BREXIT - PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

BREXIT

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT; THE DUP;

And,

PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

 

For clarification purposes throughout this document, the meaning and intent of the words, as listed, are shown below,

 

“The last say” – This refers to the ruling that GINA MILLER, a private person, secured from the Supreme Court Judiciary; that parliament should have, ”The very last say”, in voting ‘Yay’ or ‘Nay’ to the final legislation ‘agreement’ negotiated by the government with the EU; for the withdrawal of Britain from the EU.

See: APPENDIX A: “LAW – GINA MILLER & PARLIAMENT” as shown below.

 

“The Treaty” – This refers to the final “Agreement Treaty” agreed between THERESA MAY and the British Government and the EU for the ‘withdrawal’ of Britain from the EU.

In referring to this ‘TREATY’; MICHELLE BARNIER, of the ‘European Commission’ and holding aloft the ‘Treaty’ in his hand, declared to the World, on live television transmission, that,

“This is the Treaty, the final Treaty that Great Britain has agreed to, it will not be tweaked amended or altered in any way. It can never be renegotiated or changed”.

 

“Her Deal” – refers to the final deal “Treaty Agreement” that THERESA MAY and her government agreed to with the EU; for Britain to leave the EU.

 

“The Said Rights Claimed” – this refers to the protection of the people provided by this paragraph of the “Bill of Rights 1689” – this paragraph of that Bill specifically instructs parliament, that parliament may ‘enact’ any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill, but only upon the conditions that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.

If and whenever parliament “Prejudice the People” “The Said Rights Claimed” overrules the very “SUPREMACY” of parliament afforded to parliament by “Article 9” of that Bill. Because, “The Said Rights Claimed” is the overall superior authority of the Bill; for it states within its text; that it has the authority over all the “PREMISES” of the Bill; whenever parliament causes the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”.

 

 

WITH THE MEETING OF GOVERNMENT AND THE DUP, AND THE PRESENCE OF ‘PHILLIP HAMMOND’ THE CHANCELLOR PRESENT AT THAT MEETING; THERE IS EVERY INDICATION THAT BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DUP ARE CONTEMPLATING THE “PERVERTING OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE”, WHICH WOULD CAUSE, A GRAVE CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

 

I THEREFORE WARN BOTH GOVERNMENT AND THE DUP; that if the DUP, has already twice voted against “Her Deal”; on an unchangeable “Treaty”; and, if the DUP now changes tack and, now votes in support of “”Her Deal”; this will indicate and verify in stark vivid clarity that some corruption has taken place; that, some corrupt ‘inducements’ are being involved.

Either the DUP has demanded more money or other special favoured consideration from government to change its vote; or, government has offered some corrupt bribe more money or other required favourable consideration to the DUP, in order that it will support, “Her Deal” in the next, ‘Meaningful Vote’.

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO OFFERED OR WHO DEMANDED; THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, THAT BOTH GOVERNMENT AND THE DUP HAVE NOW CONTEMPLATED, IF NOT ALREADY AGREED TO, “PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE”.

 

I therefore warn every elected Member of Parliament of the DUP, that all previous history of their voting is recorded in Handsard; therefore, if their vote changes now to support, “Her Deal”, in an unchanged “Treaty”; that will provide the stark vivid evidence that that Member has, “Perverted the Course of Justice” and be liable to be prosecuted by the police.

 

Every Member of Parliament that has twice voted against “Her Deal”; and, now changes their vote, to an ‘unchanged’ ‘Treaty’, in support of “Her Deal”; will be suspected of “Perverting the Course of Justice” leaving themselves wide open to prosecution for committing a criminal offence.

 

Members of Parliament cannot just rely on the “SUPREMACY” of parliament to protect them from prosecution; because, when they “Pervert the Course of Justice” they, “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”; and, this is wholly proscribed by, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

 

APPENDIX A.

“GINA MILLER & PARLIAMENT”

 

Parliament did not apply for or appeal to the Supreme Court for the right to have the ‘last say’ to the BREXIT legislation for withdrawal from the EU, agreed by the British government. Parliament has little interest in LAW; it has contempt for LAW; and, it abandons Law;  because it relies upon the “Supremacy of Parliament” to provide parliament with the privilege of doing anything it pleases in everything; without any ‘question’ or ‘challenge’ from within, LAW. So, this is why parliament has never asked LAW to provide parliament with the right to have the “final last say” to the BREXIT legislation agreed by government.

 

GINA MILLER did not secure this right from the SUPREME COURT for the benefit of parliament; she did it for the benefit of all the people of the country, in order to ensure that parliament carried out its proper duty, to represent the people who elected them; and protect the procedure of, LAW creation, in parliament.