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.