and, by 'precedent of law'; she abdicates the throne.
The British have no
other protection of, "LAW".
There is no Written Constitution “,” Bill of Rights or, "Supreme Court of Law" where the People may challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of Parliament. The only protection of, "LAW” that the People have, and, of which they are entitled to, is the protection of each, "Reigning Monarch" sitting upon the British throne. When, any "Reigning Monarch" fails to provide that protection; the British, end up, HAVING NO PROTECTION OF LAW AT ALL.
All the projects, Bills and Law's created by this present coalition administration masquerading as government, have no true legality at all. The project "HS2" therefore has no legality whatsoever. It can be challenged in, "LAW".
MY CHALLENGE
I challenge all and any who claim the true legality of this present coalition administration, to produce the 'actual legal instruments' verifying the veracity of that claim.
I assert that there is no such 'legal instrument' existing in Britain today. There is nothing in British legal history that permits leaders of political parties, to ignore the Peoples Vote, delivered, by democratic General Election; and, then, for those leaders to proceed, to create a coalition administration, to act as Government; entirely on their own.
There is no Written Constitution “,” Bill of Rights or, "Supreme Court of Law" where the People may challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of Parliament. The only protection of, "LAW” that the People have, and, of which they are entitled to, is the protection of each, "Reigning Monarch" sitting upon the British throne. When, any "Reigning Monarch" fails to provide that protection; the British, end up, HAVING NO PROTECTION OF LAW AT ALL.
All the projects, Bills and Law's created by this present coalition administration masquerading as government, have no true legality at all. The project "HS2" therefore has no legality whatsoever. It can be challenged in, "LAW".
MY CHALLENGE
I challenge all and any who claim the true legality of this present coalition administration, to produce the 'actual legal instruments' verifying the veracity of that claim.
I assert that there is no such 'legal instrument' existing in Britain today. There is nothing in British legal history that permits leaders of political parties, to ignore the Peoples Vote, delivered, by democratic General Election; and, then, for those leaders to proceed, to create a coalition administration, to act as Government; entirely on their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment