Tuesday, March 12, 2019

CORRUPT ATTORNEY GENERAL, GEOFFREY COX


ATTORNEY GENERAL GEOFFREY COX,

LIAR, CHEAT, AND HYPOCRITE,

WILL USE AND QUOTE ‘LAW’ WHEN IT SUITS AND SUPPORTS HIS OWN OPINION OR THE INTERESTS OF THE ‘OBJECTIVES’ OF THE TORY PARTY;

 

BUT HE WILL KEEP ABSOLUTELY SILENT IN RESPECT TO OTHER ‘LAWS’ WITH ADVERSE OPINION.

 

This, “Man of Law” – “Well versed in Law” and, “Dealing with Law” all the time; is wholly corrupt. He uses ‘LAW’, merely to suit HIMSELF.

 

In a terse ‘put down’ to a Member of Parliament who had asked him a question, GEOFFREY COX replied curtly with just these words,

 

“That’s law” – “That is the law”

As though that THIS was the ‘definitive’ answer.

Well, in respect to BREXIT - and the sheer wicked corruption and chaos presently going on in the country; and, in parliament now; and, where the impending peril to the lives of everyone in the country is going to be far greater and more fearful than, World War Two, when the UK leaves the EU.
I will tell, GEOFREY COX, that the, “Protection of the People”, provided to the people by the, “BILL OF RIGHTS 1689”,

Is also ‘LAW’ as well.

 

Attorney General, GEOFFREY COX, this ‘Man of Law’ has never ever said one word about this, because it conflicts with his own and his Tory Party objectives, in Parliament.
 

The, BILL OF RIGHTS 1689, in “Article 9” of that Bill, provides parliament with its, SUPREMACY.

Whereby, both the JUDICIARY and PARLIAMENT assume that this provides Parliament with the right to do anything it pleases in everything, without any challenge.
The JUDICIARY rules and determines that “Article 9” is, “ABSOLUTE” in LAW; and, thereby, denies all “Questioning” of Parliament in the Courts.

 
Yet, the JUDICIARY is either corrupt and purposely conspiring to pervert the course of justice and deceive the British people; or, they are wholly ignorant of the true intent of the “BILL OF RIGHTS 1689” and the, “Protection of the People”, that it provides.

 

Within that Bill; in the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”, the ‘originators’ of the Bill, the, “Rights Committee” of the CONVENTION (parliament) of 1688 well aware that the true intent of the Bill was to protect Parliament from the interference of a King; had to ensure that the Bill could not be mis-interpreted or misused to the detriment of the People. This ‘Committee’ therefore, inserted into the Bill, the required “Protection of the People”; in the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”

 

This vital paragraph of, ‘LAW’, in that Bill; specifically instructs Parliament or, anyone reading the Bill, that Parliament may have its “SUPREMACY” afforded to Parliament by “Article 9” of the Bill; or, Parliament may ‘enact’ or ‘apply’ any of the other “PREMISES” of the Bill; but only upon the conditions that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”

 

“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”

 

GEOFFREY COX, take special notice of this;

This paragraph of the “BILL OF RIGHTS 1689” specifically instructs parliament, that parliament should not, “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.

 

The political party WHIPS in parliament do “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE” because, when they instruct ‘elected’ Members of Parliament on how they should VOTE; this overrules and supplants the ‘rightful influence’ placed upon those Members of Parliament by the Constituents.

This clearly creates and causes the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”

 

In consequence, GEOFFREY COX, must now agree and acknowledge that the, POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT, has no ‘legality’ at all.

 

BREXIT

THEREFORE, GEOFFREY COX, MUST NOW INSTRUCT PARLIAMENT THAT THE, “EU (WITHDRAWAL) BILL”, PASSED IN PARLIAMENT UNDER THE ‘DIKTAT’ AND DOMINATION OF THE 'WHIPS' AND, THE “WHIPPED” VOTE" IN PARLIAMENT; HAS NO LEGAL VALIDITY AT ALL.
THE, WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT ARE WHOLLY UNLAWFUL. THEREFORE, THE, “TRIGGERING OF ‘ARTICLE 50’, CANNOT NOW STAND.

No comments: