PARLIAMENT "QUESTION TIME"

 _{Question for the Prime Minister}

_{Letter sent to Helen Hayes MP.}

_{Dear Helen Hayes MP}

_{In considering whether to ask the Prime Minister this question, or not. Please consider this:}

 

_{I have no protection of LAW.}

_{LAW today in my country is looked upon by the 'elite' of Monarchy, Judiciary, Government, and Parliament, as being only 'something' that the common people must obey. Whilst they, repeatedly flout and breach LAW all of the time.}

_{HM Queen has not once honoured the "Original Contract" throughout all of the time she has occupied the throne; she has frequently granted the "Royal Assent" to corrupt LAW.}

_{The Judiciary "Conspires to Pervert the Course of Justice" and deceive the British people by ruling that the "Supremacy of Parliament" is ABSOLUTE; thereby denying access to the courts to 'question' Parliament irrespective of any circumstance.}

_{When, the very correct reading of the "Bill of Rights 1689"; actually verifies that anyone may 'question' Parliament in the Courts, if and when ever Parliament, "Prejudice the People".}

_{Parliament today creates and passes 'LAW' in precisely the same way as HITLER and the NAZIS created their own law. By 'diktat' of the political parties and not by democratic consent.}

 _{All, ACT's, MOTIONS, and BILLS created and passed in Parliament today, "UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS" is, CORRUPT LAW. Because, the 'WHIPS' in Parliament, has no legality, whatsoever.}

_{'LAW' TODAY IN GREAT BRITAIN IS NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD.}

_{"LAW IS A MYTH WITHOUT THE 'CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE' THERE IS NO LAW"}

_{The words of LORD HAILSHAM an ex Lord Chancellor of England.}

 

_{Thus, it is the "People's consent to 'live by the rule of law' that is, "LAW"}

_{Thereby, all that give their consent to live by law, are entitled to four specific rights:}

_{A. They are entitle to 'participate' in the creation and framing of law.}

_{B. The are entitled to 'equality' in law.}

_{C. They are entitled to the 'protection' of law.}

_{D. All LAW created must conform to, TRUTH, FREEDOM, JUSTICE, INTELLIGENCE, LOGIC, and RATIONALE.}

_{Today in Great Britain all, 'A' to 'D' above, is denied.}

_{Dear Helen Hayes, this is why this question must be asked of the Prime Minister. FYI. Whether you 'ask the question' or not; I shall publish this 'question' on all social media; in case you decide to decline.}

_{Regards, and, with sincere respect,} 

_Gordonj

 

_{Question for Prime Minister}

_{​Prime Minister please clarify for all Members of this Parliament, and for all the people of the country;  the true legal status of the SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT.}

_{This is vitally important now; because, with all the complexities and the confusion created by BREXIT, and both Government and Parliament creating both ‘Laws’ and ‘Regulations’ that may affect the very lives of everyone in the country; it is imperative that the true ‘legality’ of the “SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT” is properly explained.}

 _{My constituent, MR GORDON SHEPPARD of West Dulwich asserts. that the offices and political activities of the WHIPS in parliament has no legality at all.}

_{He asserts and claims that he can prove by ‘precedent of law’, that the WHIPS instructing Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote in Parliament; actually creates the “Prejudice of the People”.}

 _{MR SHEPPARD asserts, that this causes the “prejudice of the people” by overruling and supplanting, the Constituents right to ‘influence’   their Member of Parliament; and, he asserts; that this flouts and breaches the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.}

 _{Yet, MR SHEPPARD cannot test this ‘abuse’ by the imposition of the WHIPS in Parliament; he cannot test or ‘Question’ Parliament in, ‘LAW’ and, from within ‘LAW’; because the JUDICIARY refuse to allow any ‘questioning’ of Parliament in the Courts. The JUDICIARY ruling that the “SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT” is ABSOLUTE.}

 

_​

_{But, MR SHEPPARD asserts that by, ‘precedent of law’, he can prove that “Article 9” of the “BILL OF RIGHTS 1689”, is not ABSOLUTE; He asserts and claims that, “Article 9”, as well as, all the other “PREMISES” of that Bill, are wholly dependent upon the conditions set out in the paragraph of the Bill; known as, “THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED”.}

 _{MR SHEPPARD claims that this paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed" within this Bill; is the over-all ‘authority’ of the entire Bill. He asserts and claims this, because he says, that the very text of that paragraph in the Bill, verifies that, ‘within its text’, it specifically instructs Parliament; and, all reading that Bill; that it has the ‘authority’ over, “ALL THE ‘PREMISES”, of the Bill.}

_{“THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED” specifically instructs Parliament; that in Parliament applying or ‘enacting’ any of the ‘PREMISES’ of the Bill; that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.}

_{Thus, PRIME MINISTER, it is imperative that you clarify the true status and legal validity of the “SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT”; right now.}

_{​IS THE “SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT” ABSOLUTE? Or not?}

_{DO THE WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT HAVE TRUE LEGALITY? Yes of No?}

 

 _{If ‘YES’ is applicable and asserted to either of the above; then both Government and Judiciary must produce the ‘evidence’ - the legal and lawful instrument - proving that this is so.}