LAWYERS AND BARRISTERS;
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.
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”
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"
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"
No comments:
Post a Comment