LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP ELECTION - Who can vote?

This 'Appeal Court' ruling must be challenged by a Superior Court; here are the reasons why:

 

The Appeal Court ruling in respect to who may and who may not vote in the Labour Party Leadership election is wholly corrupt. It is founded entirely on 'political' BIAS criterion; and not upon true, "LAW". The Judges have merely 'corrupted' LAW; replacing this essential criterion; by their very OWN and, the NEC, political bias.
 

Their judgement declared: "A member's entitlement to vote in a leadership election is not a product of him or her simply being a member, but is the result of him or her being a member who satisfies the precise eligibility criteria defined by the NEC and any freeze date provisions set by the NEC in the timetable for the election."

Please note: "who satisfies the precise eligibility criteria defined by the NEC" ?

BUT, NOT WHEN THAT "NEC CRITERIA" IS PROFOUNDLY CORRUPT.

BUT, NOT WHEN THE "NEC" CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE A 'VESTED INTEREST' IN THE OUTCOME OF THAT ELECTION; and, purposely conspires to rig that 'criterion', to ensure its own objectives are achieved.

Here, the NEC has its own political vested interest; it introduces 'corrupt criterion' for voting in this leadership election, specifically because the 'NEC' has its own 'vested interest' to ensure that JEREMY CORBYN is defeated in that election.

Virtually the entire “Labour Parliamentary Party" wants to defeat JEREMY CORBYN in that election.

 

In a properly conducted "DEMOCRATIC ELECTION"; everyone who 'signed up' to join the Labour Party, HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THAT ELECTION. And, especially, when, 'prior to signing up and joining the party’; they were 'instructed' that they had the right to vote.

This "Corruption of Law" exercised here by these Appeal Court Judges calls into question the entire 'legal’ eligibility and, 'integrity', of the entire British Judiciary;

(A), Are their ruling's determined by actual 'LAW' ? Or,
(B), Are they determined by their own particular 'vested interests' where they; 'conspire to pervert the course of justice'; in order to suit and secure their own political objectives?

We should apply this 'test' for the 'integrity' of the Judiciary, here:

"The Bill of Rights 1689"

EVIDENCE establishes that the Judiciary determines and rules that "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" is, ABSOLUTE.

 

Article 9" reads as follows:

"That the Freedome of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament"

Yet, the Judiciary interprets this, and, determines and rules, that, 'under no circumstances', can parliament be 'questioned', in the courts. 

This establishes beyond all reasonable doubt; that here the JUDICIARY, specifically "Conspires to pervert the course of Justice" and deceive the British people; because, the JUDICIARY 'must know' that "Article 9" is not, ABSOLUTE. Anyone reading and interpreting the "Bill of Rights 1689", correctly; must know, that "Article 9" and all the other "PREMISES" of this Bill is wholly dependent on the conditions set out in another paragraph of the Bill known as, "The Said Rights Claimed".
 

“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”

 

NOTE: This paragraph "The Said Rights Claimed" specifically instructs parliament; and, (all reading the Bill); that,

 

A, That, "The Said Rights Claimed" has the ’authority' over all the other "PREMISES" of the Bill.

 

B, That, when parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" or any of the other "PREMISES" of the Bill; that parliament, "OUGHT NOT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

 

Therefore, by, "precedent of law", anyone, has the right to test, question, or challenge parliament in the courts; if and whenever parliament "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

 

HERE IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE FULLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE BRITISH JUDICIARY IS CORRUPT.

 

Gordon J Sheppard