31 FALCON COURT ELMWORTH GROVE LONDON SE21 8RG
0208 670 5795
Her Majesty the Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
June 9, 2017
Madam
Subsequent to the results of the
General Election declared last night; THERESA MAY, now attends Buckingham
Palace today, seeking the permission of Her Majesty, in order to form a new
‘coalition’ Government.
I specifically warn you, Madam; that
if you grant THERESA MAY this permission; I shall then immediately launch,
and, promote extensively throughout all social media; calling for ‘your’
removal from the Throne; and, the complete ‘abolishment’ of the Monarchy. The
only ‘legality’ for a Monarchy at all; rests entirely on, “The People’s
Consent”.
Madam,
You have the ‘DUTY’, on two counts,
to “Protect the People”;
(A), The Original Contract.
(B), The Royal Prerogative.
Full details, as set out below.
1.
The results of the General Election
clearly and specifically declared that “The People” did not want any political
party to have a majority in Parliament.
2.
That is the declared “Wishes” of the
British People.
3.
The Original Contract requires your
‘protection of the people’.
4.
The “Royal Prerogative” provides the
option, legality, and, the legal instrument; that, “When the wishes of ‘The People’ are in direct conflict with the
actions of the legislators”; that, the ‘Reigning Monarch’, has the duty, to
order the immediate prorogue of parliament; ordering, that a new, General
Election, shall take place.
5.
Here, the “Wishes of the People” are
abundantly clear.
6.
The People, declared, in democratic
General Election, that they did not want any political party to have a majority
in parliament.
7.
Therefore, Madam, you have the ‘DUTY’
to protect and comply with the “Wishes” of “The People”. Thereby, denying,
THERSA MAY, this right, to form any, ‘coalition’ government.
The reasons for this are obvious.
If a, COALITION GOVERNMENT, is permitted by Her Majesty; it flouts and
breaches both the “Original Contract” and, the declared “WISHES” of “The
People”. Furthermore, it also excludes all
‘participation’ of, “The People”, in
that election.
Thus, posing the question: “What the hell, is a General Election for in
the first place? If, the declared result of “The People’s Vote”, in that
election; is to be ignored? Or, if the “Reigning Monarch” and, an ex, "No Mandate", Prime
Minister; can ‘stitch up’ that election result; corruptly; between themselves?
MADAM, I WARN YOU, THAT
IF YOU GRANT THERESA MAY THE RIGHT TO FORM A “COALITION GOVERNMENT”; THEN,
I SHALL LAUNCH AN IMMEDIATE ‘PETITION’ CALLING FOR YOUR ABDICATION; AND, THE
COMPLETE ABOLISHMENT, OF THE MONARCHY.
THERE IS NO LEGALITY
FOR A MONARCHY AT ALL, IF THE “REIGNING MONARCH” FAILS TO HONOUR THE, “ORIGINAL CONTRACT”
Sincerely
Gordon J Sheppard
PLEASE TAKE
NOTE OF ALL AS FOLLOWS; AND, THE COPY OF MY PROPOSED PETITION, ENCLOSED.
ELIZABETH THE SECOND has the ‘DUTY’
to protect the People.
All, ‘Reigning Monarch’s “, of this land,
are obliged by ‘precedent of law’ and by ‘duty’ to honour the “Original
Contract”; requiring, the protection of the people. If, ELIZABETH THE SECOND
fails to provide that protection she, ABDICATES THE THRONE. Precedent of
‘English Law’ determines, that this is so.
The
British people do not endure their ‘imposed’ subjugation to the British Crown;
denied all right of true ‘citizenship’’ and being denied all protection of law;
in order that the ‘Reigning Monarch’ – who they are bound in law to give allegiance
to – shall enjoy all the privileges of CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY; shall act as
patron to various Charites and Institutions; shall officially open new building
and establishments; shall host garden parties; and, shall travel the globe
promoting British products and British prestige.
The days of the “Divine Right of
Kings” has long since gone; it departed this land, when, King Charles the
First, had his head cut off.
Today, in spite of any conspiracy,
betwixt Monarch and Parliament when CONSITUTIONAL MONARCHY was introduced,
(replacing the “Absolute Monarchy”, there was before), every ‘Reigning Monarch’
of England, who sits on that throne; they are still bound by ‘precedent of law’
to honour the “Original Contract” and protect the People.
The actual ‘evidence’ for this, is
provided here:
A. King James the Second was removed
from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688; for, “Breaking the
Original Contract Betwixt King and People”.
B. The CONVENTION
determined that he had ‘failed to protect the people and their religion”,
declaring that thereby, he had ‘abdicated the throne’. The CONVENTION declared,
“The Throne was Vacant”.
C. In a huge debate
named “THE DEBATE AT LARGE” held in the “Painted Chamber” of the House of
Commons in early February 1688, between both ‘Lords’ and ‘Commons’, they
debated at length the words: “ABDICATED” and “THE THRONE IS VACANT”; and, at
the conclusion of this debate, they declared as follows:
D. Henry Powle, The
Speaker of the Convention (Parliament) 1688, said 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 Vacant."
The Earl of CLARENDON’s speech
in this debate, is immensely valuable: in the sense that he has realised, that,
by their decision that day, they were
creating Legal precedent.
(And, that what THEY may do under the precedent then, so also, might Subject’s do, generations later. (As I do now).
The Earl of CLARENDON insists on the Lineal Descent, he states: "when one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to his Legal Heir''; (and, then he goes on to say); “But I say, irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and it's Authority, 'The Protection of the Subject" would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor "Breached the Contract" as well; he also, could be Deposed."
(And, that what THEY may do under the precedent then, so also, might Subject’s do, generations later. (As I do now).
The Earl of CLARENDON insists on the Lineal Descent, he states: "when one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to his Legal Heir''; (and, then he goes on to say); “But I say, irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and it's Authority, 'The Protection of the Subject" would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor "Breached the Contract" as well; he also, could be Deposed."
CONCLUSION
There can be no ‘legal argument’ against this; if the “Reigning Monarch”
of England, “Breaks the Original Contract” and “Fails to protect the People”
they, ABDICATE THE THRONE”.
ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured that contract, once, all of the
time she has occupied that throne. She has repeatedly granted the “Royal
Assent” to corrupt laws and bills passed by parliament, under the influence of
the political party WHIPS; and, the WHIPS in parliament, has no ‘legality’ at
all.
What should the Queen be doing?
With the country in a complete state of turmoil;
with no government, with no official opposition; with no direction whatsoever
from those elected to represent us; with absolutely no one dealing with the
fact that the country has decided to leave the EU, and that the people are
desperately waiting for ‘direction’ as to what is supposed to happen next; and
with absolutely no one taking up negotiations with the EU, as to the terms of
our leaving; the Queen has only one option: Under the terms of the “Original
Contract”,
SHE
MUST PROTECT THE, BRITISH PEOPLE.
1. She must use her
powers under the “Royal Prerogative” to order the immediate dissolution of
parliament; ordering a new general election.
2. When that new
government is formed; she must immediately use those powers again to ‘warn’ her
Ministers that she will not grant the “Royal Assent” to corrupt law. She must
instruct her Ministers that the political party WHIPS in parliament are
‘unlawful’ and that, any ‘Law’ or ‘Bill’ passed in parliament under their influence
and direction, is corrupt law.
In the event that Her Majesty the
Queen does not do this;
Then, there is no need, nor any
requirement; for a MONARCHY at all.
“Allegiance
is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”.
IF, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, DOES NOT
PROVIDE THIS PROTECTION.
She, Abdicates the Throne.
No comments:
Post a Comment