QUEEN ABDICATES....

THE QUEEN HAS ABDICATED THE THRONE..

 

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has abdicated the throne. Here's the evidence proving how and why.

 

PART 1, of this document examines her DUTY as the "Reigning Monarch"

 

PART 2, establishes and provides the EVIDENCE proving she has miserably failed to carry out that duty.

 

--------------------------------------

 

PART 1.

 

Her responsibilities for carrying out that DUTY:

 

"ALLEGIANCE IS GIVEN TO THE LIEGE LORD FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LIEGE LORD"

 

This concept and criterion is fully entrenched in British law; and, it is known as the true basis of the, "Original Contract"

 

 

EVIDENCE

 

The Original Contract

An unwritten contract, but the concept of which is fully established and endorsed by 'precedent' in British law.

 

In 1688 the CONVENTION (Parliament) charged KING JAMES, the Second, with "Breaking the Original Contract Betwixt King and People"; thereby, declaring, that he had 'abdicated' the throne.

 

In a huge debate between Lords and Commons held in the 'Painted Chamber" of the Commons they debated the words "ABDICATE" and "THE VACANCY OF THE THRONE" and at the end of that debate it was resolved that KING JAMES,  had indeed abdicated the throne, declaring, that the throne was now vacant.

 

The Speaker of that CONVENTION, HENRY POWLE, spoke in that debate and he declared,

 

 It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection; and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects the Commons conceive the throne is now vacant.

 

LORD TREBY speaking of King James II and the "Breaking of the Original Contract" by him, said this,

 

"When he doth Violate, not a law, but all the Fundamentals; What does all this speak? He therein in faith declares: "I will no more keep within my limited authority, nor hold my Kingly Office upon such Terms; This title I had by the 'Original Contract' between King and People; I renounce that, and will Assume another title to myself; that is such a title, as by which I might Act as if there was no such Law to Circumscribe my Authority."

 

In respect to the "Lineal Descent"; (all other "Reigning Monarchs' that would sit upon the throne); the, EARL OF CLARENDON said,

 

"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor breaks the Contract he too may be Deposed"

 

CONCLUSION:

 

PART 1 - therefore establishes that, in true and just law, each 'Reigning Monarch' sitting upon the English throne, must honour the "Original Contract", and, must provide, the 'protection' of the, PEOPLE.

 

 

 

 

PART 2.

 

Here the evidence will prove that ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the "Original Contract" throughout her entire reign; she has not provided the protection of 'Her People"; and, she has frequently granted the "Royal Assent" to corrupt law.

 

 

ALL LAWS, BILLS, ACTS, AND MOTIONS, PASSED BY PARLIAMENT 'UNDER THE INFLUENCE' OF THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS; IS CORRUPT LAW.

 

The political party WHIPS in parliament "Prejudice the People" by instructing elected Members of Parliament on how they must or should vote on all the legislation presented to parliament for the vote. This overrules and supplants all 'rightful influence' that might have been placed upon those Members by the constituents. This therefore flouts and breaches the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/ in the paragraph/ "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: The,"Said Premises" are all the "Premises" of the Bill; that is, everything written in the Bill. Here, in this paragraph of the Bill, it asserts that it is the 'supreme authority' over the entire contents of the Bill. Wherein, it specifically states that, "in all the Premises" nothing "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

 

Here are some examples of this corrupt law:

 

HS2 (High Speed Train) Preparations Bill:

On the 'Third Reading' of this Bill on the 31st day of October 2013 - under the influence of the political party WHIPS - parliament passed this Bill voting: Ayes 350 votes, Noes 34 votes.

 

Despite all the massive public protests opposing this Bill, widely published in both press and Media; and, Government refusing to disclose the full costs of this entire HS2 project; despite all the opposition throughout the country; ELIZABETH THE SECOND, on the 21^st November, granted the "Royal Assent".

 

Second Reading HS2 (High Speed Train) Bill. 25th April 2014 - again under the influence of the political party WHIPS, parliament passed this Bill, Ayes 451, Noes 50.

 

Third Reading HS2 (High Speed Train) Bill, 23rd May 2016 - yet again under the influence of the political party WHIPS - parliament passed this Bill, Ayes 231, Noes 12.

 

Housing-Planning Act 2016, 11 May 2016 - yet again under the direct unlawful intervention and influence of the political party WHIPS - parliament passed the Bill, Ayes 292, Noes 197.

 

Yet, the very next day the, 12th May 2016, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, granted the "Royal Assent". She, negligently, never took any time at all to properly examine;

 

All the massive protests there had been in respect of this Bill; all the protest demonstrations that there had taken place in the streets of London; all the protests registered by local authorities throughout the country; and, all TRADES UNION protests there had been as well.

 

Within a matter of only a few hours after parliament had passed the Bill; this Queen; charged with the responsibility of protecting her Subjects; ignored them completely; and, virtually, 'automatically', just as an animated robot; she granted the, "Royal Assent".

 

 

 

Nuclear Deterrent Motion - 18th July 2016 - again under the influence of the political party WHIPS - parliament passed this 'Motion': Ayes  472, Noes 117.

 

NOTE: Motions in Parliament do not require the "Royal Assent" - this means that when 'Motions' are passed, this leaves Government, free to do as it damned well pleases in everything; WITHOUT ANY PARTICIPATION of "THE PEOPLE" at all.

 

Latest suggested estimate of the, “Lifetime cost of replacing Trident”, including the building of four new nuclear submarines is at least £200 Billion Pounds.

 

200 Billion Pounds expenditure being earmarked by Government for a so-called, "NUCLEAR DETERRENT", that is not necessary, is not wanted, and, that cannot 'deter' any nuclear missile attacks at all.

 

This absurd waste of public money is an absolute obscenity; even more so when considering, that, "NICE", the government’s, "National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence", spends virtually every hour of its existence every day acting as 'God'; determining, 'who shall live and who must die', due to lack of funding, in the NHS.

 

This paper charges ELIZABETH THE SECOND with "Breaking the Original Contract" and failing to carry out her DUTY to protect "The People".

As can be seen by the ‘evidence’ above; she has granted the "Royal Assent" to corrupt law. But, furthermore, in instances in legislation where the "Royal Assent" is not required; she must have been aware, that her government was creating "Motions" and “Bills” that were created under the influence of the political party WHIPS; and, were therefore, corrupt.

 

What could she have done? That she did not do:

 

She could have, and, she should have used the, "ROYAL PREROGATIVE".

This provides her lawfully with three options:

 

A.    She can encourage her Ministers of Government.

B.     She can warn her Ministers of Government.

C.     When the peoples wishes are in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators; she can prorogue or order the end of that parliament and order a new, General Election.

 

She knew, or she should have known, that the 'political party WHIPS in parliament was unlawful. And, she could have, WARNED HER GOVERNMENT, to stop the practise of instructing Members of Parliament on how they must vote. Advising, her Government, that it was her, DUTY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

 

Sadly, in all as set out above, she did not 'lift a finger' to intervene.

 

NOTE:

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has enjoyed all the 'privileges' of "CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY" merely, assuming, that her only duties she had to comply with, were, to be available to act as head of various charities; to be available to open new buildings and institutions; to host garden parties; and, to travel the Globe promoting British goods and British prestige.

 

YET, THE ONLY TRUE REASON THAT THERE IS FOR A MONARCHY, AND, A "REIGNING MONARCH" SITTING UPON THAT THRONE; IS TO HONOUR THE "ORIGINAL CONTRACT", AND, PROTECT, "THE PEOPLE"

WITHOUT THAT 'PROTECTION', THERE IS NO NEED FOR A MONARCHY AT ALL.

THE 'MYTH' HOLDING THE BRITISH IN CHAINS...

‘MYTH’ that holds the British in chains….

 

The sheer 'fantasy’, devoid of all legality, that permanently holds all born to the shores of England, in an imposed, status of 'subjugation' ; without consent; that deprives them of all protection of law. British, FREEBORN HUMANKIND, in law, are merely classified as being,

 

"SUBJECTS OF THE CROWN"

 

By law they are bound in the giving of 'allegiance' to each "Reigning Monarch" for a long as a Monarch shall reign.

 

But, in truth and reality, this giving of 'allegiance' cannot be imposed; because, it truly derives only from the concept established in old English law that,

 

"ALLEGIANCE IS GIVEN TO THE LIEGE LORD FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LIEGE LORD"

 

This concept and criterion is fully entrenched in British law; and, it is known as the true basis of the, "Original Contract"

 

The 'Reigning Monarch" - HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH - has occupied the British throne for more than sixty years, so aged as she is, and tiring of her responsibilities, she has now quit being the nominal head of some twenty or so charities; and, sadly, now suffering from a very severe cold, this had greatly upset her normal Christmas routine. And, there is now considerable speculation being bandied about in both press and media as to whether soon she might 'Abdicate' in order that PRINCE CHARLES could succeed her as King.

 

The sheer stupidity of all press and media; and, virtually everyone else in the country as well; they all fail to realise, that this Queen has already 'abdicated' the throne. This took place automatically in British law, the very first time that she, 'Broke the Original Contract'. And, that, was very many years ago. She now has no 'legality' whatsoever, for sitting on that throne.

 

EVIDENCE

 

The Original Contract

An unwritten contract but the concept of which is fully established and endorsed by 'precedent' in British law.

 

In 1688 the CONVENTION (Parliament) charged KING JAMES II with "Breaking the Original Contract Betwixt King and People" and thereby, declaring that he had 'abdicated' the throne.

 

In a huge debate between Lords and Commons held in the 'Painted Chamber" of the Commons they debated the words "ABDICATE" and "THE VACANCY  OF THE THRONE" and at the end of that debate it was resolved that KING  JAMES  II, had indeed abdicated the throne, declaring, that the throne was now vacant.

 

The Speaker of that CONVENTION, HENRY POWLE, spoke in that debate and he declared this:

 

 It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection; and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects the Commons conceive the throne is now vacant.

 

LORD TREBY speaking of King James II and the "Breaking of the Original Contract" by him, said this,

 

"When he doth Violate, not a law, but all the Fundamentals; What does all this speak? He therein in faith declares: "I will no more keep within my limited authority, nor hold my Kingly Office upon such Terms; This title I had by the 'Original Contract' between King and People; I renounce that, and will Assume another title to myself; that is such a title, as by which I might Act as if there was no such Law to Circumscribe my Authority."

 

In respect to the "Lineal Descent"; (all other, "Reigning Monarchs', that would sit upon the throne); the, EARL OF CLARENDON said,

 

"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor breaks the Contract he too may be Deposed"

 

 

THE TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE

 

Sadly, and because ELIZABETH THE SECOND has never once carried out her duty and honoured the "Original Contract" throughout her reign; the BRITISH PEOPLE have ended up having no 'protection of law' whatsoever.

There is no, WRITTEN CONSTITUTION; or, BILL OF RIGHTS; or, access to a, SUPREME COURT OF LAW, whereby it is possible to test question or challenge the 'abuse' and the 'prejudice' of Parliament from within law.

 

The 'Reigning Monarch" is the only 'protection of law' that the BRITISH PEOPLE should have and are entitled to. But, the 'elite' of this country; Monarchy, Judiciary, Government, Parliament, and the Police, only look upon 'LAW' as being something that only 'common people' must obey. Whilst, they, all of them, flout, and breach 'LAW', with impunity, all the time.

 

But, the greatest 'travesty' of all of this is, that, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, repeatedly 'grants' the, "ROYAL ASSENT", to corrupt, 'LAW'.

 

ALL LAWS, BILLS, ACTS AND MOTIONS, PASSED BY PARLIAMENT 'UNDER THE INFLUENCE' OF THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS; IS CORRUPT LAW.

 

The political party WHIPS in parliament issue instructions to 'elected' Members of Parliament each week, instructing them on how they must or should vote on the issues being presented to parliament for the vote. But, this political party activity, is wholly unlawful; because, it overrules or supplants all 'rightful influence' that might have been placed upon those Members, by the constituents. Who, by, 'LAW', they are bound to faithfully represent.

This, therefore creates, "Prejudice of the People". Yet, that is wholly proscribed by the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed". Which reads as follows:

 

 

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: "The Said Premises" are all the contents of the Bill - that is, everything written in the entire "Bill of Rights 1689". Here, in this paragraqph of the Bill, it asserts that it is the "Supreme Authority" of the Bill. It specifically states within this text that, "in all the Premises of the Bill", that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"

 

Conclusions:

 

1.     The Queen has no lawful right to reign.

2.     She has frequently failed to honour the "Original Contract' and 'protect' the people.

3.     She has frequently granted the "Royal Assent" to corrupt law.

4.     The entire BRITISH JUDICIARY are rotten and corrupt; and, continually "conspire to pervert the course of justice", declaring, that parliament cannot be challenged in the courts; ruling that, "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" is ABSOLUTE; and, therefore  prevents that challenge. Whereas, as is shown above in the, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED", this determines that anyone may challenge parliament in the courts; whenever parliament creates, "The Prejudice of the People"

5.     The political party WHIPS very presence in parliament verifies the "Prejudice of the People"; and, thereby, Bills, Acts, and Motions today being passed by parliament "under the influence" of the political party WHIPS, are wholly unlawful; having no true 'legality' at all.

6.     Laws are being created and passed in parliament today in precisely the same manner as ADOLF HITLER and the NAZIS created their own Laws.

7.     The only difference is this: HITLER had the perfect 'legality' for creating his own law. He had placed his "Enabling Act" before the democratic "Reichstag", (the German parliament), and they had passed that Act, 441 votes for, and only 94 votes againt.

8.     This was the actual birth of the, "GERMAN THIRD REICH." With all its terrible consequences, that followed thereafter.

9.     But, no Bill has been placed before the British parliament in respect of the political party WHIPS, to test and secure a vote for its validity; because no Bill could even be presented to parliament for that vote.

10.It is impossible to present any Bill to parliament for this vote to overrule, supplant, or abolish "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"; without causing; the, "Prejudice of the People" .

 

 

 

Ultimate Conclusion:

 

Great Britain today is not a DEMOCRACY. It is a foul and rotten, TOTALITARIAN REGIME.

 

I therefore challenge ELIZABETH THE SECOND, as having no 'legal' right whatsoever for sitting on that throne. She has repeatedly failed to honour the "Original Contract" in precisely the same manner as, KING JAMES THE SECOND did. She, undoubtedly has, 'Abdicated', the throne.

 

The evidence is overwhelming as to her sheer negligence and, the total contempt she has shown towards her 'DUTY'. She has miserably failed to honour the "Original Contract"; she has failed to act as the "Head of her Government" monitoring parliament in the interests of her People. She has never 'protected the people' from the corruption of Parliament, throughout her entire reign. She has repeatedly granted the 'Royal Assent' to corrupt law. 

 

I call upon her to answer these charges, defending herself; and, her failure to do so, verifies that she has, indeed, ABDICATED THE THRONE.

 Read my book "DEMOCRACY available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

 

Gordon J Sheppard

 

RUSSIA - The Real Truth....

KENNEDY -V- KRUSCHEV

With all the West's wild hysteria asserting RUSSIA as the enemy and with the United Kingdom now investing and wasting billions of pounds building four new nuclear submarines and renewing the entire Trident Nuclear Missile System as the so-called "nuclear deterrent"; it is worth taking just a moment or two to reflect on this: The West, and, especially Great Britain, does not want peaceful co-existence with Russia. With the constant threat of its nuclear weapons; and, the waving of the 'Union Jack Flag', reliving the days of, EMPIRE; it continually wants to dominate and control the entire planet EARTH.. Just look at what KRUSCHEV was offering the West at the ' Paris Summit Conference'.

WITNESS TO HISTORY 1929-1969

Author: Charles E Bohlen, Ambassador to Russia during this time.

The Confrontation

During this confrontation Kruschev overwhelmed Kennedy with his wisdom and intellect.

He virtually ‘offers a deal to the West’: stop the military confrontation and the cold war; replacing this with the peaceful ‘competition’ between the West and the Russian Soviet System, in the plane of IDEAS.

 

KENNEDY: “You wish to destroy the influence of my country where it has traditionally been present, and you wish to liquidate the free system in other countries.”

 

KHRUSHCHEV: But if I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you wish to erect something in the way of a dam on the road of the development of the human mind. This is not possible. . . . Ideas have never been destroyed and this is proven in the whole course of human development. . . . If you seek to destroy ideas, then this will inevitably lead to conflict. . . . If you are able to assure, under your system, a higher standard of economic development, then victory will be with you and we will recognize it. If, however, the socialist system assures a higher standard of economic development of industry and culture, then we will win. I am speaking now, of course, not about military victory, but about victory in the plane of ideas.

KENNEDY: The obligation of our Government to the American people and, as I am convinced, the obligation of the Soviet Government to the Soviet people, forces us to be concerned that this fight does not affect the interest of the security of our countries. We recognize that the Soviet Union has vitally important interests in definite regions of the world. The United States also has comparable interests but what is important in all this is that the struggle in other areas of the world goes on in such a way that it does not affect the so vital interests of our two countries. . . .

KRUSHCHEV: . . . from your words I draw the conclusion that you wish to transfer to us the responsibility for the growth of influence of Communist ideas in the whole world. In order that there should not be any conflict between us, you wish that these ideas not be propagated beyond the already existing socialist countries. But I repeat, Mr. President, that ideas cannot be stopped. . . . Obviously we will be glad if Communist ideas spread to other countries, just the way you would undoubtedly rejoice at the dissemination of capitalist ideas. However, this depends exclusively on the people themselves.

Result: and, my comment,

Kennedy did not have the intelligence to recognize this as an offer of peace and peaceful co-existence. He, vastly  preferred arming the West with every conceivable weapon, including the massive escalation of the nuclear capability; and, the consistent continuation, of the COLD WAR.

This is precisely the very same identical current attitude of the British Government, and, the entire right-wing dominated British Press and Media, towards RUSSIA, today

 
It is also very important to note the wild arrogant declaration of United States Secretary of State, HENRY KISSINGER; when he declared that,

 "We will not tolerate Communism in our Hemisphere".
 
America, claiming, it owns 'half of the world.'.

Gordon J Sheppard

BREXIT - boarding the bus..

BREXIT – The, “SPECIFIC DESTINATION” required;

And, boarding the bus….

 

Here's something for everyone to think about re bloody BREXIT and our proposed 'leaving the E.U.

For three days eleven Supreme Court Judges and a learned counsel representing the government have been arguing the case as to who should trigger Article 50 and negotiate the leaving of the EU. (THERESA MAY or PARLIAMENT?). For three days’ all ears, have been assailed with sheer drivel, whilst all these bastards, present in that court, submit and consider the historical legal 'precedents' of cases that have been heard in the courts many years before.

So, obsessed with this silly 'game of law' that these bastards, (the profession of law), always play; they have completely forgot or ignored what the case is all about.

Today, I have also been listening to and viewing the debate, "THE GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR EXITING THE E.U." in parliament. Arguments for and against and back and forth, have been raging in this debate all afternoon.

ALL THIS SHEER WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES; When I can resolve the crux of this matter in mere seconds. Take note of this:

PUTTING AN "X' in a tick-box marked "LEAVE" on a ballot paper; only declared your ‘INTENT’ to leave. It proves and it validates, in law, the DESTINATION where you intend to go from thereon.

BUT NO ONE GETS ON A BUS OR A TRAIN TO GO TO A SPECIFIC DESTINATION,

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FUCKING BUS IS GOING.

IF THERE ARE NO 'DESTINATION' BOARDS SHOWN ON THE BUS WHEN IT COMES ALONG. BEFORE YOU GET ON, YOU MUST ASK.

This is exactly what all those who oppose THERESA MAY having the sole and exclusive right to dominate and control our 'destiny'; are asking.

WE WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE FUCKING BUS IS GOING, BEFORE WE GET ON. But, when government won't say where this bus is going,

THEN WE SHOULD NOT 'GET ON'...

This is the lesson that all “The People” of this country must learn; If, I can speedily come up with this conclusion in mere minutes; then why is it fucking necessary to have this ‘time wasting’ four-day sitting of the Supreme Court? And, a five-hour debate in Parliament? And, still not resolve the matter?

And, why aren't "THE PEOPLE" creating "Merry Hell" ?

 

If this JUDICIARY and ‘Profession of Law’ are so intent and obsessed with “Precedent of Law” then I will provide them with the greatest ‘precedent of law’ overruling and surpassing all other ‘precedents of law’ that they have referred to in this present hearing in the “Supreme Court”;

“The Glorious Revolution”;

The, origin of the “Bill of Rights 1689”;

And, the paragraph within that ‘Bill’ known as, “The Said Rights Claimed”

THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED specifically instructs parliament that it is the ‘Supreme Authority’ of the Bill by inserting within its text that it has the authority over all the “PREMISES” of the Bill; and it specifically instructs parliament that when parliament enacts any of the “Premises” of the Bill that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.

That’s the over all ‘precedent of law’ that the “Supreme Court” ought to be considering today.
 

"NOTHING OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"

 
There is also another very valid point that this court should consider:

IF THERESA MAY AND HER ‘TORY’ GOVERNMENT is going to be permitted, in law, to have the sole and exclusive right to trigger ‘Article 50’ and negotiate the terms of leaving the E.U. and, wholly ignore and prevent PARLIAMENT from having a say in the matter; she will be exercising the very same ‘totalitarian diktat’ that enabled ADOLF HITLER and the NAZIS with their right to create their own laws. HITLER had the perfect legality to do this; because, he had placed his “Enabling Act” before the German Reichstag (Parliament) for that consent. That, ‘democratic’ parliament passed that ‘Act’ into law 441 votes to 94. And, by doing so, DEMOCRACY, in Germany came to its end. This was the actual birth of the, GERMAN THIRD REICH. So, HITLER did ask parliament for that consent. But, THERESA MAY and her ‘Tory’ government here, are wholly intent on depriving PARLIAMENT from having any say in the matter at all. She, ‘wants to create her own law’ without any ‘consent’ at all.

Read and sign this petition: https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-jeremy-wright-qc-mp-the-lord-chancellor-brexit-vote-to-leave-challenging-legality-of-the-leaving-process

And, read my book "DEMOCRACY" - it provides a guide for the British people on how to properly participate. The book is cheaply available in two formats: a Kindle e-book for download or a paperback and it can be purchased here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

THE SUPREME COURT

THE SUPREME COURT

 

BREXIT - And, the leaving of the European Community, as being debated in, “Miller -v- Secretary of State”, at the hearing before the "SUPREME COURT" today.

 

 

The British Supreme Court is naught but a platform where the 'Cut, Thrust, and Parry' of legal brains, fight a legal duel, demonstrating, how clever they are.

 

But, in all the waffle and 'hot air' in respect to 'points of law' and 'precedents of law' taking place in that court today; every legal brain participating there; has completely forgotten, or actually purposely ignored, "WHAT 'LAW' ACTUALLY  IS ? "

 

"LAW IS NAUGHT BUT A MYTH, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE, THERE IS NO LAW"

(Lord Hailshan, ex  Lord Chancellor of England).

 

Where, in all that 'waffle' and 'hot air' are, 'THE PEOPLE’ today?

 

'THE PEOPLE' are not present or represented there, at all.

 

And why? Because in Great Britain by sheer wicked imposition and skulduggery there are no 'PEOPLE' at all. In law, and, classified by "LAW"  - ALL BRITISH FREEBORN HUMANKIND  - are classified as mere, "Subjects of the Crown". Held in imposed 'subjugation', without consent.

 

In Great Britain, FREEBORN HUMANKIND, have no identity whatsoever and, furthermore, they have, no protection of, "LAW".

 

In the Appeal by Government in "Miller  -v- Secretary of State" taking place today and in all that legal 'waffle' and 'hot air', there is in reality only one question to resolve:

 

If, THERESA MAY and her TORY (unelected) government are to have sole and exclusive domination and control of triggering "Article 50" and negotiating the terms by which Britain leaves the, "EUROPEAN COMMUNITY"; this will result in that leaving process, being dominated by, TORY IDEOLOGY, and the vested interests of the TORY party.

 

This will inevitably result in very 'radical changes' taking place, in the domestic lives and the living, of everyone in the country.

 

"RADICAL CHANGES" AFFECTING THE DOMESTIC LIVES OF E.U. CITIZENS, ARE NOT PERMITTED, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE E.U. HUMAN RIGHTS COURT.

 

Therefore, the 'Supreme Court" has only one issue to resolve; whether THERESA MAY and an (unelected) government should decide this matter? Or, whether PARLIAMENT representing all 'THE PEOPLE" in the country, should decide?

 

A very simple matter to decide; and especially when further considering this:

 

UNTIL BRITAIN, ACTUALLY, LEAVES THE E.U.; everyone of, 'The People', now living in the country, are already legal 'Citizens’ of the E.U. They became ‘Citizens of the E.U.’ at precisely the very instant Great Britain joined the E.U. Therefore, and thereby, they are protected by, the European Human Rights Law; and, the E.U. HUMAN RIGHTS COURT.

 

Providing, everyone in the U.K.; with the right to request protection of that E.U. HUMAN RIGHTS COURT; to protect them, during the BREXIT withdrawal process. Requesting, that this COURT should, and, must rule - that under E.U. Law, it's "CITIZENS" cannot be protected; if THERESA MAY and her government, are
to have the sole and exclusive right to dominate and control; that, 'withdrawal' process.

 

THE E.U. HUMAN RIGHTS COURT, must intervene.

Footnotes:

Were the E.U. Hunan Rights Court to intervene as described above, it would not be 'interfering' in sovereign parliament business and affairs; it would merely be the rightful 'duty' of this Court, to protect all British 'Citizens' of the E.U. To, protect them from having 'unlawful' radical changes, made to their lives.

In the Government Appeal in "Miller -v- Secretary of State" today, the words, "PREROGATIVE" and "ROYAL PREROGATIVE", are presented in submission in virtually every sentence uttered. Dictionary definition of "PREROGATIVE" reveals: "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT". Who gave Monarchy, Judiciary, Government, Parliament, or the Profession of Law, this 'exclusive' right? With, impunity, to, EXCLUDE, "The People" ?

 Read also this: http://pamphletteer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/theresa-may-cant-sleep.html