PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE
If only the British People knew the true importance of these
four little words and knew how to use them; they could virtually at a stroke,
end the domination of Parliament, by the political parties; and they could
bring about a true “People’s Democracy”. Furthermore, they could end once and
for all, the illegal way by which they are being governed today.
The motivation and intention of this report, is to enlighten
all.
History
In 1688 the CONVENTION (Parliament) removed King James the Second from the throne
for, “Breaking the original contract
betwixt King and People”. The, CONVENTION, determined that by doing this he
had abdicated the throne; and, they declared, the throne was vacant. Prince William of Orange became the
next King.
Note: This
‘Original Contract’ is an unwritten contract, that, nevertheless, and, in spite
of it being unwritten, is verified as being lawful, and, truly, a ‘precedent’
of English law; because, it was the very instrument, by which a living and
lawful King, was removed from the throne.
The very fact that King James the Second, was removed from the throne for ‘breaking the original contract’, verifies,
the validity of this, ‘unwritten contract’, in British Law. This ‘contract’, although
unwritten, derives from the earliest days of the creation of Monarchy. It,
derives from the concept that, “Allegiance
is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”. Thus,
allegiance is freely given to the “Reigning
Monarch”; in return, for the protection of the “Reigning Monarch”. There is no other reason, or, lawful validity,
for ‘Monarchy’ at all. The one and only true purpose of Monarchy is to
‘protect’ the People; the, ‘Subjects of
the Crown’; to protect them, from the tyranny of the ‘abuse’ and the
‘prejudice’ of Parliament.
Each “Reigning Monarch” is required by law, to
honour the ‘original contract’; they are required by law to act as ‘Head of
Government’, to monitor Parliament, in the interests of the ‘protection of the
Subject’. And, in order for the “Reigning
Monarch’s” to be able to carry out this role, they are provided with two
legal instruments to make that possible. These two legal instruments are:
The, ”Royal Assent”, and the, “Royal Prerogative”.
The Royal Assent provides the ‘Reigning
Monarch’ with the right and duty to monitor the Bills passed by Parliament;
providing the right to grant the Royal
Assent; or, to refuse to grant it.
The Royal Prerogative provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right to ‘protect the subject’ by three specific legal provisions: (a), the
Monarch may encourage Ministers of Government, (b), warn Ministers of
Government, and, (C), whenever the wishes of the People are in direct conflict
with the actions of Parliament; the Monarch may order the dissolution of
Parliament.
Thus, it can
be seen that these two legal instruments
are solely designed to protect the People.
They have no
other purpose at all.
So, in
judging whether a ‘Reigning Monarch’ has
complied with this ‘duty’ and whether they have honoured the requirements of
the ‘original contract’, all that is necessary, is to determine, if the ‘Reigning Monarch’ has used these legal
instruments correctly. Or, whether, they have been negligent, by providing no
‘protection of the people’ at all.
In judging,
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, as a ‘Reigning Monarch’;
sadly she has been negligent in carrying out this role. There are two clear
specific reasons where she should have ‘protected the people’; yet, she did not
act at all. Explanations for this are set out below. But,
firstly, we must return to ‘History’
again.
In 1688 when
Prince William of Orange invaded the
Kingdom, and, when King James the Second
fled to France; William set up
the CONVENTION (Parliament). It’s task was firstly, to find the legal way of
getting rid of a living and lawful King, so that Prince William could take up the throne; and, secondly, to create a
set of rules that would protect Parliament from a King; because, Parliament did
not want the same troubles that it had experienced with James II; if and when William,
became the next King. The CONVENTION appointed a ‘Rights Committee’ to accomplish this task.
Therefore,
this ‘Rights Committee’ knew, that
when they took up this task, that in creating the ‘rights’ Parliament required
of a King; any Act or Bill that they created to provide the protection of
Parliament, was solely intended, only for a King; it was never created or
designed, to protect Parliament, from the people. And, that is why, when the ‘Rights Committee’ produced the “Declaration of Rights”, (which
subsequently became the “Bill of Rights
of 1689”), they included in the Bill, the protection of the people. They
set out in the Bill, directly below the 13 rights that Parliament was claiming
from the King, the, proviso, that when Parliament ‘enacted’ or applied, any of
these rights, that Parliament should not ‘prejudice’ the People. This paragraph within the “Bill of Rights 1689” is known as the
“Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”; and, this reads
as follows:
“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”
Therefore, when
Parliament claims its “Supremacy”; afforded to Parliament by “Article 9” of the
“Bill of Rights 1689”; when, it ‘enacts’ that “Article 9”, or, any of the other
“Premises” of that Bill, Parliament may not ‘prejudice’ the People. And, when
Parliament does ‘prejudice’ the People, the “Supremacy”, then becomes null and void.
In which circumstance, anyone may test, question, and challenge Parliament, in
a Court of Law. Which, the entire British Judiciary, has been denying the
People; for more than three hundred years.
Where has Parliament ‘prejudiced’ the
People?
- The Offices, Procedures, and Practises, of the political party
WHIPS in Parliament ‘prejudice the
people’ by issuing political party ‘diktat’ and instructions to every
Member of Parliament each week, instructing them how they must behave in
Parliament, and, how they must ‘vote’. This, prejudices the people, because such diktat and instruction
overrules and supplants all ‘rightful
influence’ placed upon those Members of Parliament, by the
constituent.
- The present coalition administration masquerading as government
was not elected by the People at all. The General Election of 2010
produced the “Peoples Vote” determining two things: (a), that no political
party should have a majority in Parliament; and, (b), that there should be
a “Conservative led Minority Government”. But, the leaders of the
political parties elected to Parliament, in that election, did not like that
result; and, they corruptly assumed to themselves that this result
provided them with the opportunity, to create a new form of Government,
entirely on their own. Accordingly, they ‘ignored the rightful democratic vote of the people’, in that
election; and, they foisted upon the British People, a coalition
administration that was not ‘elected’ at all. By ‘ignoring the peoples
vote’ in this way; from within Parliament; they, ‘prejudiced’, the People.
Where has, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, failed to
honour the, ‘original contract’?
- Aware, as she must be, throughout her reign, that the WHIPS
offices, procedures, and practises in Parliament ‘prejudice’ the People;
and, also being aware, as she must be, that this ‘prejudice’ flouts and
breaches the conditions placed upon Parliament for its ‘enactment’ of
“Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”; she has done nothing at all
about protecting Her Subjects. She ought to have used the “Royal Prerogative” to warn her
Ministers and Parliament that the WHIPS, ‘prejudice’ the People; and,
that, that was unlawful, as determined by, “The Said Rights Claimed”. In failing to protect the people in
this way, she ‘breaks the original
contract’. Thereby, abdicating the throne.
- When, in the General Election of 2010, the leaders of the
political parties elected to Parliament in that election, chose to ‘ignore the people’s vote’ and, they then proceeded, to create a
coalition administration entirely on their own; excluding the people; this
was a clear indication that the, “Wishes
of the People were in direct conflict with the actions of Parliament” ; and,
that she, as the “Reigning Monarch”,
had the duty to intervene, She ought to have used the “Royal Prerogative” to order the
immediate dissolution of Parliament. In fact, she did nothing at all. Her
failure to act to ‘protect’ her Subjects; protecting them from an
administration, foisted upon the People, without being elected, broke the original contract. Thereby,
abdicating the throne.
- In consequence of these two stark vivid instances of her failure
to protect her People; she, both in reality and in law, abdicates the
throne.
Where is the evidence
that, ELIZABETH THE SEFCOND, has to honour the original contract?
The CONVENTION
(Parliament) of 1688, prior to the removal of King James the Second from the throne, held a special debate on the
6th February in the ‘Painted Chamber’ of the House of Commons,
“Between the Lords and Commons”, to debate the words: “Abdicated” and the “Vacancy
of the Throne”. The Speaker of
this debate, HENRY POWLE, said this:
“It is from those who 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.”
At the
conclusion of the debate both Lord and Commons agreed that King James the Second had abdicated the throne and that the throne
was vacant. They determined that, he had ‘broken the original contract’ betwixt
King and People; and, more importantly, and, in respect to the “Lineal Descent” (all other ‘Reigning
Monarch’s’ occupying the British throne); the CONVENTION ruled this:
“It is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if
the Successor broke the contract, he too could be deposed.”
This is the
very proof by ‘precedent of law’ whereby ELIZABETH THE SECOND is obliged to
honour the original contract. The corrupt arrangement brought about by both
Monarchy and Parliament to relieve the ‘Reigning
Monarch’ from this responsibility, and, deprive the British People of their
rightful protection of the Crown; by creating a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY; does
not relieve the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England, from that responsibility. For as long as a British Monarch sits
upon the British throne; they will always be held by the, ‘precedent of law’,
of the original contract, to provide the protection of the Subject.
So, how do the British People use the
words: “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE” in order to reform Parliament and create a new
true PEOPLES DEMOCRACY?
Very simply; by merely millions of people
chanting the four little words “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE” and, also, “THE SAID
RIGHT CLAIMED”. No more protests in the streets violent or otherwise. Just
millions of people chanting out these two simple phrases at every opportunity;
writing to their Members of Parliament, newspapers and Media, featuring just
both of these four little words in letters or postcards; in order to force both
Parliament and ELIZABETH THE SECOND, to comply.
Parliament, to give immediate recognition
to the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE” and “THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED”, in ‘Law’. And,
to abolish the political party, WHIPS.
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, to realise and
comply, that she is obliged to honour the original contract and provide the
protection of Her Subjects.
When the domination of the political
parties in Parliament is smashed; every vote taken in Parliament will be a
‘Free Vote’; and, that will create a true PEOPLES DEMOCRACY.
The British People do not endure their subjugation
to the ‘Reigning Monarch’ for as long
as a Monarch shall reign, in order that that ‘Reigning Monarch’ shall open hospitals or other establishments,
host garden parties, or travel the globe promoting British goods, products and prestige.
There is but one purpose and intent of British Monarchy; and, that is, that
each Reigning Monarch’ in the line of
succession, must protect the Subject, from the tyranny of the abuse and
prejudice of Parliament.
CHANT FOUR LITTLE WORDS, REFORM PARLIAMENT,
AND, CREATE A TRUE PEOPLES DEMOCRACY.
Gordon J Sheppard
