CHARLIE GARD & THE TOTALITARIAN REGIME...

CHARLIE GARD & THE TOTALITARIAN REGIME

 

In the very sad demise of baby CHARLIE GARD; we now have the stark vivid incontrovertible proof that, British HUMANKIND, that create 'life'; have no control or 'jurisdiction' over the 'destiny' of the 'life', that they created. The totalitarian 'REGIME' usurps all that 'right' to determine their child's destiny; by, imposed and, corrupt legislation; taking that 'right' away.

 

Wholly and corruptly and, without any legal authority whatsoever, the totalitarian "REGIME' assumes that when 'life' is created and 'born' to the shores of the country; that, it 'OWNS' that LIFE.

 

Had CHARLIE GARD's body been handed over to his parents, when they first requested to take him to America, to try a new form of medical treatment that was on offer; CHARLIE GARD might have survived; and, his illness, might have been cured.

 

Absolutely no one today can assert that CHARLIE GARD might have 'died' or might have ‘lived'; because that 'life saving' procedure was denied.

 

The professional medical pique of the hospital holding CHARLIE GARD, assumed that they had the right to 'own' his body; and, they refused the parents' wishes in this regard.

 

There then followed fully six months wrangling in the 'HIGH COURT'; the British, 'SUPREME COURT OF LAW', and, the, 'EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT'; which, all finally determined, that CHARLIE GARD was incurable and that he must die.

 

How? and Why? should this travesty have taken place?

 

Because, all born to the shores of the BRITISH ISLES are not classified or recognised as, HUMANKIND; with the 'rights' of HUMANKIND, inherent in the Genes. They, are merely classified, in law, as being mere, "SUBJECTS OF THE CROWN". Where, they have no 'protection of law' and no 'rights' at all.

 

This wicked travesty must now be challenged in law.

 

Because, this status of being classified as "SUBJECTS OF THE CROWN' has no true legality at all. It is an 'imposed' condition that is automatically 'imposed' on every HUMAN BEING, born to these shores. It binds in law, all so born, to give 'allegiance' to the "REIGNING MONARCH" for as long as a, MONARCH, shall reign. But, truthfully, this imposed condition, has no true LEGALITY at all.

 

No one was ever asked if they wanted to give 'allegiance' to the 'Reigning Monarch'. No one was ever asked if they wanted to be in 'subjugation' to the Crown. The totalitarian 'REGIME', IMPOSED ALL THAT STATUS ON EVERYONE, WITHOUT CONSENT.

 

This 'status' where the CROWN and the JUDICIARY assumes that the REGIME has the right to determine it owns all HUMANKIND; born to the shores of Great Britain; derives, solely, from parliament in ages past, "Swearing allegiance to the King". When, that parliament, in 'swearing the oath', as follows, declared,

 

"And thereunto the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe in the Name of all the People aforesaid most humbly submit themselves their Heires and Posterities for ever and doe faithfully promise That they will stand to maintaine and defend their said Majesties and alsoe the Limitation and Succession of the Crowne herein specified and contained to the utmost of their Powers with their Lives and Estates against all Persons whatsoever that shall attempt any thing to the contrary."

 

As, TOM PAINE, the famous author of, "Rights of Man" says, "MAN HAS NO PROPERTY IN MAN"

 

One generation of parliament cannot lawfully bind their POSTERITY, (of another generation), to be bound by the same 'Oath' that they swear.  This has no lawful validity at all.

 

Note: 

 

THE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE NEVER EVER AGREED TO BE IN 'SUBJUGATION' TO THE CROWN. THE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE NEVER EVER AGREED TO GIVE 'ALLEGIANCE' TO KING OR QUEEN. THIS TYRANNY IS WHOLLY IMPOSED.

 

IMPORTANT ALERT:

THE GIVING OF"ALLEGIANCE" IS A TWO-WAY CONDITION IN RESPECT TO BOTH THE 'GIVING' AND THE 'RECEIVING'. IN RESPECT TO THE 'GIVING' OF 'ALLEGIANCE' TO THE 'REIGNING MONARCH'; BY LAW, THIS CONDITION APPLIES:

 

"ALLEGIANCE IS GIVEN TO THE 'LIEGE LORD' FOR THE 'PROTECTION' OF THE 'LIEGE LORD'. (THIS, BY 'PRECEDENT OF LAW') IS KNOWN AS THE,"ORIGINAL CONTRACT".

 

ELIZABETH THE SECOND throughout all the sixty odd years she has occupied that throne, has never ever honoured that, "ORIGINAL CONTRACT". She has consistently and repeatedly failed to 'protect' the British People. Furthermore, she has consistently "Granted the "ROYAL ASSENT" to corrupt law. All 'Acts' 'Motions' and 'Bills' created and passed by parliament, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS, is corrupt law. Because, the 'WHIPS' in parliament, "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE". Which is wholly proscribed by the, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".

 

CORRUPTION OF THE JUDICIARY

 

The British JUDICIARY repeatedly "Conspires to Pervert the Course of Justice" and deceive the British people, by ruling that "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" is, "ABSOLUTE", in law.

 

"Article 9" reads:

 

"That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place outside of Parlyament"

 

In consequence of this the Judiciary, determines and rules that, "Parliament may not be questioned in the Courts", under any circumstances.

 

This, is a foul and wicked lie. Calculated to provide parliament with an untestable and an unchallengeable “SUPREMACY"; where parliament can say or do anything it pleases, without any 'challenge' in the Courts.

 

It is a foul and wicked lie; because, in that very same Bill, there is another paragraph known as, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED" which specifically instructs parliament that it may have its "SUPREMACY" or, it may 'enact' any of the "PREMISES" of the Bill; but only by carrying out the 'conditions' as set out in, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED". And, this specifically instructs parliament that when it 'enacts' any of the "PREMISES" of the Bill; nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

 

There is no doubt whatsoever, that in consideration of this; the BRITISH JUDICIARY is rotten and corrupt.

 

CHARLIE GARD

 

Having now here fully established that the totalitarian "REGIME" has no legal right whatsoever to the 'legal' ownership of CHARLIE GARD and his body. And, having now established wholly and completely that the entire BRITISH JUDICIARY is wholly corrupt.

 

The JUDICIARY's ruling in respect to CHARLIE GARD, is undoubtedly corrupt.

 

1.   When the British "Supreme Court" declared and determined that, "Parents have no right to determine treatment". Therefore, ruling that, “CHARLIE GARD MUST DIE”. This was corrupt. Parents, having 'created that 'life' have more rights than anyone else.

2.   Especially, MORE RIGHTS IN NATURAL LAW, than any obstructive medical profession and a totalitarian 'REGIME' that has no rights to the 'ownership' of CHARLIE GARD's body, at all.

 

CONCLUSION

 

CHARLIE GARD's parents must now start a legal action in the courts claiming massive financial compensation from the 'medics' and the 'JUDICIARY'; that, both, through their corruption, obstruction, and intransigence, purposely delayed the treatment of CHARLIE GARD; and, who then determined, that CHARLIE GARD, MUST DIE.

 

The General Public at large 'trying to save’, CHARLIE GARD, with all good faith and generosity, contributed, as reported, "ONE MILLION POUNDS" in order to send him to America for treatment.

 

I respectfully suggest that this huge sum should now be used by CHARLIE GARD's parents to sue both the 'medics' and the 'JUDICIARY' that were intent on, his death.

 

DEFEND CHARLIE GARD, GIVE HIM HIS DAY IN COURT.

 

Gordon J Sheppard.

 

ATTENTION OF LAWYERS AND BARRISTERS

_{LAWYERS AND BARRISTERS;}

 

<sub>ONE MILLION POUNDS each for any Lawyer and any Barrister, to accept this brief. To accept the brief  on a, "No Win - No Fee", arrangement; but, with a very marked difference, in this case; because, the "Win" is guaranteed; and, in this case, the, "claims" presented to the court; cannot be refuted; or the case be lost.

The reason for this and, wholly endorsing the 'guarantee' that this case cannot fail in the courts, is the fact that all 'submissions' to the court are wholly supported by "Precedent of Law" - The, "Precedent of Law"; that cannot be overruled or supplanted by any other, "Precedent of Law"

The, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"; is the "Precedent of Law", that is, "Written in Stone".

The Judiciary cannot overrule this "Statute in Force" in any way; and,

Parliament cannot overrule "The Said Rights Claimed" or amend it, or even abolish it. Because, it provides the, "PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE". Protecting, the people, from the tyranny of the 'abuses' of Parliament. The very proposition to remove that 'protection' by parliament; by a parliament assenting vote; creates the "Prejudice of the People"; and, that, by 'precedent of law'; is wholly proscribed.

BEFORE ANY LAWYER OR BARRISTER SHOULD MAKE ANY DECISION NOT TO REPRESENT; I respectfully urge, read all and digest all written here; before making that decision.

In the event 'representation' is agreed; the following is the procedure I require to be followed:

PHASE 1.

        A. Challenge the entire British Judiciary on their ruling that "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" is, "ABSOLUTE".
        B. Challenge their ruling, that, "Article 9" prevents all 'questioning' of parliament in the courts, irrespective of all circumstances.

Submission:
"Article 9" is not 'ABSOLUTE'. It is merely 'conditional '. Its use in the courts, and, in law, and, by Parliament, depends entirely upon the conditions set out in the, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"

This paragraph, of that very same 'Bill', the, "Bill of Rights 1689", makes it abundantly and specifically clear to both parliament and all reading the Bill that, Parliament may have its "SUPREMACY" as afforded to parliament by "Article 9"; or parliament may 'enact' any of the other "Premises" of the Bill; but, only by complying with the specific instructions set out in "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"; which specifically instructs parliament; that in doing so; that, nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"

Submission:
This proves without any doubt at all, two things,

        1. "Article 9" is not, "ABSOLUTE"
        2. That, anyone is free to challenge parliament in the courts; if and whenever parliament, "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

Submission:
The entire British Judiciary has for centuries; "CONSPIRED TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" by blatantly deceiving the British people that they cannot 'question' parliament in the courts; when, in all that time, the, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED" verifies 'lawfully' that they can.

The Said Rights Claimed”:
“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singula The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that no 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: It should be noted that, "The Said Rights Claimed", is the over-all 'legal authority' of the entire "Bill of Rights 1689" - For, it states within its text, that it is the 'authority' over all the "PREMISES", of the Bill.</sub>

<sub>Phase 1 is now complete.

PHASE 2.

Having now established that "Article 9" is not "ABSOLUTE" and that the way is now clear for the 'questioning' or 'challenging' of parliament in the courts; we now proceed to challenge the actual legality of the "POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS" in Parliament.
Because the "WHIPS' and, their political party activities in parliament do, "PREJUDICE" the people.

The political party WHIPS in parliament issue a directive to all 'democratically elected' Members of Parliament each week; instructing those 'elected' MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, on how they must vote. This overrules and supplants; all, 'rightful democratic participation and influence' that might have been placed upon those "Members of Parliament, by the constituents. This therefore creates, the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE".

As, has already been presented to the courts here; and, has been vividly shown above; this flouts and breaches the 'precedent of law' set out in, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".

Submission:
We therefore submit that the "Political party WHIPS in parliament has no 'legality' at all.

PHASE 1 and 2 are now both complete.

PHASE 3.

Having now established beyond all doubt all that is shown in both Phase 1 and Phase 2; we now proceed to the claim for damages brought about by the "Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice" by the Judiciary; and, the sheer illegality of the political party Whips; both, that have denied, my rightful access to DEMOCRACY, all the years of my adult life.

I shall not set out the formula for establishing these 'damages' here; others may copy to advantage themselves. Suffice to understand that for the denial of access to, "PRICELESS DEMOCRACY", there will be a very substantial claim. Thus, the total sum claimed, will be precisely,

SIXTY-NINE MILLION POUNDS.

There is no court or judiciary anywhere on Planet Earth; that can refute this evidence and this claim.

Everything is fully supported by irrevocable, and, unchallengeable, “PRECEDENT OF LAW"</sub>

 

FUNERALS

 

My lovely wife DAISY passed away peacefully during the afternoon of Monday 10th July 2017. There will be no FUNERAL.

 

FUNERALS

One important thing for all to understand is this; My lovely wife Daisy and, my brother Ron who also recently died, we three, had a 'solemn pact' with each other that when died, we would not contribute or pay one penny to the FUNERAL INDUSTRY, that we absolutely loathed.

 

We, firmly believed, and, I continue to believe, that the "Soul leaves the body at the very instant of death"; all that remains thereafter, is the carcass that once held that 'life' but now rapidly begins the process of decay.

 

The FUNERAL BUSINESS is naught but 'vultures' charging exorbitant fees and raking in massive profits; merely waiting, for the next one to die. WHOLLY HELD UP AND SUPPORTED BY GOVERNMENT. The time has long since passed when government ought to have introduced a Bill to control that FUNERAL INDUSTRY.

 

We decided that we would have nothing to do with FUNERALS.

 

Arrangements were made whereby the Coroner arranged collection of MY WIFE'S body and, it was taken it to St Thomas's Hospital.

 

What happens next entirely depends upon the authorities and the "State".

 

WE, British, are not classified as 'HUMANKIND' - We have no proper 'Citizenship' and we have no 'protection of law' whatsoever. In, 'LAW', we are classified as mere, "SUBJECTS OF THE CROWN". Therefore, my lovely DAISY was so classified as a "SUBJECT OF THE CROWN" - It is therefore the responsibility of the "CROWN" to dispose of that body. I intend to do absolutely nothing in this regard.

 

My DAISY insisted that she did not want to be "carted around the streets in a box", she did not want any flowers or crying and wailing; she did not want any FUNERAL at all.

 

Thus, all those, wanting or needing, Closure"; they can easily achieve this, by simply closing their eyes for a moment and, relive the memories' they had; whilst, my lovely DAISY, lived her wonderful life.

 

If the "CROWN" had any compassion at all, it would provide my lovely wife's 'ASHES' to my eldest daughter; she would like to bury her mother's 'ASHES' in her garden. Where, her husbands mother and father ASHES are already buried.

 

HIGH SPEED TRAIN BILL UNLAWFUL AND CORRUPT

ALL HS2 LEGISLATION IS UNLAWFUL & CORRUPT.

CREATED, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS; IT HAS NO LEGALITY AT ALL.

 

THE WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT, “PREJUDICE' THE PEOPLE”. INSTRUCTING, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ON HOW THEY MUST VOTE; OVERRULES AND SUPPLANTS, ALL ‘RIGHTFUL INFLUENCE’ THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PLACED UPON THOSE ‘MEMBERS’, BY THE CONSTITUENTS.

THIS THEREFORE CREATES THE, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”.

 

"PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE", BY PARLIAMENT, IS WHOLLY PROSCRIBED BY THE, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED”.

THIS PARAGRAPH OF THAT BILL, SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTS PARLIAMENT; THAT, PARLIAMENT MAY HAVE THE "SUPREMACY"; AFFORDED BY, "ARTICLE 9", OF THAT BILL; BUT, ONLY UPON THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"; WHICH, SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTS PARLIAMENT, THAT NOTHING, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

THUS, THE WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT, HAS NO LEGALITY AT ALL. ACCORDINGLY, ALL HS2 LEGISLATION, IS CORRUPT.

 

IT IS NOW UP TO EVERY HS2 PROTESTER TO CHALLENGE THIS UNLAWFUL LEGISLATION, IN THE COURTS; AND, FROM, WITHIN LAW.

MEDIA-JOURNALISM & NEGLIGENCE OF THE QUEEN

_{MEDIA-JOURNALISM & NEGLIGENCE OF,}

_{QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND.}

_{JOHN RENTOUL on SKY NEWS, just so typical of all 'FAKE NEWS', and, mind manipulating JOURNALISTS; during interview he proclaimed that, in order that there be a new "General Election"; PARLIAMENT must first vote to approve; before any election can take place.}

_{IMPLYING THAT ONLY 'POLITICIANS' CAN DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF THE PEOPLE.}

_{SHEER GARBAGE.}

 

_{IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CONSPIRACY OF BOTH MONARCHY AND PARLIAMENT AND THE SETTING UP OF THE ROTTEN AND CORRUPT "CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY"; DESIGNED, SPECIFICALLY, TO RELIEVE THE 'REIGNING MONARCH' OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTING THE CROWN'S SUBJECTS.}

_{FOR, AS LONG AS A 'MONARCH' SITS UPON THE ENGLISH THRONE; THEY WILL ALWAYS BE BOUND BY THE  'PRECEDENT OF LAW', AND, THE DUTY, TO HONOUR AND COMPLY WITH THE "ORIGINAL CONTRACT"; REQUIRING THE, "PROTECTION" OF THE PEOPLE.}

 

_{IRRESPECTIVE OF "CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY"; EVERY "REIGNING MONARCH" THAT SITS UPON THE ENGLISH THRONE; ALWAYS, HAS THE RIGHT, POWER, AND THE DUTY; TO EXERCISE THE, "ROYAL PREROGATIVE"; THE, 'LEGAL INSTRUMENT'; SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE, "PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE".}

 

_{IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE BRITISH HAVE NO OTHER 'PROTECTION' OF LAW:}

_{THERE IS NO, "WRITTEN CONSTITUTION"; "BILL OF RIGHTS"; OR, "SUPREME COURT OF LAW", WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO QUESTION OR CHALLENGE THE 'ABUSE' OF PARLIAMENT FROM WITHIN LAW.}

 

_{THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE}

_{PROVIDES, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, AS FOLLOWS:}

_{A. THE RIGHT TO ADVISE OR PRAISE HER MINISTERS OF GOVERNMENT.}

_{B. THE RIGHT TO WARN HER MINISTERS OF GOVERNMENT.}

 

_{C. THE RIGHT AND DUTY, THAT, WHENEVER THE PEOPLES WISHES ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE LEGISLATORS, TO, IMMEDIATELY PROROGUE PARLIAMENT, ORDERING A NEW GENERAL ELECTION.}

 

_NOTE:

_{WITH NO PROPER 'ELECTED' GOVERNMENT;}

_{WITH, THE CORRUPT 'BRIBERY' OF THE DEMOCRATIC UNIONIST PARTY, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE TORY PARTY A 'MAJORITY' IN PARLIAMENT;}

_{WITH, 'THE PEOPLE' IN GENERAL ELECTION DECLARING THEY DID NOT WANT ANY POLITICAL PARTY TO HAVE A 'MAJORITY' IN PARLIAMENT, AT ALL;}

_{WITH, ALL THE CHAOS, CONFUSION, CORRUPTION; AND, THE SHEER ESTABLISHED EVIDENCE THAT THE PEOPLE NOW HAVE COMPLETE MISTRUST OF POLITICIANS.}

_{WITH, MINISTERS OF THE GOVERNMENT ‘CABINET’ ALL FIGHTING AMONG THEM SELVES FOR POWER IN ORDER TO SECURE DOMINATION AND CONTROL.}

_{WITH, "BREXIT"; WITH, ALL THE 'LIES' AND 'DECEIT'; AND, ALL THE THREAT TO THE LIVES OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY,}

_{GREAT BRITAIN IS IN GREAT PERIL NOW.}

 

_{ELIZABETH THE SECOND (IF SHE HAS EYES AND EARS IN HER HEAD) MUST INTERVENE.}

_{HER 'DUTY' REQUIRES THE IMMEDIATE, "PROROGUE OF PARLIAMENT";}

_{AND A NEW, "GENERAL ELECTION".}

_{IF, IN THIS TIME OF SHEER 'PERIL' OF THE COUNTRY, ELIZABETH THE SECOND DOES NOTHING AT ALL.}

_{THEN THERE IS NO NEED, NOR, ANY LEGAL VALIDITY; FOR, ANY, "MONARCHY", AT ALL.}

WHY DO WE TOLERATE THIS 'NEGLIGENT' QUEEN SITTING UPON THE THRONE?

WHERE'S THE FUCKING QUEEN? Why doesn't she do her DUTY by honouring the "Original Contract" which requires all 'Reigning Monarchs' to protect all "Subjects of the Crown"?

Can't she see the PERIL that faces our country today? No proper 'elected' government; No protection of 'LAW' whatsoever; NO DEMOCRACY; and, BREXIT.

WHAT GREATER PERIL COULD THERE BE?

HER DUTY? PROROGUE PARLIAMENT. ORDER A NEW, GENERAL ELECTION.

THE OBSCENITY OF THE "FUNERAL INDUSTRY"

 

Letter to, My Member of Parliament,

_{Dear Helen Hayes MP}

 

_{Very sadly I have to inform you that my wife this afternoon passed peacefully away.}

_{Which now presents a very important problem. DO I COMPLY WITH HER WISHES?}

_{I need specifically to know if there is a 'LAW' requiring me to bury cremate or dispose of my wife’s body.}

 

_{The reason for this is because throughout my wife's existence on planet earth; both she and myself have frequently discussed and determined precisely what we want when we die. We were and are wholly disgusted by the 'funeral business' in our country; that are merely the 'parasites' of death. We both made a pact whereby we promised each other that no one should earn any profit from our death.}

 

_{We both firmly believed that from the very instant of death, the soul departs the body, leaving merely the 'shell'}

_{LIFE HAS ALREADY GONE.}

_{We were determined that there will be no 'funeral director' or funerals when we passed away.}

_{It was our declared intention to notify 'public health' that our bodies have now began the process of rotting; resulting in a danger to public health;}

_{Thus, the "State" must take that rotting body away.}

_{THIS IS MY WIFE'S AND MY OWN TRUE INTENT - It will be a 'sacrilege' and a 'betrayal' of my wife; if I now agree to conform to normal funeral arrangements.}

 

_{I NEED TO KNOW: IS THERE A 'LAW' COMPELLING ME, TO NORMAL EVERY DAY EXISTING FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS?}

 

_{If there is no such 'LAW' then I shall phone public health requesting they take my wife's body away.}

 

_{IT IS WAY PAST TIME WHEN PARLIAMENT OUGHT TO STOP THIS OBSCENE PROFTEERING OF THE FUNERAL INDUSTRY.}

 Sincerely

Gordon J Sheppard

GRENFELL FIRE PUBLIC INQUIRY - JUDGE NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

_{More evidence why MARTIN MOORE-BICK must not,}

_{Preside over, the, GRENFELL FIRE PUBLIC INQUIRY,}

 

_{Here, in yet another instance of what he says, he demonstrates yet again, that he must not be in control of this, PUBLIC INQUIRY.}

 

_{Today he invites "PEOPLE AFFECTED" by the fire, to write to him with suggestions as to what questions the INQUIRY should pursue.}

 

_{Typical of the way that he is, his education, and the ruling class he represents; he demonstrates that he is already, before the INQUIRY has even began, wholly and completely the 'tool' of government. He seeks to LIMIT the remit of, THE PUBLIC INQUIRY.}

 

_{Here, he attempts to 'limit' the PUBLIC INQUIRY to only, the people that were “AFFECTED" by that fire, at the Grenfell Tower Block.}

_{Yet, EVERYONE IN THE DAMNED COUNTRY, has been seriously affected by the "MURDERS" that took place in that terrible fire. We are all concerned, we all want answers as to why ‘eighty people’ were killed by that ‘fire’. We all have the right to pose ‘questions’ to that, PUBLIC INQUIRY.}

 

_{GET RID OF ‘MARTIN MOORE-BICK’ HE IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.}

 

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

 

A.          MUST BE TELEVISED THROUGHOUT.

B.           TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MUST BE POSTED ON THE INTERNET EVERY DAY.

 

“MURDER”

The assertion that all those that died in that ‘fire’ were ‘murdered’ is fully established by this criterion.

 

If the local authority decided to install ‘cladding’ on the tower block; and had the option to install ‘cladding’ that was,

1.            Fire resistant.

2.            Non fire resistant.

And, they then selected the ‘non resistant’ cladding, which imposed a PREVIOUSLY WELL KNOWN ‘fire risk’, to the tenants of that building. That local authority, with sheer intent, blatantly exposed all their tenants to that fire risk.

When there was a fire, a horrific fire, in which eighty people (or more) were killed as a result of that ‘cladding’; that is MURDER.

Because, that local authority, with sheer, INTENT, exposed them to that ‘fire’ risk.

The crime of MURDER, and, the charge of MURDER, must be supported by the “Intent to Kill”. Here, that, INTENT TO KILL, by sheer calculated ‘negligence’; is fully established, without any shred of ‘doubt’ at all.

SIR MARTIN MOORE-BICK

_{GRENFELL TOWER BLOCK FIRE INQUIRY}

_{APPOINTED JUDGE NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE….}

_{SIR MARTIN MOORE-BICK should be removed from presiding over the "GRENFELL FIRE PUBLIC INQUIRY" immediately. He should be replaced by someone more suitable to, "The People's Concerns" in this wicked ‘FIRE’ atrocity. SIR MARTIN MOORE-BICK condemns himself, from this task; by the very words he uttered on live television 'NEWS' yesterday. This is what he said:}

_{"I doubt that the people's concerns will be addressed by the Inquiry".}

_{"My Inquiry, might not address those concerns".}

 

_{IN TYPICAL ARROGANT FASHION OF THE ENTIRE BRITISH JUDICIARY, HE REFERS TO THE "INQUIRY", AS BEING, "HIS INQUIRY";}

_{AND, HE ASSERTS, THAT "THE PEOPLE'S CONCERNS" MIGHT NOT BE ADDRESSED BY 'HIS' INQUIRY.}

 

_{THE POMPOUS PRICK. HE HASN'T A CLUE WHY HE WAS APPOINTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.}

 

_{THIS "INQUIRY" IS NOT "HIS INQUIRY"; IT IS A "PUBLIC INQUIRY" - THAT IS, THAT IT IS THE, "PEOPLE'S INQUIRY";}

_{AND, AS FOR WHAT IS ADDRESSED IN THAT INQUIRY? THE ANSWER MUST BE, ALL AND EVERYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THAT TERRIBLE AND WICKED ATROCITY WHERE, "EIGHTY PEOPLE" WERE "MURDERED", IN THAT FIRE.}

 

_{THE JUDGE APPOINTED, SHOULD HAVE NO 'INPUT' TO THE "INQUIRY" AT ALL; HE OR SHE MUST ACT, VIRTUALLY AS A MERE  'CIVIL SERVANT'; JUST LISTENING; TO ALL THE "EVIDENCE" THAT WILL BE PRESENTED. INTERFERING, ONLY IN RESPECT TO INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN RESPECT TO 'LAW' AND, 'POINTS OF LAW'; AND ,TO WRITE UP A SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED, WHEN THE INQUIRY ENDS.}

 

_{1.       THE PUBLIC INQUIRY MUST BE TELEVISED THROUGHOUT.}

_{2.       DAILY THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INQUIRY MUST BE PUBLISHED IN TRANSCRIPTS ON THE INTERNET.}

_{3.       THE INQUIRY MUST REPORT TO "THE PEOPLE"; AND NOT; 'PRIVATELY' TO THE PRIME MINISTER.}

_{4.       ALL, "THE PEOPLE", HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW".}

 

_{GET RID OF 'SIR MARTIN MOORE-BICK' IMMEDIATELY. HE IS NOT UP TO THE JOB.}

_{NO ONE LIVING ANYWHERE NEAR THAT BURNT OUT TOWER BLOCK; CAN HAVE ANY "CONFIDENCE" IN HIM.}

 

SI