‘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.
Gordon J
Sheppard
No comments:
Post a Comment