ABUSE of and by Parliament…
DIANE ABBOTT MP
wants a parliament inquiry set up to examine the ABUSE of Members of Parliament
on-line.
Much more importantly, THERE SHOULD BE A NATIONAL INQUIRY AND DEBATE set up, properly examining the ABUSE OF "THE PEOPLE" BY BOTH GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT.
There should be a full inquiry set up to properly examine the LEGALITY of the political party WHIPS in parliament. According to the 'precedent of law' established in the "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689, the political party activities of the WHIPS in parliament, has no legality at all.
The WHIPS in parliament issue instructions to 'elected' Members of Parliament each week; instructing them on how they should or must vote on all of the 'issues' of legislation being presented to parliament calling for the VOTE. And, in this instruction or 'diktat' imposed upon those Members, this overrules and supplants all 'rightful influence' that might have been placed upon them, by the constituents; who elected those Members in the first place. This therefore and thereby creates the "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE" and, that is specifically proscribed, by the 'precedent of law' set out and entrenched in the "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"
This paragraph, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED" within that "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689", specifically instructs parliament, that parliament may 'enact' all the "Premises" of that Bill; including "Article 9" which provides parliament with its "SUPREMACY"; but, only on the conditions set out in, "The Said Rights Claimed". - This makes it abundantly clear that in 'enacting' any of the "Premises" of the Bill; that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"
The WHIPS in parliament do "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE";
Therefore, the WHIPS in parliament, HAS NO 'LEGALITY' AT ALL.
IN CONSEQUENCE, "THE PEOPLE" HAVE THE PERFECT RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE ILLEGALITY OF THE WHIPS, IN LAW.
The Judiciary cannot prevent this challenge in the Courts, irrespective of their assertion and ruling that, “Article 9” of that Bill, determines that, “Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or place out of Parlyament”; and, that the Judiciary rules, that, “Article 9” is, ABSOLUTE. Whereby, Parliament cannot be challenged in the courts, irrespective of any circumstances.
Much more importantly, THERE SHOULD BE A NATIONAL INQUIRY AND DEBATE set up, properly examining the ABUSE OF "THE PEOPLE" BY BOTH GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT.
There should be a full inquiry set up to properly examine the LEGALITY of the political party WHIPS in parliament. According to the 'precedent of law' established in the "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689, the political party activities of the WHIPS in parliament, has no legality at all.
The WHIPS in parliament issue instructions to 'elected' Members of Parliament each week; instructing them on how they should or must vote on all of the 'issues' of legislation being presented to parliament calling for the VOTE. And, in this instruction or 'diktat' imposed upon those Members, this overrules and supplants all 'rightful influence' that might have been placed upon them, by the constituents; who elected those Members in the first place. This therefore and thereby creates the "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE" and, that is specifically proscribed, by the 'precedent of law' set out and entrenched in the "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"
This paragraph, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED" within that "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689", specifically instructs parliament, that parliament may 'enact' all the "Premises" of that Bill; including "Article 9" which provides parliament with its "SUPREMACY"; but, only on the conditions set out in, "The Said Rights Claimed". - This makes it abundantly clear that in 'enacting' any of the "Premises" of the Bill; that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"
The WHIPS in parliament do "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE";
Therefore, the WHIPS in parliament, HAS NO 'LEGALITY' AT ALL.
IN CONSEQUENCE, "THE PEOPLE" HAVE THE PERFECT RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE ILLEGALITY OF THE WHIPS, IN LAW.
The Judiciary cannot prevent this challenge in the Courts, irrespective of their assertion and ruling that, “Article 9” of that Bill, determines that, “Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or place out of Parlyament”; and, that the Judiciary rules, that, “Article 9” is, ABSOLUTE. Whereby, Parliament cannot be challenged in the courts, irrespective of any circumstances.
"Article 9” is not "ABSOLUTE" at all. "THE
SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED” overrules “Article
9”, whenever parliament, “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.
“THE SAID
RIGHTS CLAIMED” is the ‘Supreme Authority” of the Bill; it states within its
text that it has the ‘authority’ over all the “PREMISES” of the Bill. All the “PREMISES”
therefore, is absolutely everything written in the Bill.
Today, a
corrupt parliament and government are creating and passing LAWS, ACTS, MOTIONS;
and BILLS wholly unlawfully, in precisely the same way as ADOLF HITLER and the
NAZIS created their own laws. HITLER, though, had the perfect legality for
doing this, he had placed his "ENABLING ACT" before the democratic
"REICHSTAG" (the German parliament) and they had voted and passed
that Act, 441 votes to 94.
Yet, the
WHIPS in parliament, in the Governments "Enabling Act", (the corrupt
force and ‘diktat’ of the WHIPS in parliament); has never been given the
approval of parliament by, a FREE VOTE of parliament, at all. The, proposition
could never have even been put to parliament, without causing, THE PREJUDICE OF
THE PEOPLE; because, the "SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED" provides the
protection of the People; and, to even propose to take that ‘protection’ away,
would, “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.
THUS, THE “BILL OF RIGHTS 1689” CANNOT BE AMENDED OR ABOLISHED, OR BE ALTERED, IN ANY WAY, BY PARLIAMENT. HERE IS THE ONE LAW, "WRITTEN IN STONE"
Gordon J Sheppard
No comments:
Post a Comment