BREXIT and THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED

Here is the text and history of,

 

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”

 

 

HISTORY

1688: KING JAMES THE SECOND WAS REMOVED FROM THE THRONE. He was charged by the CONVENTION (parliament) of having, "Broken the Original Contract Betwixt King and People".

The CONVENTION declared the throne was thereby vacant; and, WILLIAM OF ORANGE was offered the throne.

Prince William of Orange, with his army, invaded the Kingdom; and, JAMES II then fled to France.

 

PRINCE WILLIAM then appointed the CONVENTION, (parliament), and there were two essential tasks the CONVENTION had to resolve before WILLIAM could accede to the throne; (A), they had to find a legal way to remove JAMES II from the throne. He was still the living and lawful King. (B), they had to create a Bill that would protect parliament from all future interference of a King.

The CONVENTION then appointed a, "Rights Committee", to carry out those tasks.

 

THE, "RIGHTS COMMITTEE"

Firstly, they had to find the legal way of getting rid of JAMES II. They could not remove his head, he was away in France; so they simply determined that he had, "Broken the ‘Original Contract’ Betwixt King and People"; and thereby DECLARED, that he had 'Abdicated' the throne.

 

The second task they had to resolve was to, "Protect Parliament from further annoying interferences of a King". Parliament did not want the interference of a King, that it had previously had to endure with, JAMES II. They had to present a series of 'rights' protecting Parliament to, WILLIAM of ORANGE; that he would agree to; before he could sit on the throne.

 

The "Rights Committee" here, at first, and after considerable delay, produced twenty-six 'articles' protecting Parliament from a King; but, WILLIAM and his advisors would not accept them. WILLIAM became impatient warning the 'Committee' that if it did not hurry up and produce an acceptable list; he would return to the NETHERLANDS, and, would not be their KING.

 

The "Rights Committee" then speedily produced the 13 ARTICLES that are still present in the "Bill of Rights" today. But, then, just before presenting them to WILLIAM for approval; these very wise men, (many of them of the profession of law) looked at that the Bill that they had just created; and they suddenly realised two important things:

 

1. The Bill had been specifically created to protect parliament;       FROM A KING. Not, from, "The People".
2. The Bill, as it was then, could easily be mis-interpreted or misused, (just as Parliament and the JUDICIARY misuses it today). They realised, that, the Bill as it was then, had one serious omission. IT HAD FAILED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.
    
   So, the "Rights Committee" then inserted another paragraph into their Bill, directly below all the other 13 Articles of that Bill. This paragraph is, "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED", and it specifically instructs Parliament that, when Parliament 'enacts' any of the "PREMISES" of the Bill; that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".
    
   (Note: The, "PREMISES" is everything written in the Bill.)
    
   "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED," IS THE SUPERIOR 'AUTHORITY' OF THE "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689"; Written and recorded within its text it specifically asserts and claims that it is the supreme ‘authority’ of, “Any of the ‘PREMISES’, of the Bill.
   It even overrules and supplants "ARTICLE 9" and the, "SUPREMACY" of PARLIAMENT; If and whenever parliament causes the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE".
    
   Widely distribute all this. Educate all that want to create a, TRUE DEMOCRACY.
    
   All that it takes, in order, to force the JUDICIARY to recognize the legal validity of, "The Said Rights Claimed", and, revise their ruling, that the "SUPREMACY" of Parliament is, ABSOLUTE. Is to scream 'from-the-rooftops',
    
   "THE WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT ARE UNLAWFUL"
   "ABOLISH THE WHIPS".
    
   If a million voices started screaming this, the Press and Media would be forced to take notice, the JUDICIARY would then be forced to recognize the legal validity of, "The Said Rights Claimed" - And, the WHIPS in Parliament would be declared unlawful. Thus, creating, a TRUE DEMOCRACY.
    
   A TRUE 'NON-VIOLENT' REFORM OF PARLIAMENT AND, REVOLUTION.
    
   Note: BREXIT – ‘Article 50’ of the “EU (Withdrawal) Bill” was created and passed by a “Whipped Vote” in parliament.
   Therefore, as can be seen above, that the “WHIPS” are unlawful. The passing by parliament of ‘Article 50’; must have been UNLAWFUL also.
    
   A mere challenge to the “Supreme Court” Judges, must uphold this prima facie evidence here.