Create a new true Peoples Democracy...

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?

1. 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.
2. 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’?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 6^th 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