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 22^nd 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’.

 Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has denied that protection.

 

 The Charges:

 

The Offices, Procedures and Practices of the political party ‘WHIPS’ in Parliament.

 ELIZABETH THE SECOND must be aware that these ‘political party’ activities in Parliament ‘prejudice the people’. These, activities, ‘prejudice the people’, by overruling and supplanting all rightful influence placed upon Members of Parliament, by the Constituent.

 She must be fully aware that this ‘prejudice of the people’ is wholly unlawful.

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’.

 “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 ‘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”.

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