LEVESON INQUIRY REPORT, and, "Freedom of the Press"

Let's have a good look at this, "Freedom of the Press"....

Is it 'freedom of the press' and 'free speech' when a female journalist of a national newspaper publishes a photograph of a woman on holiday with her husband and children, wearing a bathing costume; and, where this journalist draws the attention of the reader to the, 'flesh protruding from the top of that bathing costume'; and, then, publishes, a 'CLOSE UP PICTURE', of that condition of skin? Writing, the polemic, that this woman ‘Judy’ needs to watch her weight.

This is not 'Freedom on the Press' this is the sole intent to hurt, wound, demean, vilify, and defame.

Is it 'Freedom of the Press' when the Daily Mail publishes a photograph of a woman's legs, and, in an additional 'CLOSE UP PICTURE,' also published; the author of the feature particularly writes the words drawing the reader’s attention to, the 'skin blemishes' on those legs?

This is not "Freedom of the Press"; this is the sole intent to hurt, would, demean, vilify, and defame.

The Daily Mail female journalists, commentators, and contributors, do this in every issue published.

And, as the excuse, they liken this, to the publication of 'polemic' in the pamphleteering of a bye gone age.

I welcome the LEVESON proposals for some form of 'Statute’ control.

When the 'Press' talk about 'free speech', they, essentially talk only of their own freedom to repeatedly and constantly publish, hurt, wounding, demeaning, vilification, and, defamation.

I want to see an end to all of this.

Understanding the true illegality, of the way, in which the British are governed today.

What I have always pondered, and, as yet, have never received any answers in verification to, is
why less than 400,000 Members of all the political parties in the land; should so dominate the
lives of nearly 60 Million adults. Where is it written? Where is the 'legal instrument'? That permits these less than 400,000 political party Members, dominating, every aspect of the lives, of all?

This is not Democracy.

DEMOCRACY, a true, DEMOCRACY, is government of, "The People"; by, "The People"; and,
for, "The People". Where, "The People", govern themselves.

Government by the domination of the political parties is not democratic at all.

Furthermore, in reality, and, in LAW; such Governing has no legality at all. It flouts and breaches the 'precedent' of LAW, (By which Parliament claims its "Supremacy"), by 'prejudicing' "The People"; and, this is wholly outlawed and illegal, as determined by the,

"Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

This 'Statute' makes it abundantly clear, by ‘precedent’ in British Law, that in Parliaments 'enactment' of "Article 9", and, any of the other 'Premises' of that, “Bill of Rights”; that,

"NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

The political party domination of "The People" by both Government and Parliament maintained thru the Offices Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS in Parliament; 'prejudices' "The People" because, their political party 'diktat' and instructions issued to Members of Parliament, each week, overrules and supplants, all, 'rightful influence', of the 'Constituent'. And, this travesty, is specifically, declared unlawful, as determined by the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

The British are not governed by LEGALITY at all. They are governed, by mere, MYTH.

Today, there is a "Reigning Monarch" sitting on the British throne, that has not honoured the terms of the "Original Contract' from the first day she sat upon that throne.

 In 1688, King James Ii was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION Parliament) because he was accused of "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People". The, CONVENTION determined, that, in doing this, he had abdicated the throne. They declared the ‘throne was vacant’ and Prince William of Orange became the next King. The CONVENTION further declared, in respect to the ‘Original Contract’ and, the "Lineal Descent", by ruling that,

 "The contract is as binding on the Successor as well as it was on the deposed, and, if the Successor broke the contract as well, he also can be deposed".

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured that 'contract' since the very first day she became the "Reigning Monarch". She has never 'acted' as "Head of Government", Monitoring Parliament;
in the interests of the ‘protection’ of Subjects of the British Crown.

 She has recently presided over an illegal and an unlawful creation of a, 'coalition government', that was not chosen or elected by the People at all; but, that, was foisted upon the Nation, by corrupt political party leaders assuming they could create a new government, entirely on their own. In doing this, these political party leaders wholly 'ignored' "The Peoples Vote" of the General Election of 2010, and, in this, they 'prejudiced' "The People".

 Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND did not lift a finger, in this travesty, to protect, Her Subjects, from this abuse. "The Peoples Vote" of the General Election of 2010 determined that there should be a 'Conservative' led 'Minority Government'. David Cameron was the leader of the Conservative Party at that time, and, he should have governed as a 'Minority Government'; or, he should have informed, Her Majesty, that he could not govern. Whereby, there would have been a fresh General Election; to elect a new legal Government.

 Her Majesty, the Queen, in spite of the terms of "Constitutional Monarchy" still has the right, and, duty, to intervene. She, has, the 'rightful power', to protect Her Subjects from any abuse. She miserably failed in that responsibility.

 

The true purpose of a British Monarchy is not to open new establishments, host garden parties, and travel the World promoting British products and prestige. The sole true purpose of the British

Monarchy is to 'protect' the Crown's Subjects. There is no other purpose, at all:
 

"Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord"

 The, very criterion, of the "Original Contract".

 There can be no legal dispute or argument in respect to the true role of the ‘Reigning Monarch of England’’, as determined by LAW. That role, as a priority, is to provide the protection of, “Subjects of the Crown”. And, in order to assist the ‘Reigning Monarch’, in carrying out that responsibility, the Monarch is provided with two ‘legal instruments’: “The Royal Assent” and “The Royal Prerogative”. Both, solely designed, for the ‘protection’ of the, “Subject”.

 The Royal Assent provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right to grant or refuse to grant ‘assent’ to the Laws created and passed by Parliament. (The ‘Reigning Monarch’ is required to ‘Act’ as ‘Head of Government’, monitoring Parliament, in the interests of the protection of Subjects); in this regard.

 The Royal Prerogative provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right to:

1. Encourage Her Ministers of Government.
2. Warn Her Ministers of Government.
3. Whenever, the wishes of the People conflict with the actions of the legislators (Parliament); to order, the dissolution of Parliament.

In the aftermath of the General Election of 2010 when the political party leaders decided that they could ‘ignore’ the Peoples vote and create a ‘coalition administration’ entirely on their own. This, was the clear and direct evidence, that, the ‘wishes of the people conflicted with the actions of the legislators’. ELIZABETH THE SECOND, then, had the responsibility and duty, to intervene. She should have used the “Royal Prerogative” to order the immediate dissolution of Parliament. But, she did nothing. She failed to protect Her People; and, in consequence, the country today has a wholly illegal government.

CONCLUSIONS:

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has ‘Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People”; thereby, The British throne is as vacant today as it was in 1688. When, King James II was removed from the throne.

The Offices, Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS in Parliament; ‘prejudice the people’ and, thereby, has no legality at all.

The creation of the present ‘coalition administration’ masquerading as government, ‘prejudice’ the People; and thereby, has no true legality at all.

The British, denied the right, of a ‘Written Constitution”, a proper ‘Bill of Rights’, and, a “Supreme Court of Law” whereby they can challenge the ‘executive’; and, being, denied the protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’; end up, having no protection of LAW, at all.

The Leveson Inquiry

 

Was set up to closely examine the practises, role, and culture of both Press, and, Media; In public life. It is now due to publish its report.

 

The very first thing the Inquiry ought to have addressed is “LAW”

Because, “LAW”; in Great Britain today, is not properly understood.

It is generally known and accepted by, nearly all, that, “LAW” is something that must be obeyed.

Yet, that is not “LAW” at all.

The ‘true ‘definition of “LAW” is, as described by LORD HAILSHAM, an ex-Lord Chancellor of England.

Who always said, this:

 

“Law is a myth without the consent of the People there is no Law”

 

Thus, “LAW” is naught but the voluntary consent of the People to live by “The Rule of Law”.

The ‘key criterion’ here, therefore, is, “The People”; and, not, the Judiciary, the police, the politician, or, the, ‘profession of law’; that, are merely, ‘administrators’ of law.

 This is where “The Leveson Inquiry” has miserably failed.

Lord Leveson has heard witness testimony from virtually all walks of life in respect to Media, Press, Television, Law, and Show business. The so-called ‘celebrities’ of the nation have been heard in full. Yet, “LEVESON”, has not heard one word of ‘evidence’ from the ‘common people’, at large.

 In all the comment and speculation taking place now throughout the entire British Media and Press, speculating, on what the ‘report’ will reveal in respect to any ‘statutory’ controls to be announced in the report, when, it is published in a few days time. Not, one word is being heard from the ‘common people’. Every, TV studio and all ‘news’ programmes are full of, Politicians, lawyers, celebrities, and the ‘vested interests’ of the Media; but, in all of the debates and interviewing taking place; Not, one Member of the ordinary general public is being seen; or, their, voices, being heard.

 

The entire “LEVERON INQUIRY” and, all public debate and discussion about it taking place in the nation today; is all about, “The Elite”.

 And, that is a disgusting ‘travesty of law’ and a disgrace.

Because,

It is, “The People” who matter most of all.

 

Gordon J Sheppard

LAW: Living today, in a terrible time...

Where, 'LAW' and, true 'LAW', mean nothing at all.

Today, the general concept of 'LAW' held by almost everyone is that,

LAW MUST BE OBEYED

Yet, that is not, 'LAW'

Law is as, Lord Hailshan, an ex Lord Chancellor of England, always used to say,

"LAW IS A MYTH WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE THERE IS NO LAW!

Thus, it is WE THE PEOPLE and, our freely given consent, to 'live by the 'Rule of Law'. That is, LAW.

Great Britain today desperately needs and requires a full scale national debate in respect to LAW.
Because, the travesty's of LAW that are taking place daily now, in respect to the police, and, our Courts and, the Judiciary, are positively obscene.

EXAMPLE

Both the BBC and ITV have succumbed to the intimidation and blackmail of LORD McALPINE and his lawyers, who have threatened them both with prosecutions for libel. Both, have agreed to settle out of court with McALPINE. The, BBC, paid him £185,000; and, ITV has just paid him, 125.000.

Yet, neither, the BBC or ITV, has 'accused' him of being a paedophile. Which, is the assertion, that both McALPINE and his lawyers, are making.

The BBC in the "Newsnight" programme, complained of, never even mentioned LORD McALPINE's name.

And, ITV, who were being blackmailed by McALPINE, in respect of an incident occurring during a "This Morning" programme, never 'displayed' or 'mentioned' his name, or, accused him of being a paedophile. It is alleged by, McALPINE and his lawyers, that when PHILLIP SCHOFIELD passed over a list to the Prime Minister which SCHOFIELD asserted was a list of names that he had secured from the Internet, "in just five minutes of browsing"; that, the 'name' of LORD McALPINE, could be seen by the 'viewer', on that list.

Yet, not a shred of proof has been produced verifying that this is so.

I witnessed the original TV footage clip of that incident, featured on my own television receiver; and, I assert, that in those fleeting seconds, when the list was passed to the Prime Minister, I could not discern any names;, even though I tried slow motion and, stopping the frames. If, I, could not see 'names' on that list; then, nobody else could see them, either.

For, McALPINE's and his lawyers assertions to stand up in 'LAW'; everyone has the right and entitlement to actually see the proof that, McALPINE's 'name' can be clearly seen on that list.

PROOF HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN ORDER THAT 'THE PEOPLE' OF THIS COUNTRY CAN SEE THE TRUTH FOR THEMSELVES.

As, I could not see or, distinguish LORD MCALPINE's name displayed on that list. I am wholly confident; no one else could see this, either.

So the obvious conclusions to all this are:

A. That LORD McALPNE and his lawyers, are 'conning everyone' and, they are using blackmailing
and intimidation, in order to secure settlements 'out of court'.

B. That, cowardly, both the BBC and ITV, has succumbed, to that intimidation.

Whatever:

Until irrefutable 'evidence' is produced by McALPINE and his lawyers that, McALPINE, has been truly 'libelled', and, that his 'name and reputation' has been truly damaged;

ALL OF THIS IS MERELY A GREAT TRAVESTY OF, "LAW".

And, the 'establishment' and the 'elite' of this country; are merely treating the 'common people', as, MORONS and IMBECILES.

Furthermore, McALPINE and his lawyers are also intimidating many users and those who post 'tweets' on the social network website, TWITTER. One person so intimidated is SALLY BERCOW, the wife of the “Speaker” of the House of Commons. She posted a 'mischievous comment' about LORD McALPINE. But, it should be recognized and acknowledged by, 'LAW', that posting 'opinion' 'assumptions' and, 'speculations', freely on the Internet, is not LIBEL. It is perfectly legal and lawful to publish the 'opinion' that someone might be a paedophile. I, assert, and contend that this is merely 'free speech', and, 'free expression'. It becomes LIBEL, only if it is asserted, that, they are, a, paedophile.

 It appears to me that both McALPINE and his lawyers; and, virtually all of our People today, cannot istinguish the difference. Or, they are so apathetic that they don't care a damn. And, this is the reason why, McALPINE and his lawyers, can get away with getting, 'big wads of cash', for merely making 'false claims'.

Sincerely
Gordon J Sheppard

 

“Conspiracy to commit a misconduct in Public Office”

 London 20^th November 2012

Today, British Crown Prosecutor’s, charged, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, two executives who had previously worked at the “News of the World” newspaper, with the criminal offence of, “Conspiracy to commit misconduct in Public Office”.

Now, this is very interesting: because, presumably, when these two face trial; the trial will be held before a Judge; a, Member, of the British Judiciary. Yet, what is so interesting, is the fact, that, the British Judiciary has, for the last three hundred and twenty four years, been committing, exactly the same offence. For, all this time and, even now today, the entire British Judiciary, has ‘conspired with each other’ to lie to and, deceive, the British People, that, it is, LAW, that denies, all ‘challenge’ to ‘elected’ Parliament in their Courts. And, for that denial, of the right, to challenge ‘elected’ Parliament in the Courts, the British Judiciary has conspired and deceived the British People, that, “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, prevents that challenge.

This, assertion, lies, and deceit, of the British Judiciary, is the clear stark ‘evidence’ that they, “Conspire to commit misconduct in Public Office”.

In consequence; I assert, that no Member of the British Judiciary is, fit to try, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, for the same criminal offence.

 

The proof that the British Judiciary lie, deceive, cheat, and manipulate, LAW, to their own ends; and, exercise, unlawful  power; rests in the fact, that the “Bill of Rights 1689”, far from denying the British People the right to challenge Parliament in the Courts; actually, provides the ‘precedent’ in British, LAW, whereby anyone may challenge Parliament in the Courts, whenever, Parliament, ‘Prejudice the People”.

 "Article 9" of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, reads:
 
"That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament"
 
But, the "Rights Committee" of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, who created that Bill; made provisions within the Bill, for the protection of "The People". The, ‘Committee’, in creating that Bill and, the ‘rights’ Parliament was claiming from the King, were well aware, and, they knew, that the Bill was only required and necessary, to protect Parliament, from a King. It was never required or designed in order to protect Parliament from, “The People”.  However, the ‘Committee’ was concerned that their Bill, might be misinterpreted and be misused.

So, they, specifically determined, in the Bill, in the paragraph inserted, directly below the listed number of 'rights' Parliament, claimed, from the KING; that, when Parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" or, any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; that, Parliament must comply with the conditions set out in, the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed". This, Statute' determines, that, in Parliament applying “Article 9”; nothing, "SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE."

 This is the text of that Statute:

“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”

 Here is the stark vivid proof that the British Judiciary is corrupt.

 

Gordon J Sheppard

"Putting rain back in the Sky"

One of the greatest failings of Humankind in Great Britain today, is the way that
'Yesterday' is always judged by the 'standards' of, 'Today'.

And, this has always resulted in great injustice.

Here are two stark vivid examples of this travesty:

The first:

The Nuremberg Tribunal Trials.

Virtually every NAZI war criminal tried at the Nuremberg Tribunal for horrific crimes, pleaded as their defence, that they were only obeying the orders of a superior.

But, the Tribunal judges, corruptly, would not accept this defence. They, ruled that everyone, must be 'individually responsible', for one’s own actions.

These judges, "Put rain back in the Sky".

Because, they completely ignored all that had happened in NAZI Germany, from the very moment, ADOLF HITLER, became 'Chancellor of Germany' in 1933; thru, to the end of World War II, in 1945. HITLER, created the law in Germany known as, the, "FuhrerPrinzip"; (The Leadership Principle);  And, this law, first, applicable to the Military, but, later, during World War II, became applicable to everyone in Germany; required, that every German citizen, must obey the order of a superior officer or, a superior, under the pain of imprisonment, and, even death; if one refused.

The, "FuhrerPrinzip", was an established fact in, German law. And, it, was, LAW.
Yet, the judges in the Nuremberg Tribunal, would not 'recognise; this.
They,

 

 "Put rain back in the Sky".

Every war criminal pleading the defence of "FuhrerPrinzip" spoke the truth in those trials.
But, the 'Judges' corruptly ignored that. “LAW”, for, expediency: The, 'Law of the Victor', of World War II, demanded; that, the 'Vanquished', had no right of claim, to LAW.

Every defendant at Nuremberg was found 'Guilty' of the crimes for which they were tried.

They were either imprisoned for very many years, or, they were executed; hung, by the neck, until dead.

It was the greatest travesty of, 'LAW' and 'JUSTICE’ of this Century.

 

The ‘Holocaust’ and the horrific crimes of Nazi Germany, deserved the severest punishment; but, every defendant at the, Nuremberg Tribunals, deserved a fair trial. They did not get that ‘fair trial’, because, the ‘corrupt’ Judges, “Put rain back in the Sky”.

The second example:

The 'Child Sex Abuse' hysteria prevailing in Great Britain today.
In this wild hysterical furore, escalating, in more and more allegations of, 'child sexual abuse', being revealed every day, there is the demand being made by Government, many politicians, and, the 'Child Protection Agencies', for an 'Inquiry' to be set up, in order to investigate, "The Culture of the BBC". Allegations, are being made, every day, asserting that, BBC stars, deejays, and celebrity personalities, abused young children on the premises of the BBC. It is not the 'Culture of the BBC' that, requires, to be investigated. What, needs to be understood, is the 'culture' prevailing throughout the entire country, at that time:

 

To, judge, "The Culture of the 1960's thru, to the early, 1970's"; in, order to understand; the, accusations being made today. To, judge, these, allegations, being made today, completely ignoring the 'national culture' that was in existence in the country when these 'asserted' child abuses took place, is to completely deny, all that happened in this period, as though, it had never taken place at all.

 

It, is, to, "Put rain back in the Sky".

 

The 1960's brought about the most massive explosion of sexual freedom the country had ever seen, in my lifetime. All the censorship of sex and sexuality, all the repressions, of censorship, sex, sexual experimentation, and, sexual exploration, of both Church and State; were all swept away. Providing the greatest era of SEXUAL FREEDOM, the country had ever seen.

 

Women had the 'pill' which enabled them to experiment and enjoy their sexuality without the fear of pregnancy; The 'mini-skirt' was born, allowing young girls and women to display their legs, high up, almost to their 'bum'; where, their knickers, were frequently 'on show', when they walked in the street or danced in the disco's. Grown up adult women were even whipping off their 'erotically’ charged 'wet kinickers' , throwing them at TOM JONES as he sang and performed. Commercial radio with the, 'pirates' , had smashed the previous radio monopoly of the BBC; and, the radio 'deejay' and the 'pop music artists and groups' , became big star attractions, virtually overnight. Young girls, throughout the Kingdom, embraced this, FREEDOM; and, they joined in. Every pop concert attracted hordes of sexually charged 'horny' young girls 'screaming their heads off' as they watched these artists perform. Anyone who witnessed these young girls at a, “Beatles Concert", could not mistake the 'sexuality' there involved. Young girls became 'fame chasers' throwing themselves at the pop star, pop groups, deejays, and celebrities, exploring, their sexuality; and, even, in some cases, 'notching up conquests on their bedposts', in competition, for sexual favours received.

There was, SEX and SEXUAL FREEDOM, everywhere. A, great, SEXUAL EXPLOSION, for all ages and classes; and, the young girls, were affected as well.

 

 

EXAMPLE: Personal experience:

 

From late 1965 thru to May of 1976 I served as the promotions manager of two commercial radio stations: Pirate, Radio London, and, Capital Radio. During this time I was responsible for all publicity activities of these companies, outside of the actual broadcasting studios. I mounted concerts, pop shows and disco's all over the catchment area, of Greater London. Daily, I was in the thick of, showbiz, and, the pop groups, pop stars, and the pop music industry. Throughout the whole of this period, although, I, witnessed, thousands of young girls and the celebrities; I never once saw any young girl being sexually abused. I, frequently, saw them being 'fondled', often, seeing their 'boobs' being touched; but, always with their complicity, or, at their consent. I also frequently witnessed many of these young girls, competing with each other, to gain points, for the 'sexual conquests' they had achieved.

 

On one occasion, which I recall vividly, I had to accompany a famous American pop group to a BBC studio. They had a 'hit record' out at that time; and, promoting, that record, they were scheduled to perform at the BBC. On arrival at the BBC, the schedule indicated that they were not required immediately, so I left these boys in the dressing room and went out to see the show. Nearing the time when they were required I returned to the dressing room to alert them to get ready. The dressing room was full of young girls, there was smooching and groping, being performed, by all. And, the drummer was missing. Frantically, I searched the building for this drummer; and, I eventually found him in a 'toilet cubicle' with three girls. I screamed at him to get back to the dressing room, and as he sheepishly left; the three girls emerged, 'laughing their heads off', from the toilet cubicle. Wholly, ignoring me, standing there, they then each in turn, claimed that they had won the competition, describing in detail, what they had sexually done to the boy, and, what, sexually, he had done to them. The details described, ranged from the showing and touching of 'boobs', all the way thru, a sexual agenda, culminating, in anal sex.

Now, these girls were not whores and slags, or, of the sex industry. They were ordinary young girls, thoroughly enjoying their sexuality, and, experimenting, with, sex. I made no attempt to report them or to lecture them. I merely 'laughed with them', recognizing fully, that it was the 'culture', of that time.

 

In judging today, anything that happened 'sexually' then; is to ignore the 'culture' of that time.

 

It is,

 

 "Putting rain back in the Sky".

 

 

Gordon J Sheppard

 

Original Contract

ORIGINAL CONTRACT
For the British, the “Original Contract” is of vital interest, because
it is the very legal authority by which each 'Reigning Monarch' in the line of
succession, sits on the British throne. The Original Contract is the contract
that the Subject has, with the King. And, it is designed for the Subjects
protection. All born to the shores of Great Britain are bound, in law, to give
allegiance to each 'Reigning Monarch’ for as a Monarch shall reign’. In,
return, for this allegiance, that they give, the Reigning Monarch' is required
and obliged to provide their protection. The prime duty and responsibility of
each 'Reigning Monarch in the line of Succession’ is to act as 'Head of
Government' protecting the Subject. And, this is done by ‘monitoring’
Parliament in the country’s and the Subjects best interests, and, in the use of
the power of the “Royal Assent”. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ always has the power to
approve or reject law’s created by Parliament, through the granting or, the
refusal to grant, the “Royal Assent”.

The, 'Original Contract', although, 'unwritten' is nevertheless, fully
established in English Law. For, it was the 'breaking of the original contract'
that provided the 'legal instrument’’, by which, King James the Second was
removed from the throne.

On 28th day of January 1688 the ‘House of Commons’ resolved: 'That King
James the Second, Having Endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of the
Kingdom, by Breaking the Original Contract between King and People; and by the
advice of Jesuits, and other Wicked Persons, having violated the Fundamental
Laws, and Withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath Abdicated the Government.
and that the Throne is thereby Vacant.'

The CONVENTION Debate:
The CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, mounted a special debate held in
the 'Painted Chamber' of the House of Commons on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days of
February 1688, held between both Lords and Commons, where, they debated the
words, “Abdicated" and "That the Throne is thereby Vacant".

At,the conclusion of this debate, both Lords and Commons accepted and resolved
that, King James II had indeed abdicated the throne. It was then determined and
ruled, that, "The Throne was Vacant".

Speeches from this debate:
(These speeches can be seen in the book “The Parliamentary History of
the Glorious Revolution” by the author David Lewis Jones. Published by H.M.
Stationery Office)

The Notes: are my own notes.

‘The Speaker’, Henry Powle

“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”.


Bishop Ely,

"So, that all that I conceive ought to be meant by our Vote is, But
a setting aside the Person that broke the Contract : And, in a Successive
Kingdom an Abdication can only be a Forfeiture, as to the Person himself. I
hope, and am persuaded, that both Lords and Commons do agree in this, Not to
break the Line of Succession, so as to make the Crown Elective."

NOTE. This contribution by Bishop ELY, is interesting, because, although a persuasive argument in respect to not breaking the Line of Succession the eventual concurring resolution of the Lords, (and, of the whole Parliament), of 7th February 1688, went against that opinion, and, did, in fact, break that line of succession: offering the Throne to William, Prince of Orange. However, it will be noted, that Bishop ELY, also agrees, with the concept, of the Original Contract, and stresses, that he accepts: "that it was most Fundamental, That King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, should have the Power of making New Laws" That, the King, acting as ‘Head of Government’, participating ‘in Parliament assembled’, should have the Power of making New Laws. Bishop ELY, also makes it clear that the reigning Monarch must participate in Parliament. And, must participate in the ‘making of New Laws’.

Mr. Sergeant, Maynard

"When the whole Kingdom, and the Protestant Religion, our Laws and
Liberties, have been in Danger of being Subverted, an Enquiry must be made into
the Authors and Instruments of this Attempt; and if he, who had the
Administration entrusted to him, be found the Author and Actor in it, What can
that be, but a Renuntiation of his Trust, and consequently his Place thereby
Vacant.If Two of us make a mutual Agreement, to Help and Defend each other from
any one that should Assault us in a Journey, and he that is with me turns upon
me and Breaks my Head, he hath, undoubtedly, Abdicated my Assistance and
Revoked."

Earl of CLARENDON.

"Mr Sergent Maynard says, That it is not indeed to make the Government perpetually Elective. I would know what he means by Perpetually:
Our breaking through the Line now, by a Choice out of the Lineal Course, is an
Alteration and a Precedent : And why may not others take the same Liberty we do
? And will not that make It Perpetually Elective; But truly, I think, no Act of
ours can alter the Lineal Succession; for, by all the Laws we have now in
Being, our Government appears to be Hereditary In a Right Line of Descent : And
upon any Descent, when any one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to
his Legal Heir, as Successor, as well before Coronation, as after."

NOTE: Here again, Parliament did not agree with this; as is seen in
their concurring declaration of 7th of February in agreeing to the Commons
Vote. And, in the subsequent offering of the Throne to William of Orange.
However, the Earl of Clarendon’s speech is immensely valuable: in the sense
that he has realized, that, by their decision that day, they were creating
Legal precedent; and that what THEY may do under the precedent then, so also,
might Subject’s do, generations later. (As I do now). There is another
interesting point that should be drawn: the Earl of Clarendon insists on the Lineal Descent. "When one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to his Legal Heir", (and yet, that was also rejected by Parliaments resolution of the 7th February), But I say, irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and it's Authority : 'The Protection of the Subject" would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor "Breached the
Contract" as well; he also, could be deposed.

Sir GEORGE TREBY.

"I beg leave to say something to what this Noble Lord has last
spoken unto : When I call this Point of the Vacancy of the Throne a Conclusion,
I did not mean altogether to exclude Abdication from being a Conclusion from
the Particulars enumerated before; for, indeed, it is in the nature of a double
Conclusion : One, from the particular Facts mentioned, That thereby King James
has Abdicated the Government. The other, from the Abdication, That thereby the
Throne is Vacant: By the Instanced Acts, he hath Abdicated the Government; and
by his Abdicating the Government, the Throne is Vacant."

"He therein in faith,"

"I will no more keep within my limited Authority, nor hold my
Kingly Office upon such Terms. This title I had by the Original Contract
between King and People; I Renounce that, and will Assume another Title to
myself; That is, such a Title, as by which I may Act, as if there was no such
Law to circumscribe my Authority."

At the conclusion of this Debate the matter was finally resolved by the
Lords vote of 7th February 1688; in a message sent to the ‘Commons’ by Sir
Robert Atkins and Sir Edward Nevill: "Mr.Speaker, The Lords have Commanded us to tell you, That they have agreed to the Vote sent them up of the 28th of January last, (touching which there was a free Conference yesterday) without any Alterations.”

By these votes of both Commons and Lords, the existence of the ‘Original
Contract’ betwixt Monarch and Subject, is fully established in English Law.
King James the Second, was removed from the throne.

With respect to Monarchy’s position with regard to “Constitutional
Monarchy” and, how Monarchy’s responsibilities are affected in respect to the “Original Contract”; particular attention should be noted as to what the Earl of Clarendon says in this ‘CONVENTION’ debate:

“Irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the
Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and its Authority: “The
protection of the Subject” would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on
the Deposed. And if the Successor “Breached the Contract” as well; he also
could be deposed.”

Note: Monarchy failed to understand that; or, simply did not care about that; when it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”.

CONCLUSIONS:

The current ‘Reigning Monarch’ ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not acted as
‘Head of Government’ and ‘protected’ Her Subjects, since the very first day she occupied the British Throne. She was unable to carry out that responsibility. “Constitutional Monarchy” prevented her, from being able to carry out that role. Every Monarch in the line of succession that has sat on the British Throne since the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” has renounced the ‘Original Contract’ and the responsibilities of Monarchy. And, in consequence, each in turn, has abdicated the Throne. (As, Earl Clarendon says,with reference to Lineal descent; in the CONVENTION debate.)

Note: And, they have each done this; so contemptuously; in exactly the same manner that Sir George Treby, explains, in this debate.

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY.

When the British Monarchy, of its own volition gave up being an
‘absolute monarchy’ and, became a “Constitutional Monarchy”; no one bothered to re-negotiate a new arrangement or ‘contract’ with its Subjects. For their
protection.

The Monarchy gave up the protection of its Subjects; but, the Subject was not released from the statutory and legal obligation of Subjugationand “Allegiance”, that the Subject was required to give to the Reigning Monarch
for as long as a Monarch shall reign. Even today, in this 21st Century,
British Subjects, are not Citizens. With, true, Citizenship recognized in Law.
Furthermore, Parliament, in making these new arrangements for “Constitutional
Monarchy”; and depriving the Subject of the rightful protection of Monarchy;
made no provision whatsoever for a new interpretation or ammendments of "Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689"; in order to allow Subjects to ‘challenge the‘abuses’ of parliament’ from within Law.

Parliament arrogantly took all the protection of the Subject away; Monarchy, threw it away; and, the Subject ended up with no protection of law at all.

Social Contract

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: ”Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous social contract thinkers. Each drew quite different conclusions about the nature of political authority. Hobbes advocated absolute monarchy, Locke advocated natural rights,and Rousseau advocated collective sovereignty in the name of "the general
will".[citation needed] The Lockean concept of the social contract was
invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence, and social contract
notions have recently been invoked, in a quite different sense, by thinkers
such as John Rawls.”

These great and famous ‘social contract thinkers’ all treat the ‘social contract’ as theory.

Yet, I treat the "Original Contract” (As it applies to the British)
as both ‘legal precedent’ and, current British LAW. It is the, lawful and legal contract existing “Betwixt the ‘Reigning Monarch’ and Subject"; and, it is created and designed, for the ‘protection’ of the Subject; in return, for the
‘Allegiance’ that the Subject gives. Thus, the “Original Contract” (in Britain)is not theory at all; it is solidly and fully entrenched and established in the country, as, LAW.

“Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord”

It was the ‘breaking of’ the “Original Contract”, that provided the actual ‘legal instrument’ used and utilized by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, in order, for them, to remove, KING JAMES the Second, from the Throne,


ORIGINAL CONTRACT

There is a very interesting footnote to all that is written above; that will demonstrate the true value and relevance of the, ‘precedent’ in British law; of the “Original Contract” for the British People:

Although, “Constitutional Monarchy”, prevents, the‘Reigning Monarch’, QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND, from her responsibility, of acting as ‘Head of Government’ and protecting Her Subjects; As, the Subject,is still bound in subjugation, and, by law, is still required, in the giving of ‘Allegiance’ to the ‘Reigning Monarch’ for as long as Monarch shall reign; irrespective, of the ‘legal prevention’ imposed upon Her, that responsibility upon Her, still remains. Therefore, if the Subject of the Crown requests, or, requires, Her protection; She is then bound by the terms of the “Original Contract”, to comply.

The British Subject of the Crown has no other protection, of LAW.

The British have no “Written constitution”;

The British have no proper ‘Bill of Rights’;

The British have no access to the Courts; In, order to challenge the
‘abuses’ of Parliament, from within LAW.

The interesting thing is that both the “Original Contract” requiring the protection of the Subject by the ‘Reigning Monarch’; and, the “Supremacy of Parliament” protecting Parliament from interference from a King; both, derive the authority, in law, from the “Bill of Rights 1689”.

Therefore, in respect to the Subject’s protection from the ‘abuses’ of Parliament; and, although, the ‘Reigning Monarch’ is prevented from directly protecting the Subject, (by the terms of “Constitutional Monarchy”); the,Subject, nevertheless, can request that protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’;through, the ‘special provisions’ of the Bill of Rights 1689. Because, the,‘protection’ of the People against the ‘abuse’ of Parliament, is specifically,
set out in that Bill. In, the paragraph: “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights
1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

Parliament’s “Supremacy” in law is provided by “Article 9” of the Bill. This reads:

“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought
not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Place out of Parlyament"

Both Parliament and the British Judiciary has always interpreted
that as being a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation requiring no other
considerations at all. In consequence of this interpretation, the Judiciary has
denied all questioning or challenging of Parliament in their courts for the
last 322 years. But, both Parliament and the Judiciary, for all this time, has
been interpreting the “Bill of Rights” incorrectly. “Article 9” of that Bill,is not a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation at all; Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”, has always been dependent upon, the, conditions prevailing, in
another paragraph of that Bill: the, “Statute in Force/The Said Rights
Claimed”.This, determines, that in Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”,(And, all the other ‘Premises’ of that Bill); that, NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

If, and, whenever, Parliament ‘prejudice’ The People; the “Statute in Force/The Said Rights Claimed”, over-rules and supplants “Article 9”. And,Parliament then loses all its legality, to, its claim, for the “Supremacy”.

This “Statute” in the “Bill of Rights 1689” reads as follows:

“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”

Gordon J Sheppard