Prince Charles meddling again....
Press and politicians frequently declare, in respect to Prince Charles that, "We should know what he is discussing, what subjects he is pushing and why, and, whether it is influencing government policy."
I respectfully suggest that this is none of their business.
As the next 'Reigning Monarch' he will have the duty and the responsibility of honouring the ORIGINAL CONTRACT; requiring the 'protection' of Subjects of the British Crown. Thus, it is the Monarchy's duty to 'meddle' and 'interfere' with any aspect of the 'life of the nation'; that he wishes to influence or explore. The 'Reigning Monarch' of England is required, by the terms of the 'Original Contract' to act as 'Head of Government' monitoring Parliament in the interests of Subjects of the British Crown. All 'Reigning Monarchs' in the line of succession are obliged to protect 'Subjects' from the tyranny of the 'abuses' and 'prejudice' of Parliament. And, in order that the 'Reigning Monarchs' can carry out that role, they are provided with two legal and lawful instruments to make that possible: the "ROYAL ASSENT" and the "ROYAL PREROGATIVE".
Both of these two 'legal instruments' are specifically designed for the protection of "The People".
They have no other purpose or intent at all. The 'Royal Assent' is specifically designed in order that the 'Reigning Monarch' may grant or refuse to grant, the 'laws' and 'bills' passed by Parliament. And, the 'Royal Prerogative' provides, the 'Reigning Monarch', with the right and responsibility to (a), encourage Ministers of Government, (b), to warn Ministers of Government, and, (c), in any circumstance, where the, “Wishes of The People are in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators”, to wield the 'Royal Prerogative', to order the dissolution of Parliament.
Sadly, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has not honoured the 'Original Contract' all of the time she has occupied the British throne. As a 'Reigning Monarch' she has been hopeless and a complete failure and disaster. In consequence, therefore, and, thereby; and, in truth and reality, she abdicates the throne.
The British throne is a 'vacant' today as it was in the days of 1688 when KING JAMES II was removed from the throne. The CONVENTION (Parliament) determined that 'he' had "Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People" and, that thereby he had abdicated the throne. The CONVENTION declared the throne was vacant; and, PRINCE WILLIAM OF ORANGE became the next King.
However, the CONVENTION declared even, further, in respect to the 'Lineal Descent' by declaring that,
"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the Contract, they too can be Deposed."
ELIZABETH THE SECOND is well aware that the British People have no 'protection' of LAW.
The British have no access to: a written constitution, or, a proper 'Bill of Rights' setting out the rights and responsibilities of 'Subjects'; and, they have no "Supreme Court of Law", whereby they can test, question, or challenge Parliament from within LAW.
Aware, that the 'Original Contract' protection of the 'Reigning Monarch', is the only protection of LAW that the British have, ELIZABETH THE SECOND has failed miserably and, has provided no protection at all. She must be aware of these facts:
A. That, the Offices, Procedures, and, Practices of the political party WHIPS in Parliament 'prejudice the people' wholly flouting and breaching the 'precedent' of LAW set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed"; which makes it abundantly clear that in Parliaments 'enactment' of its "Supremacy"; NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.
The WHIPS 'prejudice the people' by overruling and supplanting all 'rightful influence' placed upon Members of Parliament, by the Constituent.
B. That, the present 'coalition administration' masquerading as government, was not elected by "The People" at all. That, the corrupt leaders of the political parties, created this 'coalition administration' entirely on their own. That, the voting results of the General Election of 2010 determined that there should be a "Conservative led, Minority Government"; and, that, here, was the clear 'evidence' where the, "Wishes of the people were in direct conflict with the 'actions' of the Legislators"; making it the duty of the 'Reigning Monarch', to intervene.
Whereby, in both instances shown above; ELIZABETH THE SECOND, in complying with the 'Original Contract', providing the 'protection' of Her People; should have intervened. In respect to (A) above, She ought to have 'warned' Her Ministers that the WHIPS in Parliament are wholly illegal and unlawful. And, in respect to (B), she ought to have used the 'Royal Prerogative', to order the immediate dissolution of Parliament.
SHE ACTUALLY DID NOTHING AT ALL.
Prince Charles with his frequent 'meddling' makes it abundantly clear that he knows where his duty lays in 'protecting' the British People. IT IS VERY EVIDENT, IN STARK VIVID DETAIL, WHY THE 'ESTABLISHMENT' FEARS HIM SO MUCH.
For my FREEDOM I do not rely on Parliament. Though, Parliament is 'elected', it is not a "People's Parliament". It is wholly corrupt, dominated, by the political 'diktat' of the political parties.
Throughout the entire nation there are less than 400,000 Members of 'all the political parties' heaped together. So, it is positively obscene that this tiny minority, should dominate every aspect of the lives of nearly, 50 Million Adults, that there are in the country today.
No, Parliament is rotten and corrupt. For my FREEDOM, I rely on the BRITISH PRESS, the INTERNATIONAL PRESS; and, the, FREE EXPRESSION INTERNET.
Sincerely
Gordon J Sheppard
Friday, March 15, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
VICKY PRYCE: Perverting
the course of Justice; and, the sheer travesty of a rigged criminal trial....
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY today lectured, admonished, and condemned VICKY PRYCE for, "Perverting the course of Justice"; and, he sentenced her to eight months imprisonment, in what has turned out to be, naught but a sheer vindictive travesty of a criminal trial. A rotten and corrupt trial, where, in spite of a first jury, in a first trial, who could not agree a verdict; both, Judge and the Crown Prosecution Service, would not accept that verdict; because, they were hell bent on securing a conviction; in order to set an example.
VICKY PRYCE was accused of accepting speeding penalty points on her driving licence even though it was her husband, CHRIS HUHNE, who was driving the car. She claimed in her defence 'marital coercion' and presented evidence in court demonstrating that her husband had forced her to admit that it was she who was driving the car.
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY in his sentencing of VICKY PRICE specifically proclaimed that he did not believe her. He said, specifically, referring to this assertion by her, that, "The Jury had seen thru this", indicating, that this was the reason they had found her "GUILTY".
But, this jury were not able to "see through anything"; their verdict of 'guilty' was a wholly corrupt verdict because whilst the trial was in progress and whilst 'evidence' was being submitted to the Court; at one point, the Judge even had to suspend that progress of the trial, in order to open windows and doors to permit more air to enter the Court; because Members of that Jury had been seen sleeping. This means that, during the giving of this 'evidence', some Members of the Jury had not even heard what had been taking place. The Judge ought to have dismissed the Jury and stopped the trial.
Now, the interesting thing is this: To, any that, asserts and claims, that, the verdict of this jury is correct and valid; then, that very same assertion, must also apply, to the first Jury hearing the trial. That, first Jury, could not agree a verdict; which means, that in stark vivid reality some Members of that first Jury were wholly convinced that VICKY PRYCE was innocent of the charge. If the second Jury's verdict has the validity of truth; then, so does the verdict of the first Jury.
IN ANY CRIMINAL TRIAL UNDER BRITISH LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY IN THE SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL, THAT, JURORS MAY ONLY RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF THEY ARE SATISFIED OF THAT GUILT, "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT".
In the first Jury some Members could not deliver a verdict, “beyond all reasonable doubt”; and, therefore, that benefit of doubt, ought to have been given to the accused. Thus, there was no need or right for a 'retrial' at all. VICKY PRYCE should have been immediately been set free, to go home.
The only reason, at that point, for the Judge to order a retrial, was because, both Judge and the Crown Prosecutions Service, were disappointed by the first Jury's failure to deliver a verdict; and, they were both hell bent on securing a conviction, in order to set an example.
The rationale being: "Keep putting her up for retrial until a Jury delivers the verdict we require"
This case places the bright beam of a searchlight upon an anomaly in the British Courts and Jurisdiction system. Once a Judge has summed up in a trial and the Jury has been instructed that they must deliver a verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt'; NO RETRIAL SHOULD EVER TAKE PLACE. Because, the sole criterion of, 'innocence' or 'guilt', then, lies entirely in the Jury's hands. If the Jury fails to deliver a verdict; the accused should go free.
RETRIALS should only be ordered by a Judge, if at any stage in the trial, important new evidence comes to light, which was not heard before the Jury left to consider the verdict; or, where there have been grave legal technical errors during the trial.
VICKY PRYCE has been entirely 'stitched up'. In the days immediately following the first trial the entire press and media in the country turned heavily against her, hurting, wounding, and vilifying her at every opportunity. The reporters and female columnists of the 'Daily Mail' tore her to pieces. All the politicians and 'all the boys' of the establishment, were expressing sympathy for CHRIS HUHNE's plight. It was a guaranteed certainty; the second Jury would find her guilty.
Finally, there is one other aspect, in respect of this trial: VICKY PRYCE has been forced to stand trial accused of "Perverting the course of Justice". Well, I assert that, no British Judge has the right to make a judgment on that matter; because, every British Judge in the entire British Judiciary has been "CONSPIRING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" for more than three hundred and twenty four years. Ever, since the, "Bill of Rights 1689", first was granted the, "Royal Assent"; on the 13th day of December 1689.
For three hundred and twenty four years the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other to "pervert the course of justice"; by repeatedly and constantly denying the British People access to the Courts in order to test, question, or challenge ‘elected’ Parliament from within, LAW. And, for this denial, the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other, in order to deceive the British People, that, true valid and just "LAW"; is the reason for that denial.
YET, CORRECT READING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689" PROVIDES THAT, ANYONE MAY CHALLENGE PARLIAMENT IN THE COURTS, WHENEVER PARLIAMENT 'PREJUDICES' THE PEOPLE.
How is it right that any Judge of the British Judiciary shall try anyone for "Perverting the course of Justice"? When every Judge, throughout three hundred and twenty four years of British history, has been guilty of committing the same offence?
READ YOUR HISTORY. CHECK OUT THE, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".
Gordon J Sheppard
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY today lectured, admonished, and condemned VICKY PRYCE for, "Perverting the course of Justice"; and, he sentenced her to eight months imprisonment, in what has turned out to be, naught but a sheer vindictive travesty of a criminal trial. A rotten and corrupt trial, where, in spite of a first jury, in a first trial, who could not agree a verdict; both, Judge and the Crown Prosecution Service, would not accept that verdict; because, they were hell bent on securing a conviction; in order to set an example.
VICKY PRYCE was accused of accepting speeding penalty points on her driving licence even though it was her husband, CHRIS HUHNE, who was driving the car. She claimed in her defence 'marital coercion' and presented evidence in court demonstrating that her husband had forced her to admit that it was she who was driving the car.
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY in his sentencing of VICKY PRICE specifically proclaimed that he did not believe her. He said, specifically, referring to this assertion by her, that, "The Jury had seen thru this", indicating, that this was the reason they had found her "GUILTY".
But, this jury were not able to "see through anything"; their verdict of 'guilty' was a wholly corrupt verdict because whilst the trial was in progress and whilst 'evidence' was being submitted to the Court; at one point, the Judge even had to suspend that progress of the trial, in order to open windows and doors to permit more air to enter the Court; because Members of that Jury had been seen sleeping. This means that, during the giving of this 'evidence', some Members of the Jury had not even heard what had been taking place. The Judge ought to have dismissed the Jury and stopped the trial.
Now, the interesting thing is this: To, any that, asserts and claims, that, the verdict of this jury is correct and valid; then, that very same assertion, must also apply, to the first Jury hearing the trial. That, first Jury, could not agree a verdict; which means, that in stark vivid reality some Members of that first Jury were wholly convinced that VICKY PRYCE was innocent of the charge. If the second Jury's verdict has the validity of truth; then, so does the verdict of the first Jury.
IN ANY CRIMINAL TRIAL UNDER BRITISH LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY IN THE SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL, THAT, JURORS MAY ONLY RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF THEY ARE SATISFIED OF THAT GUILT, "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT".
In the first Jury some Members could not deliver a verdict, “beyond all reasonable doubt”; and, therefore, that benefit of doubt, ought to have been given to the accused. Thus, there was no need or right for a 'retrial' at all. VICKY PRYCE should have been immediately been set free, to go home.
The only reason, at that point, for the Judge to order a retrial, was because, both Judge and the Crown Prosecutions Service, were disappointed by the first Jury's failure to deliver a verdict; and, they were both hell bent on securing a conviction, in order to set an example.
The rationale being: "Keep putting her up for retrial until a Jury delivers the verdict we require"
This case places the bright beam of a searchlight upon an anomaly in the British Courts and Jurisdiction system. Once a Judge has summed up in a trial and the Jury has been instructed that they must deliver a verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt'; NO RETRIAL SHOULD EVER TAKE PLACE. Because, the sole criterion of, 'innocence' or 'guilt', then, lies entirely in the Jury's hands. If the Jury fails to deliver a verdict; the accused should go free.
RETRIALS should only be ordered by a Judge, if at any stage in the trial, important new evidence comes to light, which was not heard before the Jury left to consider the verdict; or, where there have been grave legal technical errors during the trial.
VICKY PRYCE has been entirely 'stitched up'. In the days immediately following the first trial the entire press and media in the country turned heavily against her, hurting, wounding, and vilifying her at every opportunity. The reporters and female columnists of the 'Daily Mail' tore her to pieces. All the politicians and 'all the boys' of the establishment, were expressing sympathy for CHRIS HUHNE's plight. It was a guaranteed certainty; the second Jury would find her guilty.
Finally, there is one other aspect, in respect of this trial: VICKY PRYCE has been forced to stand trial accused of "Perverting the course of Justice". Well, I assert that, no British Judge has the right to make a judgment on that matter; because, every British Judge in the entire British Judiciary has been "CONSPIRING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" for more than three hundred and twenty four years. Ever, since the, "Bill of Rights 1689", first was granted the, "Royal Assent"; on the 13th day of December 1689.
For three hundred and twenty four years the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other to "pervert the course of justice"; by repeatedly and constantly denying the British People access to the Courts in order to test, question, or challenge ‘elected’ Parliament from within, LAW. And, for this denial, the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other, in order to deceive the British People, that, true valid and just "LAW"; is the reason for that denial.
YET, CORRECT READING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689" PROVIDES THAT, ANYONE MAY CHALLENGE PARLIAMENT IN THE COURTS, WHENEVER PARLIAMENT 'PREJUDICES' THE PEOPLE.
How is it right that any Judge of the British Judiciary shall try anyone for "Perverting the course of Justice"? When every Judge, throughout three hundred and twenty four years of British history, has been guilty of committing the same offence?
READ YOUR HISTORY. CHECK OUT THE, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".
Gordon J Sheppard
Sunday, February 3, 2013
GAY MARRIAGE
GAY MARRIAGE
To all those who oppose Gay Marriage:
With respect, and, with the attitude you take, in respect to redefining marriage; providing, in law, the right of GAY PEOPLE to marry; you fully demonstrate; as, do all others, that support this point of view; that you have no respect for, or, any true comprehension of, LAW.
What is this thing we call, LAW ?
The entire 'establishment' of Monarchy, Judiciary, Parliament, Politician, and, Government; who have now hijacked "LAW" as their own; fully believes that "LAW" is something that must be obeyed. Yet, that is not "LAW" at all.
"LAW" is best described by the words of an ex-Lord Chancellor of England, LORD HAILSHAM, who frequently said this:
"LAW is a Myth without the consent of the People there is no LAW"
I personally heard him say that many times.
Thus, "LAW" is naught but the voluntary consent of the People agreeing to live by "The Rule of Law".
Therefore, all that give that, 'voluntary consent'; are entitled to three things:
1. Firstly, they are entitled to fully 'participate' in the framing of LAW; and, in the creation of all LAWS.
2. Secondly, that, they are entitled to the 'protection' of LAW.
Note:
THOUGH THE BRITISH TODAY HAVE NO PROTECTION OF LAW AT ALL: They, have no access to a 'Written Constitution' or, a 'Bill of Rights' or, a 'Supreme Court of Law' where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of Parliament from within LAW. Furthermore, although there is a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting on the British throne charged with the responsibility of honouring the "ORIGINAL CONTRACT" requiring the protection of Subjects; ELIZABETH THE SECOND, provides no 'protection' at all. She has not honoured the "ORIGINAL CONTRACT", all of the time she has occupied the British throne. In consequence, and, by precedent of "LAW" she abdicates the throne. THE BRITISH THRONE IS AS VACANT TODAY AS IT WAS IN 1688 WHEN KING JAMES THE SECOND WAS REMOVED FROM THE THRONE. He had, "Broken the 'Original Contract' betwixt King and People" and, the CONVENTION (Parliament) determined, that, thereby, he had abdicated the throne. But, the CONVENTION went even further in respect to the "Lineal Descent" by ruling thus;
"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor breaks the Contract, he too can be Deposed"
ELIZABETH THE SECOND in, "Breaking this Contract", can also be, Deposed.
3. Thirdly, all that give consent to live by "The Rule of Law", are entitled to EQUALITY in Law,
And, by that criterion, ALL HUMANKIND ARE EQUAL IN LAW; thus proving that GAY MARRIAGE is lawful. All that deny GAY PEOPLE that 'equal right' in LAW; demonstrate in stark vivid clarity that they have no respect for "LAW"; and, that, they, in truth, are merely bigots.
To all those who oppose Gay Marriage:
With respect, and, with the attitude you take, in respect to redefining marriage; providing, in law, the right of GAY PEOPLE to marry; you fully demonstrate; as, do all others, that support this point of view; that you have no respect for, or, any true comprehension of, LAW.
What is this thing we call, LAW ?
The entire 'establishment' of Monarchy, Judiciary, Parliament, Politician, and, Government; who have now hijacked "LAW" as their own; fully believes that "LAW" is something that must be obeyed. Yet, that is not "LAW" at all.
"LAW" is best described by the words of an ex-Lord Chancellor of England, LORD HAILSHAM, who frequently said this:
"LAW is a Myth without the consent of the People there is no LAW"
I personally heard him say that many times.
Thus, "LAW" is naught but the voluntary consent of the People agreeing to live by "The Rule of Law".
Therefore, all that give that, 'voluntary consent'; are entitled to three things:
1. Firstly, they are entitled to fully 'participate' in the framing of LAW; and, in the creation of all LAWS.
2. Secondly, that, they are entitled to the 'protection' of LAW.
Note:
THOUGH THE BRITISH TODAY HAVE NO PROTECTION OF LAW AT ALL: They, have no access to a 'Written Constitution' or, a 'Bill of Rights' or, a 'Supreme Court of Law' where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of Parliament from within LAW. Furthermore, although there is a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting on the British throne charged with the responsibility of honouring the "ORIGINAL CONTRACT" requiring the protection of Subjects; ELIZABETH THE SECOND, provides no 'protection' at all. She has not honoured the "ORIGINAL CONTRACT", all of the time she has occupied the British throne. In consequence, and, by precedent of "LAW" she abdicates the throne. THE BRITISH THRONE IS AS VACANT TODAY AS IT WAS IN 1688 WHEN KING JAMES THE SECOND WAS REMOVED FROM THE THRONE. He had, "Broken the 'Original Contract' betwixt King and People" and, the CONVENTION (Parliament) determined, that, thereby, he had abdicated the throne. But, the CONVENTION went even further in respect to the "Lineal Descent" by ruling thus;
"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor breaks the Contract, he too can be Deposed"
ELIZABETH THE SECOND in, "Breaking this Contract", can also be, Deposed.
3. Thirdly, all that give consent to live by "The Rule of Law", are entitled to EQUALITY in Law,
And, by that criterion, ALL HUMANKIND ARE EQUAL IN LAW; thus proving that GAY MARRIAGE is lawful. All that deny GAY PEOPLE that 'equal right' in LAW; demonstrate in stark vivid clarity that they have no respect for "LAW"; and, that, they, in truth, are merely bigots.
Friday, February 1, 2013
DAVID CAMERON IN LIBYA
David Cameron in Libya...
He should be comfortably at home there. He’s just, one more 'gangster' with all the other 'gangsters', who now control the Libyan state. These Libyan 'gangsters' murdered PRESIDENT GADDAFI and seized the country by force; and, Cameron, through, sheer illegality, seized the governing of Britain; the present coalition administration not being 'elected' by the people at all.
The voting results of the General Election of 2010 provided for a "Conservative led 'Minority Government'. But, just like, MAFIA GANGSTERS, Cameron, and, other political party leaders, who had been elected to parliament in that election, did not like that result; so they decided to 'ignore' the people's vote, and conspired with each other to create a coalition administration entirely on their own. In 'ignoring' the people's vote in this way; they brought about the "Prejudice of the People" and, thereby, breached and flouted the 'precedent’ of law set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".
This present coalition administration masquerading as government, was not chosen or elected by the people; and, thereby, it has no true legality at all.
The very interesting thing about all this, is, the role of the 'Reigning Monarch' of England, ELIZABETH THE SECOND; "When the wishes of the people are directly in conflict with the actions of the legislators", the 'Reigning Monarch' of England, has the DUTY to intervene. Under the terms of the "Original Contract" (Providing the 'protection' of her Subjects) she ought to have used the "Royal Prerogative" to order the immediate dissolution of parliament.
Miserably failing to honour the "Original Contract"; she did, NOTHING AT ALL.
In consequence, legally, lawfully, and by 'precedent' of, ENGLISH LAW; she abdicates the throne. In truth and reality and under the 'precedent' of, English History, the British throne is as VACANT today as it was in 1688; when KING JAMES II was kicked off the British throne.
The British today are ruled over and governed by sheer illegality; without, any protection of LAW, at all. There are no provisions of a, ‘Written Constitution’; ‘Bill of Rights’; or, a ‘Supreme Court of Law’ where it is possible to test, question or challenge, the abuses and the prejudice of parliament; from within law. Furthermore, the “Reigning Monarch” sits on the British throne - charged with the responsibility and duty to provide the protection of the People - yet; she provides no protection at all.
KING JAMES THE SECOND was removed from the throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament). He was charged with, "Breaking the "Original Contract" betwixt King and People". And, in respect to the "Lineal Descent", (All other 'Reigning Monarchs' sitting on the British throne), the CONVENTION ruled, that, "The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the Contract, they too can be Deposed."
ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the "Original Contract" throughout her entire reign.
"Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord"
Without, that, PROTECTION; the, "Subjugation to the 'Reigning Monarch’ for as long as a Monarch shall reign"; has no value; or, any legality, at all.
He should be comfortably at home there. He’s just, one more 'gangster' with all the other 'gangsters', who now control the Libyan state. These Libyan 'gangsters' murdered PRESIDENT GADDAFI and seized the country by force; and, Cameron, through, sheer illegality, seized the governing of Britain; the present coalition administration not being 'elected' by the people at all.
The voting results of the General Election of 2010 provided for a "Conservative led 'Minority Government'. But, just like, MAFIA GANGSTERS, Cameron, and, other political party leaders, who had been elected to parliament in that election, did not like that result; so they decided to 'ignore' the people's vote, and conspired with each other to create a coalition administration entirely on their own. In 'ignoring' the people's vote in this way; they brought about the "Prejudice of the People" and, thereby, breached and flouted the 'precedent’ of law set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".
This present coalition administration masquerading as government, was not chosen or elected by the people; and, thereby, it has no true legality at all.
The very interesting thing about all this, is, the role of the 'Reigning Monarch' of England, ELIZABETH THE SECOND; "When the wishes of the people are directly in conflict with the actions of the legislators", the 'Reigning Monarch' of England, has the DUTY to intervene. Under the terms of the "Original Contract" (Providing the 'protection' of her Subjects) she ought to have used the "Royal Prerogative" to order the immediate dissolution of parliament.
Miserably failing to honour the "Original Contract"; she did, NOTHING AT ALL.
In consequence, legally, lawfully, and by 'precedent' of, ENGLISH LAW; she abdicates the throne. In truth and reality and under the 'precedent' of, English History, the British throne is as VACANT today as it was in 1688; when KING JAMES II was kicked off the British throne.
The British today are ruled over and governed by sheer illegality; without, any protection of LAW, at all. There are no provisions of a, ‘Written Constitution’; ‘Bill of Rights’; or, a ‘Supreme Court of Law’ where it is possible to test, question or challenge, the abuses and the prejudice of parliament; from within law. Furthermore, the “Reigning Monarch” sits on the British throne - charged with the responsibility and duty to provide the protection of the People - yet; she provides no protection at all.
KING JAMES THE SECOND was removed from the throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament). He was charged with, "Breaking the "Original Contract" betwixt King and People". And, in respect to the "Lineal Descent", (All other 'Reigning Monarchs' sitting on the British throne), the CONVENTION ruled, that, "The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the Contract, they too can be Deposed."
ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the "Original Contract" throughout her entire reign.
"Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord"
Without, that, PROTECTION; the, "Subjugation to the 'Reigning Monarch’ for as long as a Monarch shall reign"; has no value; or, any legality, at all.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
President Obama to unveil plans to address gun violence..
If he proposes any amendments or abolition of the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution, let all American's take note of this:
If he proposes any amendments or abolition of the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution, let all American's take note of this:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs
to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
Government, they can exercise their constitutional right
of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow
it."
President Abraham Lincoln. 1stInaugural Address
Thus: "The Right to Bear Arms"
The right of every American to take up arms to
defend themselves, their country, their 'State'; and, their 'Constitution'.
American's give up that right, at their peril.
Gordon J Sheppard
Thursday, January 10, 2013
I ACCUSE - Letter sent to Her Majesty the Queen
31 FALCON
COURT ELMWORTH GROVE LONDON SE21 8RG
0208 670
5795
Her Majesty the Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
SW1A 1AA
Your Majesty
I Accuse
I accuse you, Madam; of not honouring the ‘Original
Contract’ throughout your entire reign.
I accuse you of failing to ‘Act as Head of Government’
monitoring Parliament in the interests of the ‘protection’ of all, your,
“Subjects”; of the British Crown.
I accuse you of gross negligence and, of “Breaking the ‘Original Contract”, in
not protecting your ‘Subjects’ from the tyranny of the political party,
Offices, Procedures, and Practices, of the WHIPS in parliament, that “prejudice
the people”; and, thereby, flout and breach the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed.” These,
political party activities of, the WHIPS, in Parliament, is wholly unlawful.
Yet, throughout your entire reign; you, have done nothing about this at all.
I accuse you of “Breaking
the ‘Original Contract” by not intervening in the ‘protection’ of your
“Subjects” when, the, “Wishes of the
People were in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators” in the
aftermath of the General Election of 2010; when, the leaders of the political
parties elected to that Parliament, decided that they had the ‘right’ to
‘ignore’ the peoples wishes as determined by the voting results of that
election; (which called for a ‘Conservative led Minority Government’); and, who
then further decided that they had the ‘right’, to form an administration,
masquerading as government, entirely, on their own. I, accuse you, of failing
to use the “Royal Prerogative”, to,
order the immediate dissolution of Parliament. Protecting, the, People, from
this abuse.
I defy anyone and all
claiming the lawful validity for this travesty; to produce the ‘written
evidence’, for, such claim. There is no such ‘evidence’ in existence, at all.
I accuse you and all of your ‘administration’ of sheer, DESPOTISM. Both, you, and, all your
administration, treat ‘Subjects of the Crown’ with absolute contempt. Your
‘administration’ assumes the authority of the “Reigning Monarch”; treating,
“Subjects”, as though they were dirt. They are rude and discourteous in
answering the phone. Letters sent for the personal attention of, YOU, YOURSELF,
Madam; are never answered at all.
I am sick and tired of having no ‘protection’ of LAW
whatsoever in my country.
Of, being treated, ‘worse’ than you treat your, ‘Corgis’,
Madam;
I have therefore
published my accusations (as enclosed) on the Internet. I fully intend to vigorously pursue these
accusations and allegations, with the foreign press. Someone has to highlight
your gross negligence. And, the wholly, illegal way, in which we, ‘British’ are
being governed today.
The “Reigning
Monarch” of England is not about the opening of hospitals and other notable
establishments; or, of the hosting of garden parties; or, of travelling the
World promoting British goods and prestige. The “Reigning Monarch” of England
serves but one purpose and, true intent; that is, that, “Allegiance
is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”.
The, very, basis, and, concept of “The Original Contract”.
“It is
from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such)
from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection; and to
whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there
being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for
that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The
Throne is Vacant."
HENRY POWLE; Speaker, of the CONVENTION (Parliament)
1688.
Sincerely
Enc. Document: “I
Accuse”.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
I Accuse...
I accuse all those listed below of the complete dereliction of duty,
and, of, breaking the law.
1. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, of not protecting Her Subjects; and, of not honouring the terms of the ‘Original Contract’, throughout, her reign.
2. The Offices, Procedures, and Practices of the political party WHIPS in Parliament; and, all Members of Parliament complying with the WHIPS political party ‘diktat’ and instructions; of ‘breaking the LAW; by, the, “Prejudice of the People”; and, thereby flouting and breaching the, ‘precedent’ of Law, set out in the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.
3. The present ‘coalition administration’, masquerading as government; as having no ‘legality’ at all. It is a corrupt administration that was not ‘elected’; It, was wholly created by corrupt political party leaders that, refused to accept “The Peoples” vote of the General Election of 2010; which called for a ‘Conservative led Minority Government; and, they then proceeded to create this ‘illegal’ administration, entirely on their own. “The People”, being, wholly excluded, from, this enterprise.
4. The entire British Judiciary of conspiring against the British people by denying them the right to test, question, or challenge Parliament, from within ‘LAW’. Conspiring to deceive the British people, that, it is “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, that prevents that ‘challenge’ in the Courts. When, the “Bill of Rights 1689”, makes it abundantly clear, by ‘precedent’ in British ‘Law’; that anyone may challenge Parliament in the Courts, whenever Parliament, ‘prejudice the people’.
(1), ELIZABETH THE SECOND.
All ‘Reigning Monarch’s’ occupying the British throne are
required to honour the terms of the “Original Contract”. This is an unwritten
contract; but, it is fully established as ‘precedent’ in English Law; King James II was actually removed from
the throne in 1688, for, ‘breaking this contract’. Its concept derives
essentially from the reality that, “Allegiance
is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord.” The
British People do not endure their imposed ‘subjugation’ to Monarchy, for, as
long as a Monarch shall reign, for nothing. They are entitled to receive
something in return. All ‘Reigning Monarchs’ are therefore required to provide
the protection, for, ‘Subjects’ of the British Crown. They, are required to act,
as, ‘Head of Government’, to monitor Parliament, in the interests of providing
the ‘Subjects’ protection. Protecting the, ‘Subject’, from the tyranny of the,
‘abuses’, and, the ‘prejudice’ of Parliament. The Monarch’s priority role and
duty in compliance with the “Original Contract”, is to vet the business of
Parliament, and, the ‘Bills’ passed by Parliament, to ensure the elimination of
corruption. And, in order that the ‘Reigning Monarchs’ can carry out that role,
properly and efficiently, they, are provided, with two ‘legal instruments’ to
make that possible: “The Royal Assent” and
“The Royal Prerogative”.
The “Royal Assent” provides
the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right and duty to approve or, refuse approval,
to the ‘Laws’ and ‘Bills’ passed by Parliament.
The “Royal
Prerogative” provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with three options designed
for the protection of The People: (A),
to encourage Ministers of Government; (B), to warn Ministers of Government;
and, (C), “Whenever, the wishes of, The
People, is directly in conflict
with the actions of the legislators, to use the “Royal Prerogative”, ordering the dissolution of Parliament.
Both of these two ‘legal instruments’ are specifically
designed, for the protection of the ‘Subject.’
Constitutional
Monarchy does not relieve the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of this responsibility.
History:
The Convention (Parliament)
of 1688 removed King James the Second from
the throne.
He was charged with having “Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People” and the Convention ruled that thereby he had
abdicated the throne. The Convention declared,
that, the throne was ‘Vacant’; and, Prince
William of Orange became the next King. But, the Convention went even further in respect to the ‘Lineal Descent’, (All other succeeding
‘Reigning Monarch’s that would sit upon the British throne). By, declaring
that,
“The Contract is as
binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor
broke the Original Contract he too can be Deposed”.
In a huge debate held in the ‘Painted Chamber’ of the House
of Commons on the 22nd January 1688 both, Commons and Lords, debated
the words, “Abdicated” and, “The Throne
is Vacant”, in respect to the removal of King James from the throne. In that debate, HENRY POWLE, the
‘Speaker’ of the House of Commons, said this,
It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection;
and to whom, for that Cause, they
owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for
that Cause they owe the
Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant."
This is, the true interpretation and import of “Original
Contract”. It is fully binding in, ‘LAW’, upon every British ‘Reigning Monarch’
that sits upon the British throne.
ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured that ‘Contract’ all of
the time that she has occupied that throne. Thereby, the throne is as, ‘Vacant’,
today, as it was in 1688, when, King
James II was removed from the throne.
ELIZABETH THE SECOND.
(The Specific Charges Against)
As the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England, she must be fully
aware that the British People have no protection of, “LAW”. The British People
do not have access to:
A, Written
Constitution; or,
A, Proper
‘Bill of Rights’; or,
A, “Supreme
Court of Law”;
The only
protection of ‘LAW” that the British
‘Subject’ has, and, that they are entitled to, is the protection of the
‘Reigning Monarch’.
The
Charges:
The Offices, Procedures and Practices of
the political party ‘WHIPS’ in Parliament.
As the
‘Reigning Monarch’ of England she must be aware, or, should be fully aware of
British history as set out in the, “Statute in Force”/ “Bill of Rights 1688”/”The
Said Rights Claimed”; that provides as ‘precedent’ of, ‘LAW’; that when Parliament, ‘enacts’, ‘Article 9’, of that Bill; or, any of the other “Premises”
of that Bill; that, Parliament should not. ‘Prejudice the People’.
“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
‘WHIPS’ in Parliament ‘prejudice the people’; yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND,
provides no protection at all.
The illegal and unlawful present
‘Conservative/Liberal’ coalition administration masquerading as Government.
ELIZABETH
THE SECOND must have been aware, or, should have been aware, that when the
political party leaders elected to Parliament in the General Election of 2010,
‘ignored’ the ‘Peoples Vote’ and their wishes to create a “Conservative led
‘Minority Government”; and, decided, entirely of their own volition, to create
the present ‘coalition administration’ and ‘foist upon the people’ a,
Government, that was not ‘elected’ at all. That, this was the direct ‘prejudice
of the people’; and, that, that, flouted and breached the ‘precedent’ of ‘LAW’ set out in the, “Statute in
Force/The Said Rights Claimed”.
Yet,
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, did nothing. She miserably failed to protect the British
people.
What should she have done?
With the
clear ‘evidence’ before her that, the “Wishes
of the People were in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators”;
she ought to have immediately used the “Royal
Prerogative” and ordered, the immediate dissolution of Parliament.
Had she
done that; had, she protected ‘Her Subjects’, there would have been a new and
fresh ‘General Election’. Where, a proper ‘lawful’ Government, could be
elected.
CONCLUSIONS
This ‘elite’,
this ‘establishment’ of Monarchy, Government, Judiciary, Parliament, and,
Politician constantly instructs the common man and woman in the country, that
they must, ‘obey the law’.
Yet, they flout, and, abuse, and,
break law, all of the time.
This is
the very nature and consequence, of the Peoples ‘subjugation’ to a ‘Reigning
Monarch’, who provides no ‘protection’
at all.
LAW, true and just Law, has nothing
to do with, ‘obeying the law’.
LAW, is, as best described by LORD
HAILSHAM (an ex-Lord Chancellor of England).
He, frequently said this:
“Law is a myth, without
the consent of the people,
there is no law”.
the consent of the people,
there is no law”.
Thus, it is
the people’s voluntary consent to live by the ‘Rule of Law’, that is, ‘LAW’.
‘LAW’ is not
the sole property of the ‘elite’ and the ‘establishment’, who today, have
hijacked this thing called, ‘LAW’; as their own.
All,
consenting to live by the, “Rule of Law” are entitled to: equality in law; the right to participate
in law, and, in the creation of laws; and, they are entitled to the, protection of law, as well. Yet, the
British today, have no ‘protection of law’, whatsoever.
It is time,
for revolt.
Gordon J Sheppard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
