GENERAL ELECTIONS & TRUST

GENERAL ELECTION of 12^th December 2019

The key element for every voter is, “TRUST”

Can you believe the words of the political party leaders that are competing for election? Can you “TRUST” the promises that they now make?

 

In order to verify this “TRUST”, the acid test for every voter, is to ask every political party leader, this question:

 

“If I am to trust you then please tell me if you and your political party are elected will you continue to operate a “WHIPPED VOTE” in Parliament?

Then pay particular attention to what they say.

 

If they say “YES” or “They Might” dependant on the circumstances; then specifically remind them of what they have just said; and, then challenge them to produce the actual legal document from anywhere in the British National Archive; that verifies the legality of the political party “WHIPS”; even being in Parliament at all.

Challenge them to prove the legality of a “WHIPPED VOTE” taking place.

 

They cannot produce a word of ‘proof’ for any of the above, because it simply does not exist,

THERE IS NO SUCH DOCUMENT OR LEGAL INSTRUMENT AVAILABLE; THAT WILL ESTABLISH THE LEGALITY OF THE “WHIPS”; IN THE ENTIRE BRITISH NATIONAL ARCHIVE.

1. The “WHIPS” are not entrenched in LAW.
2. Documents or legal instruments proving legality, do not exist.
3. The “WHIPS” in Parliament are merely the ‘private’ arrangements of the political parties.
4. The “WHIPS” have no true legality at all.

 

Conclusion;

1. The “WHIPS” in parliament are wholly UNLAWFUL.
2. The political party leaders in this election who have declared they would still operate a “WHIPPED VOTE” in parliament, if they were elected; establish without a shadow of doubt; that they are NOT TO BE TRUSTED AT ALL.

 

THE EVIDENCE,

The People’s protection, provided by the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”, within the  “Bill of Rights 1689”; establishes that Parliament may have its “SUPREMACY” afforded by “Article 9” of the Bill; but it also instructs Parliament; that when Parliament ‘enacts’ or ‘applies’ any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill; that nothing,

“OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”

 

The political party “WHIPS” in Parliament do “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE” because, when the “WHIPS” instruct elected Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote; this overrules and supplants all rightful ‘influence’, of the Constituents.

 

THE “WHIPS” and THE “WHIPPED VOTE” in Parliament, HAS NO LEGALITY AT ALL.

FATAL ACCIDENT CRASH OUTSIDE RAF CROUGHTON

Fatal accident head on collision kills young motorcyclist outside RAF CROUGHTON base.

Parents of the young man, HARRY DUNNE, in their understandable trauma and grief lash out requiring a ‘scapegoat’ for his death. They blame the American woman driving the car, that hit him. All British MEDIA latches on to the ‘sob story’; and, all NEWS both transmitted and printed, blames and vilifies this woman involved. They all claim that the, ‘car hit him’; and, not, that the motorcyclist, ‘hit the car’.  

 

I readily assert that in such a case; all EVIDENCE must be properly sought and thoroughly examined, before, ‘casting the first stone’.

Are the parents truly seeking ‘justice’ as they claim?

Or, are they merely wanting, REVENGE?

 

The police likewise assert the woman is responsible for HARRY DUNNE’s death; they say that they ‘believe’ that she was driving on the wrong side of the road.

 

Now this is both interesting and revealing; because the woman, ANNE SCALOOSA, is an American woman and in America they do, drive on that side of the road. She is also an American military ‘wife’ who with her husband, she was resident, in the RAF CROUGHTON ‘American Spy’ Base.

 

It is reasonable to assume that during her military experience in America; that she must have been resident and based on many military establishments and base camps. In exiting those establishments each day and carrying out the same procedure to ‘exit’ each day with her car; that procedure must have fully registered in her brain.

Daily she would have seen the ‘guards’ at the gate; she may have frequently spoken to the guard or shown her ‘pass document’; or merely waved him goodbye. She would then have ‘exited’ that establishment; and instantly she would have drove her car to, ‘that right side of the road’. This would have been a ‘daily’ procedure for her; which would have become rigidly embedded in her brain.

 

Now; she is in ENGLAND; in a similar military establishment; and she is leaving that establishment in her car in precisely the same way; she see the ‘guards’ at the gate, she sees everything at that ‘exit point’ in precisely the same way it was in, AMERICA, in all those American military establishments. She then ‘exits’ that establishment driving her car; and, in a fleeting moment of mental aberration; her brain thinking and imposing that she was still in America; she drives out in her car, driving immediately to the ‘right side of the road’.

There was no intent; no dangerous driving; no negligence; of any kind. She just had an ‘automatic’ mental aberration where her brain took control imposing the ‘idea’ that she was still in, AMERICA.

The, EVIDENCE OF TRUTH, in believing this to be so; is proven by the fact that, NO ONE, NO DRIVER OF ANY VEHICLE, PURPOSELY, EVER DRIVES ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. In this case, it is blatantly obvious, that something ‘triggered’ ANNE SCALOOSA, to do so.

Sadly, and most unfortunately, the road in question was on the brow of a hill. So, neither the motorcyclist nor the driver of the car had any opportunity to see each other in order to avoid the crash. And, sadly, very sadly, merely seconds before the crash ANNE SCALOOSA’s ‘brain’ would have returned to ‘normality’ when she probably realised, what she had done.

 

I THINK THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED.

After the crash and seeing the plight of poor HARRY DUNNE dying from the accident; realising what she had done and, utterly confused and bewildered, she just wanted ‘out of it’ and the comfort of her AMERICAN home. She is there now and my advice to her is to resist every attempt to return to the UK. Both, the ‘parents’ and the Media, are persistently vilifying and crucifying her every day. Politicians likewise join in. ‘Questions’ are even asked about her in Parliament.

IF ANNE SCALOOSA RETURNS TO THE UK – SHE WOULD NEVER GET A FAIR TRIAL.

 

 

BREXIT IS UNLAWFUL

BREXIT – Just one chance left to stop the insanity.

Just one chance left before leaving the E.U. without a deal.

Just one chance left to challenge the LEGALITY of BREXIT; and secure an injunction in the Courts, to stop all procedures of BREXIT until the Court has heard the case.

 

BREXIT IS TOTALLY UNLAWFUL.

Three ‘prima facie’ reasons verify why BREXIT is unlawful,

1. The Referendum ballot paper was fraudulent and corrupt.
2. The ‘lies’ BORIS JOHNSON told perverted and corrupted the final vote of the Referendum.
3. “Article 50” of the E.U. (Withdrawal) Bill was passed in parliament by a “Whipped Vote”; which has no LEGALITY at all.

 

The ‘corrupt’ Ballot Paper


It only provided two boxes to tick to,  ‘LEAVE’ or ‘REMAIN’


It provided no information at all as to what was to happen if the voter's voted to ‘LEAVE’.

It provided no ‘MANDATE’ to anyone or anything to take charge of procedures if the declared vote was to, ‘LEAVE’ the E.U.

Parliament granted the democratic Referendum; therefore Parliament ought to have taken charge when the final declared vote was to ‘LEAVE’. But, THERESA MAY seized that control for herself; she declared “BREXIT IS BREXIT”; and she set her ‘red lines’ and undemocratically she began the withdrawal negotiations with the E.U.

THERESA MAY INSISTED ON A ‘WHIPPED VOTE’ IN PARLIAMENT IN ORDER TO PASS “ARTICLE 50” & SECURE THE ‘ROYAL ASSENT’ – Without any LEGALITY at all.

But, the worst thing about the ‘Ballot Paper’ was the fact that it provided no information whatsoever, about the ‘Disadvantages’ on leaving the E.U. The ‘Ballot Paper’ failed to advise the British people voting in that Referendum, that if they voted to ‘LEAVE’ the E.U.; they would also be leaving, ALL PROTECTION OF LAW, as well.

The only protection of LAW that they had, and have, is the protection of the “European Court of Justice” and the “European Human Rights Law”.

 The ‘elite’ establishment of MONARCHY, JUDICIARY, GOVERNMENT & PARLIAMENT does not provide any protection of ‘LAW’ at all. There is no, “Written Constitution”, “Bill of Rights”; or “Supreme Court of Law” where it is possible to test question or challenge the ‘abuse’ and the ‘prejudice’ of Parliament, from within ‘LAW’.

BORIS JOHNSON’s ‘lies’,

BORIS JOHNSON throughout the Referendum ‘LEAVE’ campaign repeatedly told lie after lie in support of that campaign. They were not only ‘lies’ they were ‘FACTUAL PROMISES’ promised to the voter, if they voted to, ‘LEAVE“

1. If you vote to leave the E.U. trade with Europe will continue uninterrupted precisely as it does now“
2. "If you vote to leave the E.U. trade with the rest of the World would be enhanced”.“
3. "If you vote to leave the E.U. ‘£350,000 per week presently paid to the E.U. would become available for the NHS” (The National Health Service”)
4. THESE LIES WERE, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF TELEVISION, TRANSMITTED TO EVERY TV RECEIVER THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THEY WERE ALSO WIDELY PUBLISHED IN EVERY NATIONAL NEWSPAPER. SO THESE ‘LIES’ WERE WHOLLY AVAILABLE TO BE SEEN AND HEARD, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 
5. This being the fact of the matter, it is safe to assert that BORIS JOHNSON’S ‘LIES’; ‘could have corrupted’ the final vote declared in that Referendum. Sufficient, therefore, for any honest Court to determine and declare the Referendum vote of 2016, to be UNSAFE. And, must not no longer be relied upon.

 “ARTICLE 50” and the “Whipped Vote

The WHIPS in parliament have no LEGALITY at all.

They are not ‘entrenched’ in LAW. And,

Throughout the entire National Archive of Great Britain there is not one legal document verifying the right and use of the “WHIPS” in Parliament.

When the WHIPS instruct ‘elected’ Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote; this overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon those Members, by the Constituents. That elected those Members in the first place.

This therefore causes the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”. Which is wholly proscribed by the ‘peoples protection’ provided by the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

This paragraph of the “Bill of Rights 1689” specifically instructs Parliament; that Parliament may ‘enact’ or ‘apply’ any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill; but only upon the conditions that parliament, “OUGHT NOT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.

This paragraph of that Bill, “The Said Rights Claimed” is the over-all superior authority of the Bill; for it states within its text, that it is the authority over “any of the ‘PREMISES’ of the Bill.

Here is the text of, "The Said Rights Claimed"

The, “Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe 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”

There is no doubt whatsoever, that according to ‘LAW’ BREXIT has no LEGALITY whatsoever. The Courts must now declare, BREXIT IS UNLAWFUL.  

BREXIT and THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED

Here is the text and history of,

 

The, “Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe 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”

 

 

HISTORY

1688: KING JAMES THE SECOND WAS REMOVED FROM THE THRONE. He was charged by the CONVENTION (parliament) of having, "Broken the Original Contract Betwixt King and People".

The CONVENTION declared the throne was thereby vacant; and, WILLIAM OF ORANGE was offered the throne.

Prince William of Orange, with his army, invaded the Kingdom; and, JAMES II then fled to France.

 

PRINCE WILLIAM then appointed the CONVENTION, (parliament), and there were two essential tasks the CONVENTION had to resolve before WILLIAM could accede to the throne; (A), they had to find a legal way to remove JAMES II from the throne. He was still the living and lawful King. (B), they had to create a Bill that would protect parliament from all future interference of a King.

The CONVENTION then appointed a, "Rights Committee", to carry out those tasks.

 

THE, "RIGHTS COMMITTEE"

Firstly, they had to find the legal way of getting rid of JAMES II. They could not remove his head, he was away in France; so they simply determined that he had, "Broken the ‘Original Contract’ Betwixt King and People"; and thereby DECLARED, that he had 'Abdicated' the throne.

 

The second task they had to resolve was to, "Protect Parliament from further annoying interferences of a King". Parliament did not want the interference of a King, that it had previously had to endure with, JAMES II. They had to present a series of 'rights' protecting Parliament to, WILLIAM of ORANGE; that he would agree to; before he could sit on the throne.

 

The "Rights Committee" here, at first, and after considerable delay, produced twenty-six 'articles' protecting Parliament from a King; but, WILLIAM and his advisors would not accept them. WILLIAM became impatient warning the 'Committee' that if it did not hurry up and produce an acceptable list; he would return to the NETHERLANDS, and, would not be their KING.

 

The "Rights Committee" then speedily produced the 13 ARTICLES that are still present in the "Bill of Rights" today. But, then, just before presenting them to WILLIAM for approval; these very wise men, (many of them of the profession of law) looked at that the Bill that they had just created; and they suddenly realised two important things:

 

1. The Bill had been specifically created to protect parliament;       FROM A KING. Not, from, "The People".
2. The Bill, as it was then, could easily be mis-interpreted or misused, (just as Parliament and the JUDICIARY misuses it today). They realised, that, the Bill as it was then, had one serious omission. IT HAD FAILED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.
    
   So, the "Rights Committee" then inserted another paragraph into their Bill, directly below all the other 13 Articles of that Bill. This paragraph is, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED", and it specifically instructs Parliament that, when Parliament 'enacts' any of the "PREMISES" of the Bill; that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".
    
   (Note: The, "PREMISES" is everything written in the Bill.)
    
   "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED," IS THE SUPERIOR 'AUTHORITY' OF THE "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689"; Written and recorded within its text it specifically asserts and claims that it is the supreme ‘authority’ of, “Any of the ‘PREMISES’, of the Bill.
   It even overrules and supplants "ARTICLE 9" and the, "SUPREMACY" of PARLIAMENT; If and whenever parliament causes the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE".
    
   Widely distribute all this. Educate all that want to create a, TRUE DEMOCRACY.
    
   All that it takes, in order, to force the JUDICIARY to recognize the legal validity of, "The Said Rights Claimed", and, revise their ruling, that the "SUPREMACY" of Parliament is, ABSOLUTE. Is to scream 'from-the-rooftops',
    
   "THE WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT ARE UNLAWFUL"
   "ABOLISH THE WHIPS".
    
   If a million voices started screaming this, the Press and Media would be forced to take notice, the JUDICIARY would then be forced to recognize the legal validity of, "The Said Rights Claimed" - And, the WHIPS in Parliament would be declared unlawful. Thus, creating, a TRUE DEMOCRACY.
    
   A TRUE 'NON-VIOLENT' REFORM OF PARLIAMENT AND, REVOLUTION.
    
   Note: BREXIT – ‘Article 50’ of the “EU (Withdrawal) Bill” was created and passed by a “Whipped Vote” in parliament.
   Therefore, as can be seen above, that the “WHIPS” are unlawful. The passing by parliament of ‘Article 50’; must have been UNLAWFUL also.
    
   A mere challenge to the “Supreme Court” Judges, must uphold this prima facie evidence here.