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.
    

BORIS JOHNSON "Worldwide Promise" "WE WILL OBEY THE LAW"

“WE WILL OBEY THE LAW”

In response to the, “Emergency Question” debate held in parliament; and the question JESS PHILLIPS MP posed; BORIS JOHNSON, for the Government; replied with these words;

“We Will Obey The Law”.

Furthermore, to all other “Emergency Questions” posed by other Members of Parliament; every Government Minister in reply, repeatedly quoted that phrase again.

Many faces of the TORY Party Members beamed a gleeful satisfied smirk; they being confident, that this reply by BORIS JOHNSON (Their Leader) had been very clever; and had therefore prevented all further ‘attacks’ of opposition to the Governments objectives for, BREXIT.

 

But, BORIS JOHNSON had not been clever at all. In promising the World; that the Government; “Will Obey the Law”; he had ‘opened the door’ to providing all the British People with the ‘rightful access to ‘LAW’, in order to challenge the true LEGALITY of a “Whipped Vote” in parliament; and, to bring about a “TRUE DEMOCRACY” in the country; replacing the “Totalitarian Regime” as endured now.

 

BORIS JOHNSON, his entire Government, and the TORY PARTY, now promising the World, that they, “WILL OBEY THE LAW” must now be asked this;

 

“WILL THEY OBEY THE LAW” of, “THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED”

 

This ‘LAW’ of the “Said Rights Claimed” is the most important ‘LAW’ provided by the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689”.

“Article 9” of that Bill provides the “SUPREMACY” of Parliament; but the, “Said Rights Claimed”, is the over-all supreme authority of the entire Bill; for it states within its text that it has the ‘authority’ over any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill.

 

“The Said Rights Claimed” makes it abundantly clear and provides precise instruction to all of parliament; that parliament may ‘enact’ or ‘apply’ any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill; but, only upon the conditions that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”. (Here is the evidence proving this is so)

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”

 

The political party ‘WHIPS’ in parliament instructing ‘elected’ Members of Parliament on how they must or should ‘vote’; does cause the “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”; Because, it overrules and supplants all rightful influence, of the Constituents. Who elected those Members of Parliament in the first place.

Therefore, the ‘WHIPS’ Office and political party activities in parliament has no LEGALITY at all. And, in consequence; a “Whipped Vote” in parliament; has no LEGALITY whatsoever. Wholly establishing in ‘LAW’ that, “BREXIT”, is undoubtedly COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL.

Because the, “EU (WITHDRAWAL) BILL ‘ARTICLE 50”, was passed in parliament in a ‘Whipped Vote”. HAVING NO LEGALITY AT ALL.

The mere challenge to the “Supreme Court” establishing, in LAW the legal validity of, “The Said Rights Claimed”, should force that Court to uphold that TRUE ‘legality’ of "The Said Rights Claimed"; thereby establishing once and for all that “BREXIT” must be abolished; because it has no LEGALITY at all.

 

For you further information,

 

“The Said Rights Claimed”

ONE LAW, “WRITTEN IN STONE”

The ‘one law’ that can never be amended or even abolished by parliament; without causing the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”

As, provided - by this LAW.

 

Prime Minister, BORIS JOHNSON; all Members of Parliament; and, all the JUDICIARY; and, all the profession of LAW in the country; cannot ever assert or claim, that the approval of the political party WHIPS in Parliament; has been granted to parliament; by a FREE vote.

 

Because, the mere proposition of presenting this to parliament for the vote; is wholly unlawful. Any attempt by parliament to amend or abolish “The Said Rights Claimed” does, “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”. Which is, ‘proscribed’, by this LAW.

 

“The Said Rights Claimed” provides the “Protection of the People” from the ‘abuse’ of parliament - any attempt to amend or abolish it – takes that protection away. Thereby, causing the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”; provided, by this LAW.

 

Unlawful prorogation of parliament.

For GINA MILLER – Re Prorogation of Parliament.

You cannot ask High Court to rule “prorogation of parliament is unlawful”.

Court will only tell you, as it has already told you, that this is a ‘political matter’ and it is not for the Courts.

You should have used a different tactic altogether. You should have presented to the Court, the allegation that the ‘suspension of parliament’ for this particular reason and for this very long time, does cause the “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”; and, that is wholly proscribed, by the ‘protection of the people’ provided by and set out in the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

EXPLANATION.

1. Britain is a, PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY”
2. Where the ‘emphasis’ rests on the word, “Representative”.
3. Therefore, when the people in General Election elect their “political representative to represent them in Parliament; they are entitled to be represented, in that parliament, twenty-four hours of every day.
4. This ‘prorogation’, for this, 'political reason', and 'for this ‘extraordinary long time’, denies the people that right of representation;
5. This therefore causes the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”
6. THE COURT, THEREFORE, MUST TAKE NOTE AND COMPLY AS FOLLOWS:
    

1. The paragraph of the “Bill of Rights 1689” known as, “THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED” specifically instructs Parliament, that it is the ‘Supreme Authority’ of the entire Bill. Within, its text, it specifically declares that it is the ‘authority’ over all the “PREMISES” of the Bill.
2. It even overrules “Article 9” and the “Supremacy of Parliament; if and whenever parliament causes the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”.
3. “THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED” also specifically instructs parliament; that parliament may ‘enact’ and use any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill; But, only upon the ‘conditions’ that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”

 

BREXIT – Now highly critical; just one chance left for ‘sanity’ to prevail;

The ‘legality’ of BREXIT must be challenged in the Courts. Three irrefutable specific ‘prima facie’ allegations cannot be rejected by any Court.

Regards, Gordon J Sheppard

 

Letter sent to HELEN HAYES MP - Re Police Corruption

Probable corruption of the Metropolitan Police..

GordonJ Sheppard

Fri 06/09/2019 14:45

• Helen Hayes

Letter-Helen Hayes MP/Metropolitan Police…

Dear Helen Hayes MP

As my elected Member of Parliament responsible for my representation in Parliament; I now have to request you to write to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, requesting to know; why the police are not investigating the CRIME I reported on 2^nd August 2019. Crime report number, CAD2807.02.08.19.

 

FACTS reported to the police are as follows,

NOTE: On the 2^nd August 2019 I phoned the MET POLICE to enquire if the, “Perverting of the Course of Justice” was a crime? Advised that, “It certainly is”; I then submitted the full details in respect of the CRIME alleged, as shown below.

1. BORIS JOHNSON “Perverted the Course of Justice” during the Referendum of 2016.
2. Three specific lies he told during that Referendum; Could have corrupted the final vote; of that Referendum.
3. These ‘lies’ that he told were not the normal exaggerated claims made by politicians during an election.
4. BORIS JOHNSON’S ‘lies’ were, clear factual promises, made to all the voters in that Referendum; if they voted, to leave the EU.
5. BORIS JOHNSON promised this,

“If you vote to leave the EU, Trade with Europe will continue uninterrupted just as it does now.”

“If you vote to leave the EU, Trade with the rest of the World will be enhanced.”

“If you vote to leave the EU, £350,000 per week will become available and will be paid to the NHS.”

1. BORIS JOHNSON did not produce, as evidence, in support; of all three promises as above. He did not produce any documents or contracts or any legal papers establishing that ‘trade terms’ had been agreed with Europe; or any ‘trade arrangements’ had been arranged or had even been ‘negotiated’, with the rest of the World.
2. ALL THE ‘LIES’ AND THE THREE SPECIFIC LIES (as shown above) TOLD BY BORIS JOHNSON DURING THAT REFERENDUM; were recorded, filmed, and videoed by the Media; which then ‘published’ them throughout the World.
3. Every ‘lie’ that BORIS JOHNSON told during that Referendum was transmitted to every television receiver in Great Britain. And, they were ‘published’ in every newspaper as well. It would have been impossible for anyone in the country to switch ON their television receiver; without seeing or hearing the ‘lies’ that BORIS JOHNSON told.
4. This, therefore, “COULD HAVE CORRUPTED THE FINAL VOTE OF THAT REFERENDUM.”
5. 17.4 MILLION PEOPLE voted to leave the EU.
6. But, there is no way of ascertaining whether they voted that way based solely on their own intelligent conviction; or whether they had been persuaded or influenced by the ‘lies’ BORIS JOHNSON told.
7. It being impossible to ‘verify’ the truth of that situation; it is of little consequence; all that matters is that those ‘lies’ that BORIS JOHNSON told; “Could have corrupted the final vote of that Referendum.”
8. The ‘lies’ had been told.
9. The ‘lies’ had been transmitted and published and, therefore, they were in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
10. And, even now, they still remain, in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
11. The police merely now, have only to establish (7),(8),(9) above.
12. IT WILL THEN BE FOR THE ‘CRIMINAL COURT’ TO DETERMINE, whether those ‘lies’ “Could have corrupted” that final vote.
     
    I contend that the ‘lies’ told were so extensively transmitted and published, that they must have ‘influenced’ that final vote.
    I contend that they “Could have corrupted” that vote.
    I therefore contend; that no, COURT ON PLANET EARTH, will be able to ‘verify’ that; that vote was, “SAFE”.
    It is evident from the evidence available and set out here, that the final vote of that Referendum was, UNSAFE. And, the Courts must declare it to be so.

 

 

Dear Helen Hayes

This is all the evidence I reported and submitted to, Crime Reference No. CAD2807/02.08.19.

The police officer I spoke to; then told me; that all the details submitted had been noted and accepted, and, that the police would deal with the matter properly.

 

Yet, when on the 3^rd and 4^th of August 2019, I telephoned the Metropolitan Police again to find out what progress had taken place; only to be ‘rudely’ informed, that, "The police were doing nothing, as the case had been, “thrown out by the Court”.

 

THIS WAS WHOLLY UNTRUE. Because, this CRIME report, my allegation submitted here; has never ever even been presented to any court. I do not have the wealth of CLIFF RICHARDS, who has so much money he can ‘buy’ law to protect his interests. I, a mere penniless, “Subject of the Crown”, solely living financially due to the State pension; there is no access to ‘LAW’ whatsoever. So, the only option available to me, was to report this CRIME to the police.

 

It is evident that the police here have ‘negligently’ relied on another case entirely, in respect to, ‘perverting the course of justice’. This was the case of, “Marcus Ball -v- Johnson”, which was rejected by the High Court on 6^th July 2019.

Marcus Ball had claimed that BORIS JOHNSON had deceived the people in respect of the money paid to the EU.

 

WHY DID THE POLICE NOT ACT ON ‘MY ALLEGATION’?

I think that the ‘evidence’ will prove, that it is merely, corruption.

BORIS JOHNSON, as the new prime Minister, promising huge expenditure for left right and centre; has promised the police a huge additional payment award for their resources; and, he has promised to provide, 20,000 new police officers.

With such an advantageous ‘bribe’ incentive for the police; is it any wonder; why the police are now so ‘corrupt’ that they will not investigate this case.

 

Please write to the Met Commissioner; and forcefully complain; and, please bring this to the attention of Parliament. Penniless pensioners like me; unable to buy legal representation; have only ‘LAW’ and the, ‘protection of law’, to rely upon.

 

Sincerely,

Regards, Gordon J Sheppard

My book 'DEMOCRACY'"

After 20 tears research specifically searching for the LEGALITY of the way the British are being governed today; and at the end of my research finding no LEGALITY whatsoever; but only sheer ILLEGALITY in virtually everywhere I looked, I then wrote my book, "DEMOCRACY", in order to advise and guide the British people to better understand how badly they are being governed, and ruled by Monarchy; and how to better participate in the democracy; which we are supposed to have.


In the book I pose fourteen questions everybody ought to know; but if they cannot answer all the questions; then the cannot understand what British DEMOCRACY is; nor can they participate.


The book is available at AMAZON in two formats, a paperback @ £3.50, and a Kindle download @ £1.90. It can be obtained here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KGZT5DW


Gordon J Sheppard