Leaving the E. U.
If the British vote in the Referendum determines that Britain should leave the "European Community"; from the very instant of that declaration I shall proceed immediately to carry out the very drastic measures set out below.
1. I shall immediately challenge ELIZABETH THE SECOND and her legal right to occupy the English throne; charging her with her failure to honour the "Original Contract" throughout the entire period of her reign.
2. I shall immediately challenge the 'conspiracy' of the entire British Judiciary that has always denied the testing, questioning, or challenge of parliament in the courts; always ruling that "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689", as law, prevents that challenge.
3. I shall challenge the actual true legal validity of the political party WHIPS in parliament, whose political party activities, in parliament, "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"; thereby, flouting and breaching the, 'precedent of law', set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed."
Without the protection of the E.U. And the "European Human Rights Court" and the "European Human Rights Act", the British people have no protection of law at all.
The entire British Establishment of Monarchy, Judiciary, Government and Parliament, provide no protection of law, whatsoever. There is no, "Written Constitution", "Bill of Rights", or "Supreme Court of Law" where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of Parliament from within law. And, without the 'protection' of the 'Reigning Monarch', QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND; the British have no protection of law whatsoever.
For that, 'protection'; they can only rely on the E.U.
Therefore, with the 'Reigning Monarch' failing to honour the "Original Contract"; (providing the protection of the "Crown's Subjects"), and, with the entire British Establishment of Monarchy, Judiciary, Government and Parliament providing no protection of law at all. And, now, if the country decides to leave the E. U. Then, without a shadow of doubt; there is no 'legal right' or ‘justification’ or the need for a MONARCHY at all. Thus, the MONARCHY must be abolished.
EVIDENCE PROVING THAT ELIZABETH THE SECOND HAS REPEATEDLY BROKEN THE "ORIGINAL CONTRACT" THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF HER REIGN.
I shall challenge ELIZABETH THE SECOND proving that she is required to honour this contract and comply with it; by providing, both her, and, all the country, all of the 'evidence', that proves she has failed to honour this contract throughout her reign;
Firstly, by submitting, all the "Speeches" and the determination of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688; which can be seen here: http://pamphletteer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-original-contract.html
Secondly, by submitting specific instances of her failure to honour the “Original Contract” throughout her reign; as outlined below,
The 'Reigning Monarch' of England is provided with two 'legal instruments' that have been specifically created and designed for the protection of the people; they are, the "Royal Assent" and the "Royal Prerogative". The "Royal Assent" provides the 'Reigning Monarch' with the right and duty to monitor the Laws and Bills that are passed by Parliament and to verify that they are free of corruption; granting the "Assent" if they are; and, refusing the "Assent", if they are corrupt.
The "Royal Prerogative" provides the Monarch with three options: to advise her Ministers of Government; to warn Ministers of Government; and, whenever the People's wishes are in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators (Parliament), to order the immediate dissolution of Parliament.
A. Yet, in respect to the "Royal Assent", the very last time the 'Assent' was refused was on the 11th March in the year 1708. Ever since that date every Law or Bill passed by Parliament has been granted the "Royal Assent" without the 'Reigning Monarch' bothering to vet for corruption and, without carrying out any 'checks' at all. Each 'Reigning Monarch', in turn, including ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has merely acted in like manner to a village sub-postmaster or postmistress; franking and rubber-stamping every 'piece of paper', laid before them by Parliament.
B. Furthermore, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has granted the "Royal Assent" to every law or bill passed by Parliament; that has been passed and created, under the 'diktat', domination, control, and, influence of the political party WHIPS; and, the WHIPS in parliament, have no legality at all. The WHIPS instruct 'elected' Members of Parliament on how they must or should vote on all the issues presented to parliament for the vote. This, specifically creates the "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE" and this is proscribed by the, 'precedent of law', set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed." So, every one of those Laws and Bills to which ELIZABETH THE SECOND has granted the "Royal Assent"; every one of those documents is corrupt; and, they have no true legality at all.
C. In the General Election of the year 2010 the people's democratic vote determined that, (a), no political party should have a majority in parliament; and, (b), that there should be a, "CONSERVATIVE LED MINORITY GOVERNMENT"; and, that was the democratically declared 'wishes of the people' in that General Election. However, the leaders of the political parties elected to parliament in that election, they did not like that vote of the people; they decided they could ignore the 'wishes of the people' and thence to proceed to conspire with each other and create a new form of government, entirely on their own. They created a, 'coalition government', without any 'participation' of the people at all; and, they foisted that corrupt government on the country; without the people's consent.
D. Here was the stark and vivid EVIDENCE that the "Wishes of the people were in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators"; but, ELIZABETH THE SECOND never lifted a finger to intervene. She ought to have used her powers of the "Royal Prerogative" to firstly, advise her Minister, DAVID CAMERON MP, that as he was the leader of the Conservative Party in parliament, he had the duty to form a minority government as determined by the people's vote in that General Election. In the event he declined to do this or wouldn't do it; secondly, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, should then have 'warned’ him, that this was his duty; and, if he still refused to form a government, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, should then, have used the "Royal Prerogative" to order the immediate dissolution of parliament; and, ordering a new General Election to be held. In failing to do this and protect the people, she "Broke the Original Contract"; thereby, ABDICATING THE THRONE.
E. When, the 'Daily Telegraph' published the startling clear stark vivid evidence that Members of Parliament had 'stolen money from the public purse' by submitting fraudulent parliamentary expenses claims; here was the stark vivid evidence for ELIZABETH THE SECOND to see and verify, that parliament was corrupt. But, she did not lift a finger to intervene. She ought to have used the "Royal Prerogative" to, immediately protect the people; ordering the immediate dissolution of parliament. Here, again, is the stark vivid evidence proving ELIZABETH THE SECOND "Broke the Original Contract" and failed miserably to protect, "HER SUBJECTS', of the British Crown.
EVIDENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY OF THE BRITISH JUDICIARY
The British Judiciary has always denied access in the courts to, test, question, or challenge the business and the 'abuses' of parliament; the Judiciary has always ruled that "LAW" and, "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689", is the legal basis, for that denial.
"Article 9", reads as follows:
"The Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament"
The Judiciary has always incorrectly interpreted this as, preventing, by law, all challenge to parliament in the courts. Wherever or whenever the 'business of parliament' is introduced by anyone in any case coming before a court; the Judge immediately stops all further proceedings, ruling, that parliament may not and cannot be, ‘questioned’, in any court.
But, the conspiring Judiciary, has always interpreted this “Bill of Rights 1689” incorrectly; because, the correct reading and interpretation of the Bill vividly reveals, the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”; which verifies that, anyone is legally entitled to test, question, or challenge parliament in the courts; whenever, PARLIAMENT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.
Over-ruling ,"Article 9" and the, Supremacy of Parliament", "this paragraph in the Bill, provides the superior authority of the entire "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689"; because, it declares within its text, that this paragraph, has the authority over all the "Premises" of the Bill; and, it specifically determines that in all the "Premises" of the Bill, that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE". Therefore, this paragraph of the Bill of Rights 1689, makes it abundantly clear by, ‘precedent of law’, that whenever parliament causes the "prejudice of the people", anyone has the right to challenge parliament from within law, in the British courts. See, Appendix “The Said Rights Clamed”, shown below.
The political party WHIPS dictate and instruct 'elected' Members of Parliament on how they must or should vote, in respect of all the business of parliament, that calls for the vote. In doing this the WHIPS overrule and supplant all the 'rightful influence' that might have been placed upon those Members of Parliament, by the Constituents. This, thereby creates the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE", and, this is wholly unlawful and proscribed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed."
See Apendix “The Said Rights Claimed” shown below.
“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”
Respectfully suggest, read my book "DEMOCRACY"; it is a guide for the British for proper participation. I pose fourteen questions to answer and, I provide the answers, that need to be known. Read and learn how the British are being badly and unlawfully governed, and, read also how Monarchy holds all ‘Subjects’ in imposed subjugation, without consent. The book is available cheaply in two formats: a Kindle e-book and a paperback, and it can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984
Gordon J Sheppard 15/4/2016