LOOKING FOR LAW...

Challenging the illegal activities of,

The political party, ‘WHIPS’, in Parliament.

 

I am looking for two things,

 

Firstly, I am looking for, a law practise, that will have the courage to challenge Parliament; and, I am exploring the costs, in employing an expert constitutional lawyer and Barrister who will take on this case and follow the instructions as set out below.

Secondly, I am looking for all reasonably intelligent people, who are financially able to contribute to the costs of this endeavour; intent on creating, a true, DEMOCRACY.

Purpose: In order to test, question, and challenge the true legal validity of the present 'unlawful' political activities of the political party WHIPS, in Parliament, from within law.

Actual project: To force the British Judiciary to officially recognize and rule that the paragraph known as, “The Said Rights Claimed”, set out and recorded in the “Bill of Rights 1689”, has true legal validity. That, in truth and reality, and, by ‘precedent of law’; it has far greater authority than, the, ‘Supremacy of Parliament’.

To force the Judiciary to rule, that this ‘paragraph’ is the overall ‘authority’ of the entire Bill.

Rationale:

The political party leaders and, 'Members of Parliament' continuously 'strut the TV broadcasting news studios' consistently indoctrinating "The People", on what they intend to do, with our 'lives', if elected to govern. Knowing, only too well, that on being 'elected', "The People", will then have no further 'participation' at all.

THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY.

DEMOCRACY is all of "The People" governing themselves.
Government and Parliament, ‘of the people', 'by the people', and, 'for the people'. DEMOCRACY is not; and, it never can be, both Government and Parliament wholly dominated and controlled by political parties.
That is not, DEMOCRACY;
That is the, "Totalitarian Regime'.

I am only concerned here, that if any new law or policy is introduced by Government in Parliament; that this new legislation should only be created and passed as law, after the full FREE VOTE, of a democratically elected Parliament. And, that, it does not become, 'LAW', merely under the influence of the 'WHIPS' and, the 'diktat' of the political parties.
I want to challenge the present illegal political party activities of the, WHIPS, in Parliament. Political, activity, which by, 'precedent of law’, has no legality at all.

How do we challenge the political party 'WHIPS' in parliament?

Explanation:

The entire British Judiciary in a, 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice', has always misread and misinterpreted the "Bill of Rights 1689". They have always misinterpreted this Bill and ruled that, "challenge to parliament", in the Courts, is denied; relying, always, upon the text of "Article 9" of that Bill, for that denial. This reads as follows:

"The Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament"

The Judiciary has always determined and ruled, that, this sentence; without any other considerations at all; prevents, by law, all challenge to the business of Parliament, in the Courts. In any case or matter before the Courts where evidence is presented even mentioning any of the business of parliament, the Judge has always stopped the proceedings at once, in the Court, ruling that, "Article 9" prevents all challenge.

Actually, the correct reading and interpretation of the whole of the "Bill of Rights 1689", reveals another ‘paragraph’ of that Bill that is actually and, in law, the overall 'authority' of that Bill; because, the text, set out in this, ‘paragraph’, asserts, that it has the authority over all the "Premises" of the Bill. This paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed", specifically instructs Parliament, that when Parliament enacts or applies any of the "Premises" of the Bill; that, nothing, "ought prejudice the people".

 Here is that paragraph in the Bill:

 “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 activities of the "WHIPS" in parliament does "prejudice the people"; because, the instructions the "WHIPS" give to each Member of Parliament, each week, instructing them on how they must vote; overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon those 'elected' Members of Parliament, by the Constituents.

In "prejudicing the people" in this way; the political party "WHIPS" in parliament, has no legality at all.

But, in any legal action here proposed, we shall not test the Judiciary, over this. We will not challenge Parliament in the Courts at all. We are merely going to challenge the Judiciary, in the Courts; forcing the Judiciary, to properly recognise and rule that the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed", in the "Bill of Rights 1689", has 'equal' or more legal authority, than the "Supremacy of Parliament" itself.

"Article 9", of that Bill, provides the legality for the, "Supremacy of Parliament"; and, it is one of the, "Premises", of that Bill. However, the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed", has the authority, over all the, "Premises", of that Bill. Therefore, this paragraph has the greater authority. “The Said Rights Claimed” overrules “Article 9”, whenever, Parliament, “prejudice the people”.

When the Judiciary are forced to recognise the true legality of, "The Said Rights Claimed"; the political parties in Parliament will no longer be able to use the ""WHIPS" in order to create and pass corrupt "LAW". Every vote taken in parliament, thereafter, would become, a FREE VOTE. And, a true DEMOCRACY will be born.

A true DEMOCRACY where, new laws and restrictions, or any other legislation; could only be passed in parliament, after proper debate and discussion of all the 'pros' and 'cons', and, after a, FREE VOTE of Parliament has taken place. No more, just, the arrogant diktat of a corrupt political party leader, corruptly forcing the vote through Parliament, by the use of the political party, WHIPS.
Read my book “DEMOCRACY” available here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

Gordon J Sheppard

 

NON DOM'S

Nom Dom's Taxation Status

In view of the fact that ED MILLGAN and the Labour Party have now declared that if they win the General Election and are elected to govern, that they will abolish the 'Non Dom's' present taxation status; forcing them to pay more tax.  I therefore propose that all 'Non Dom's' likely to be affected by this proposal and this, 'totalitarian' arrogance; to seriously consider the following suggestion:

Collectively, all join together speaking with 'one voice' and, all contributing an 'equal financial' contribution; or, contributing more if they wished to do so; in order to employ the most expert and distinguished constitutional law Barrister; in order to test, question, and challenge the true legal validity of the 'unlawful' political activities of the political party WHIPS, in Parliament.

Rationale:

The political party leaders and, 'Members of Parliament' continuously 'strut the TV broadcasting news studios' consistently indoctrinating "The People", on what they intend to do, with our 'lives', if elected to govern. Knowing, only too well, that on being 'elected', "The People", will then have no further 'participation' at all.

THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY.

DEMOCRACY is all of "The People" governing themselves.
Government and Parliament 'of the people', 'by the people', and, 'for the people'. DEMOCRACY is not; and, it never can be, both Government and Parliament wholly dominated and controlled by political parties.
That is not, DEMOCRACY;
That is the, "totalitarian regime', of the very worst kind.

I am not concerned here about the issue as to whether some 'Non Dom's’ ought to be paying more taxation, or not. I am only concerned here, that if a law abolishing the 'Non Dom's present status is introduced, that this decision should be arrived at by the full FREE VOTE, of a democratically elected Parliament. And, that, it does not become 'LAW', merely under the influence of the 'WHIPS' and, the 'diktat' of the political parties.

That is why I advise and propose that all 'Non Dom's put up the money, (at least one million pounds), making it possible to challenge the present illegal political party activities of the, WHIPS, in Parliament; Political activity, which by 'precedent of law’, has no legality at all.

How do we challenge the political party 'WHIPS' in parliament?

Explanation:

The entire British Judiciary in a, 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice', has always misread and misinterpreted the "Bill of Rights 1689". They have always misinterpreted it and ruled that, "challenge to parliament", in the Courts, is not permissible; relying, always, upon the text of "Article 9" of that Bill for that denial. This reads as follows:

"The Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament"

And, the Judiciary has always accepted and ruled that this, without any other considerations at all, prevents, by law, all challenge to the business of Parliament, in the Courts. In any case or matter before the Courts where evidence is presented even mentioning any of the business of parliament, the Judge has always stopped the proceedings at once, in the Court, ruling that, "Article 9" prevents all challenge.

Actually, the correct reading and interpretation of the whole of the "Bill of Rights 1689", reveals another paragraph of that Bill that is actually and, in law, the overall 'authority' of that Bill; because, the text, set out in that paragraph, asserts, that it has the authority over all the "Premises" of the Bill. This paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed", specifically instructs Parliament, that when Parliament enacts or applies any of the "Premises" of the Bill; that nothing, "ought prejudice the people".

Here is that paragraph in the Bill:

“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 activities of the "WHIPS" in parliament does "prejudice the people"; because, the instructions the "WHIPS" give to each Member of Parliament, each week, instructing them on how they must vote; overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon those 'elected' Members of Parliament, by the Constituents.

In "prejudicing the people" in this way; the political party "WHIPS" in parliament, has no legality at all.

But, in any legal action proposed, we shall not test the Judiciary, over this. We will not challenge Parliament in the Courts at all. We are merely going to challenge the Judiciary, in the Courts; forcing the Judiciary, to properly recognise and rule that the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed", in the "Bill of Rights 1689", has 'equal' or more legal authority, than the "Supremacy of Parliament" itself.

"Article 9", of that Bill, provides the legality for this, "Supremacy of Parliament" and, it is one of the "Premises", of that Bill; and, "The Said Rights Claimed", has the authority, over all the, "Premises", of that Bill.

When the Judiciary are forced to recognise the true legality of, "The Said Rights Claimed"; the political parties in Parliament will no longer be able to use the ""WHIPS" in order to create and pass corrupt "LAW". Every vote taken in parliament thereafter, would become, a FREE VOTE. And, a true DEMOCRACY will be born.

Where, new laws and restrictions, in respect of "Non Dom's", or any other legislation, could only be passed in parliament, after proper debate and discussion of all the 'pros' and 'cons', and, after a, FREE VOTE, of Parliament has taken place. No more, just, the arrogant diktat of a corrupt political party leader, corruptly forcing the vote through Parliament, by the use of the political party, WHIPS.

I urge all the 116,000 'Nom Dom's' that there are in the country, to put up the money. Collectively, they can easily afford it; and, that money would not only provide protection for the 'Non Dom's', it might also help to create a, TRUE DEMOCRACY.

Read my book “DEMOCRACY” available here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

Gordon J Sheppard

TOTALITARIAN RULE...

DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY...

British ‘Totalitarian Regime’ creating its own Laws.

 

ADOLF HITLER warned the whole world what he would do when he achieved the power to govern. He specifically stated that he would use the democratic process in order to gain power, but, the moment he achieved that power, “Heads would Roll”, and, he would create his own Laws.

 

The very instant Hitler became ‘Chancellor’, he placed before the ‘Reichstag’, (the German parliament), his “Enabling Act”; providing him with the Supreme power as the, ‘Head of State’; and, permitting him ‘lawfully’ to create his own law. The ‘elected delegates’ of the Reichstag, knew only too well, that, if they voted ‘YES’ to this “Enabling Act”, that, from that very moment, their place and participation in the ‘Reichstag’, would became wholly redundant. The, ‘Reichstag’, would no longer create and pass ‘democratic’ law; Adolf Hitler, would create, his own laws.

 

Yet, that, ‘Reichstag’, voted unanimously to pass this “Enabling Act” with the massive majority of 441 votes for ‘YES’, and, only 94 votes for “No”.

 The NAZI ‘Totalitarian Third Reich’ had been born, dominated by Fuhrer Hitler.

 

 

Great Britain has its own totalitarian, “Enabling Act” enabling the ‘political parties’ to create their own laws; Law, in the British Parliament today, is no longer created and passed by the democratic vote of the ‘elected’ Members of Parliament. The, political parties, “Enabling Act”, of the, political party, WHIPS; instruct, Members of Parliament, on how they must vote.

 

Adolf Hitler, at least had the democratic vote of the ‘Reichstag’, to support his right to create his own law. Thus, there was nothing ‘unlawful’ in what he did.

 

Yet, the British political parties “Enabling Act” by the utilization of the political activities of the WHIPS in parliament, is wholly ‘unlawful’. Because, their political activities, ‘instructing Members of Parliament on how they should vote’, has no ‘legality’ at all.

 

When the political party WHIPS instruct elected Members of Parliament, in this way; the, WHIPS, ‘prejudice the people’; overruling and supplanting, all rightful influence, that might have been placed upon those, ‘Members of Parliament’, by the Constituent.

 

This, wholly, unlawful, “Enabling Act” of the political party WHIPS in parliament, is only being operated by the political parties in parliament, because, they cannot or will not rely upon the ‘democratic’ voting of the ‘elected’ representatives of, ‘The People’; to pass those laws. The political parties are hell bent intent, on creating their own law. Thereby, they flout and breach the existing ‘precedent of law’ set out in, “The Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

 

In 1688 the ‘Rights Committee’ of the CONVENTION (Parliament) created the “Declaration of Rights”, that, Parliament, for its protection, claimed from the King. After its passage through parliament it actually became the “Bill of Rights 1689”; and, it was given the ‘Royal Assent’, in December 1689. In this Bill the ‘Rights Committee’ first lists the entire protective ‘rights’ parliament is claiming, from the King; then, directly, below this list, in the paragraph, ‘The Said Rights Claimed”, this, Committee, provided, the protection of 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, Political Parties, ‘Enabling Act’ of the WHIPS in parliament does, ‘prejudice the people’; and, therefore, the WHIPS in parliament, has no true legality at all.

Read my book “DEMOCRACY” available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

GordonJ