DAVID CAMERON IN LIBYA

David Cameron in Libya...
He should be comfortably at home there. He’s just, one more 'gangster' with all the other 'gangsters', who now control the Libyan state. These Libyan 'gangsters' murdered PRESIDENT GADDAFI and seized the country by force; and, Cameron, through, sheer illegality, seized the governing of Britain; the present coalition administration not being 'elected' by the people at all.
 
 The voting results of the General Election of 2010 provided for a "Conservative led 'Minority Government'. But, just like, MAFIA GANGSTERS, Cameron, and, other political party leaders, who had been elected to parliament in that election, did not like that result; so they decided to 'ignore' the people's vote, and conspired with each other to create a coalition administration entirely on their own. In 'ignoring' the people's vote in this way; they brought about the "Prejudice of the People" and, thereby, breached and flouted the 'precedent’ of law set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".  
This present coalition administration masquerading as government, was not chosen or elected by the people; and, thereby, it has no true legality at all.
 
The very interesting thing about all this, is, the role of the 'Reigning Monarch' of England, ELIZABETH THE SECOND; "When the wishes of the people are directly in conflict with the actions of the legislators", the 'Reigning Monarch' of England, has the DUTY to intervene. Under the terms of the "Original Contract" (Providing the 'protection' of her Subjects) she ought to have used the "Royal Prerogative" to order the immediate dissolution of parliament.
 
Miserably failing to honour the "Original Contract"; she did, NOTHING AT ALL.
 
In consequence, legally, lawfully, and by 'precedent' of, ENGLISH LAW; she abdicates the throne. In truth and reality and under the 'precedent' of, English History, the British throne is as VACANT today as it was in 1688; when KING JAMES II was kicked off the British throne.
  The British today are ruled over and governed by sheer illegality; without, any protection of LAW, at all. There are no provisions of a, ‘Written Constitution’;  ‘Bill of Rights’; or, a ‘Supreme Court of Law’ where it is possible to test, question or challenge, the abuses and the prejudice of parliament; from within law. Furthermore, the “Reigning Monarch” sits on the British throne - charged with the responsibility and duty to provide the protection of the People - yet; she provides no protection at all.
 
KING JAMES THE SECOND was removed from the throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament). He was charged with, "Breaking the "Original Contract" betwixt King and People". And, in respect to the "Lineal Descent", (All other 'Reigning Monarchs' sitting on the British throne), the CONVENTION ruled, that, "The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the Contract, they too can be Deposed."
  ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the "Original Contract" throughout her entire reign.
 
"Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord"
 
Without, that, PROTECTION; the, "Subjugation to the 'Reigning Monarch’ for as long as a Monarch shall reign"; has no value; or, any legality, at all.

President Obama to unveil plans to address gun violence..
If he proposes any amendments or abolition of the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution, let all American's take note of this:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

President Abraham Lincoln. 1^stInaugural Address

 

Thus: "The Right to Bear Arms"

The right of every American to take up arms to defend themselves, their country, their 'State'; and, their 'Constitution'.

American's give up that right, at their peril.

Gordon J Sheppard

 

I ACCUSE - Letter sent to Her Majesty the Queen

31 FALCON COURT  ELMWORTH GROVE LONDON SE21 8RG

0208 670 5795

gordon@shepherd99.fsnet.co.uk

 

Her Majesty the Queen

Buckingham Palace

London

SW1A 1AA

 

 

Your Majesty

 

I Accuse

I accuse you, Madam; of not honouring the ‘Original Contract’ throughout your entire reign.

I accuse you of failing to ‘Act as Head of Government’ monitoring Parliament in the interests of the ‘protection’ of all, your, “Subjects”; of the British Crown.

I accuse you of gross negligence and, of “Breaking the ‘Original Contract”, in not protecting your ‘Subjects’ from the tyranny of the political party, Offices, Procedures, and Practices, of the WHIPS in parliament, that “prejudice the people”; and, thereby, flout and breach the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed.” These, political party activities of, the WHIPS, in Parliament, is wholly unlawful. Yet, throughout your entire reign; you, have done nothing about this at all.

I accuse you of “Breaking the ‘Original Contract” by not intervening in the ‘protection’ of your “Subjects” when, the, “Wishes of the People were in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators” in the aftermath of the General Election of 2010; when, the leaders of the political parties elected to that Parliament, decided that they had the ‘right’ to ‘ignore’ the peoples wishes as determined by the voting results of that election; (which called for a ‘Conservative led Minority Government’); and, who then further decided that they had the ‘right’, to form an administration, masquerading as government, entirely, on their own. I, accuse you, of failing to use the “Royal Prerogative”, to, order the immediate dissolution of Parliament. Protecting, the, People, from this abuse.

I defy anyone and all claiming the lawful validity for this travesty; to produce the ‘written evidence’, for, such claim. There is no such ‘evidence’ in existence, at all.

I accuse you and all of your ‘administration’ of sheer, DESPOTISM. Both, you, and, all your administration, treat ‘Subjects of the Crown’ with absolute contempt. Your ‘administration’ assumes the authority of the “Reigning Monarch”; treating, “Subjects”, as though they were dirt. They are rude and discourteous in answering the phone. Letters sent for the personal attention of, YOU, YOURSELF, Madam; are never answered at all.

I am sick and tired of having no ‘protection’ of LAW whatsoever in my country.

Of, being treated, ‘worse’ than you treat your, ‘Corgis’, Madam;

 I have therefore published my accusations (as enclosed) on the Internet.  I fully intend to vigorously pursue these accusations and allegations, with the foreign press. Someone has to highlight your gross negligence. And, the wholly, illegal way, in which we, ‘British’ are being governed today.

The “Reigning Monarch” of England is not about the opening of hospitals and other notable establishments; or, of the hosting of garden parties; or, of travelling the World promoting British goods and prestige. The “Reigning Monarch” of England serves but one purpose and, true intent; that is, that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”.

The, very, basis, and, concept of “The Original Contract”.

“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."

HENRY POWLE; Speaker, of the CONVENTION (Parliament) 1688.

Sincerely

 Gordon J Sheppard

Status: 85 years of age, retired.

Enc. Document: “I Accuse”.

 

I Accuse...

I accuse all those listed below of the complete dereliction of duty, and, of, breaking the law.

1. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, of not protecting Her Subjects; and, of not honouring the terms of the ‘Original Contract’, throughout, her reign.

2. The Offices, Procedures, and Practices of the political party WHIPS in Parliament; and, all Members of Parliament  complying with the WHIPS political party ‘diktat’ and instructions; of ‘breaking the LAW; by, the, “Prejudice of the People”; and, thereby flouting and breaching the, ‘precedent’ of Law, set out in the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

3. The present ‘coalition administration’, masquerading as government; as having no ‘legality’ at all. It is a corrupt administration that was not ‘elected’; It, was wholly created by corrupt political party leaders that, refused to accept “The Peoples” vote of the General Election of 2010; which called for a ‘Conservative led Minority Government; and, they then proceeded to create this ‘illegal’ administration, entirely on their own. “The People”, being, wholly excluded, from, this enterprise.

4. The entire British Judiciary of conspiring against the British people by denying them the right to test, question, or challenge Parliament, from within ‘LAW’. Conspiring to deceive the British people, that, it is “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, that prevents that ‘challenge’ in the Courts. When, the “Bill of Rights 1689”, makes it abundantly clear, by ‘precedent’ in British ‘Law’; that anyone may challenge Parliament in the Courts, whenever Parliament, ‘prejudice the people’.

 

(1), ELIZABETH THE SECOND.

All ‘Reigning Monarch’s’ occupying the British throne are required to honour the terms of the “Original Contract”. This is an unwritten contract; but, it is fully established as ‘precedent’ in English Law; King James II was actually removed from the throne in 1688, for, ‘breaking this contract’. Its concept derives essentially from the reality that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord.” The British People do not endure their imposed ‘subjugation’ to Monarchy, for, as long as a Monarch shall reign, for nothing. They are entitled to receive something in return. All ‘Reigning Monarchs’ are therefore required to provide the protection, for, ‘Subjects’ of the British Crown. They, are required to act, as, ‘Head of Government’, to monitor Parliament, in the interests of providing the ‘Subjects’ protection. Protecting the, ‘Subject’, from the tyranny of the, ‘abuses’, and, the ‘prejudice’ of Parliament. The Monarch’s priority role and duty in compliance with the “Original Contract”, is to vet the business of Parliament, and, the ‘Bills’ passed by Parliament, to ensure the elimination of corruption. And, in order that the ‘Reigning Monarchs’ can carry out that role, properly and efficiently, they, are provided, with two ‘legal instruments’ to make that possible: “The Royal Assent” and “The Royal Prerogative”.

The “Royal Assent” provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right and duty to approve or, refuse approval, to the ‘Laws’ and ‘Bills’ passed by Parliament.

The “Royal Prerogative” provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with three options designed for the protection of The People: (A), to encourage Ministers of Government; (B), to warn Ministers of Government; and, (C), “Whenever, the wishes of, The People, is directly in conflict with the actions of the legislators, to use the “Royal Prerogative”, ordering the dissolution of Parliament.

Both of these two ‘legal instruments’ are specifically designed, for the protection of the ‘Subject.’

Constitutional Monarchy does not relieve the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of this responsibility.

 History:

The Convention (Parliament) of 1688 removed King James the Second from the throne.

He was charged with having “Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People” and the Convention ruled that thereby he had abdicated the throne. The Convention declared, that, the throne was ‘Vacant’; and, Prince William of Orange became the next King. But, the Convention went even further in respect to the ‘Lineal Descent’, (All other succeeding ‘Reigning Monarch’s that would sit upon the British throne). By, declaring that,

“The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the Original Contract he too can be Deposed”.

In a huge debate held in the ‘Painted Chamber’ of the House of Commons on the 22^nd January 1688 both, Commons and Lords, debated the words, “Abdicated” and,  “The Throne is Vacant”, in respect to the removal of King James from the throne. In that debate, HENRY POWLE, the ‘Speaker’ of the House of Commons, said this,

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."

This is, the true interpretation and import of “Original Contract”. It is fully binding in, ‘LAW’, upon every British ‘Reigning Monarch’ that sits upon the British throne.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured that ‘Contract’ all of the time that she has occupied that throne. Thereby, the throne is as, ‘Vacant’, today, as it was in 1688, when, King James II was removed from the throne.

 ELIZABETH THE SECOND.

(The Specific Charges Against)

As the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England, she must be fully aware that the British People have no protection of, “LAW”. The British People do not have access to:

A, Written Constitution; or,

A, Proper ‘Bill of Rights’; or,

A, “Supreme Court of Law”;

 

The only protection of ‘LAW” that the British ‘Subject’ has, and, that they are entitled to, is the protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’.

 Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has denied that protection.

 

 The Charges:

 

The Offices, Procedures and Practices of the political party ‘WHIPS’ in Parliament.

 ELIZABETH THE SECOND must be aware that these ‘political party’ activities in Parliament ‘prejudice the people’. These, activities, ‘prejudice the people’, by overruling and supplanting all rightful influence placed upon Members of Parliament, by the Constituent.

 She must be fully aware that this ‘prejudice of the people’ is wholly unlawful.

As the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England she must be aware, or, should be fully aware of British history as set out in the, “Statute in Force”/ “Bill of Rights 1688”/”The Said Rights Claimed”; that provides as ‘precedent’ of, ‘LAW’; that when Parliament, ‘enacts’, ‘Article 9’, of that Bill; or, any of the other “Premises” of that Bill; that, Parliament should not. ‘Prejudice 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 ‘WHIPS’ in Parliament ‘prejudice the people’; yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, provides no protection at all.

 The illegal and unlawful present ‘Conservative/Liberal’ coalition administration masquerading as Government.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND must have been aware, or, should have been aware, that when the political party leaders elected to Parliament in the General Election of 2010, ‘ignored’ the ‘Peoples Vote’ and their wishes to create a “Conservative led ‘Minority Government”; and, decided, entirely of their own volition, to create the present ‘coalition administration’ and ‘foist upon the people’ a, Government, that was not ‘elected’ at all. That, this was the direct ‘prejudice of the people’; and, that, that, flouted and breached the ‘precedent’ of ‘LAW’ set out in the, “Statute in Force/The Said Rights Claimed”.

Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, did nothing. She miserably failed to protect the British people.

What should she have done?

With the clear ‘evidence’ before her that, the “Wishes of the People were in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators”; she ought to have immediately used the “Royal Prerogative” and ordered, the immediate dissolution of Parliament.

Had she done that; had, she protected ‘Her Subjects’, there would have been a new and fresh ‘General Election’. Where, a proper ‘lawful’ Government, could be elected.

CONCLUSIONS

This ‘elite’, this ‘establishment’ of Monarchy, Government, Judiciary, Parliament, and, Politician constantly instructs the common man and woman in the country, that they must, ‘obey the law’.

Yet, they flout, and, abuse, and, break law, all of the time.

This is the very nature and consequence, of the Peoples ‘subjugation’ to a ‘Reigning Monarch’, who provides no ‘protection’ at all.

LAW, true and just Law, has nothing to do with, ‘obeying the law’.

LAW, is, as best described by LORD HAILSHAM (an ex-Lord Chancellor of England).

 He, frequently said this:

 

 “Law is a myth,  without

 the consent of the people,

 there is no law”.

Thus, it is the people’s voluntary consent to live by the ‘Rule of Law’, that is, ‘LAW’.

‘LAW’ is not the sole property of the ‘elite’ and the ‘establishment’, who today, have hijacked this thing called, ‘LAW’; as their own.

 

All, consenting to live by the, “Rule of Law” are entitled to: equality in law; the right to participate in law, and, in the creation of laws; and, they are entitled to the, protection of law, as well. Yet, the British today, have no ‘protection of law’, whatsoever.

 

It is time, for revolt.

 

Gordon J Sheppard

 

 

 

SALLY BERCOW resists the opportunism, blackmail, and. intimidation of Lord McAlpine....

I am so very proud of SALLY BERCOW (and, her husband, JOHN BERCOW, the 'Speaker' of the House of Commons), for refusing to pay 'out of court' settlements to Lord McAlpine following his opportunism, blackmail, intimidation, and threat. Unlike, the utterly cowardly BBC and ITV, who succumbed to that threat and paid McAlpine £185,000 and £125,000 respectively; SALLY BERCOW rejects the intimidation; and, she has instructed solicitors to defend her in court.

This takes real 'guts' and a great deal of courage. Because, to date, all Media, and, all public opinion, has sided with Lord McAlpine. In sheer misunderstanding of reality; and, falsely promoted by McAlpine and his corrupt solicitors, constantly, 'on the make'; they, have persuaded both Media and the public into believing that Lord McAlpine had suffered great harm. That, his name and reputation, had been dragged thru the mud.

Yet, the truth and reality of all of this, is that absolutely no one has ACCUSED Lord McAlpine of being a pedophile.

In the BBC TV Programme complained of; there was not one mention of Lord McAlpine. The only assertion made during this program, was made by someone who was a victim of sexual abuse; and, all that was said by him, was that he accused "a high ranking member of Mrs Thatcher's government". THE BBC NEVER EVEN MENTIONED LORD McALPINE's NAME. Yet, the BBC, in a display of sheer cowardice succumbed to the blackmail and the intimidation; and paid £185,000 rather than contesting the 'opportunistic' allegation, in Court.

In the ITV "This Morning" Programme complained of; Lord McAlpine asserts that his name was damaged when a list of names was passed over to DAVID CAMERON and, that in those few fleeting seconds, when the list was passed to him, the TV camera clearly displayed the 'names' featured in that list. No one during that program even mentioned any of the 'names' featured in those lists. And, throughout the entire transmission of that programme, no one even mentioned Lord McAlpine's name. ITV did not even ask for, or carry out any experiments to determine, the truth: that, indeed the TV viewer was able to discern and truly identify the names on that list. ITV, fearful of the blackmail and intimidation of Lord McAlpine and, considering, the favourable public opinion he was getting at that time; paid up £125,000, and settled out of court.

Until now there has been absolutely no one challenging McAlpine, to prove that his name and reputation was 'actually' damaged; by, being, 'actually’ accused, of being a pedophile.

SALLY BERCOW is the first one with the 'courage' to test McAlpine's assertions in a Court of Law. If there is TRUTH and JUSTICE in this land she cannot fail to win. Because, there is no one in the country, that can produce the 'evidence' that, McAlpine, has ever been 'directly accused' of being a pedophile. Lord McAlpine's entire, opportunism, blackmail, and intimidation, has been founded upon naught but, 'assumption' and 'speculation'. Without a shred of, Proof.

It is perfectly legal to post on the TWITTER website that in one's opinion someone might be a pedophile. It becomes LIBEL, only, when one asserts, that he or she, "IS A PEDOPHILE".

Gordon J Sheppard

FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE AMERICAN'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

 

The Massacre of twenty little children and eight adults in the ‘Sandy Nook’ primary school at Connecticut U.S.A.

Sadly, following this horrendous tragedy and the lunatic behaviour of one American individual ‘freak’ that apparently had no respect for 'life'. We, must now all endure the usual 'knee jerk' reaction of all those who want to control, or change, the, right to bear arms.

British news commentators, especially, the presenters of Sky News, today; by, the comments they made, indicate, that they do not understand this right, set out in the American constitution.

They point out, that, here in Great Britain, following the horrors of the shooting of innocent children at a school in DUNBLANE, in Scotland, gun control legislation was brought in. And, they cannot understand the American mentality why they don't do exactly the same.

Yet, the explanation is very simple:

The difference between the American's, and, the British, is that they are true CITIZENS of the country; with all the provisions of the rightful protection of LAW; Yet, the British, are not CITIZENS; in law. We are merely, "SUBJECTS", of the British Crown.

American's have a proper 'Written Constitution", and, a "Bill of Rights", and, a "Supreme Court of Law. The "Right to bear Arms" is written into that, 'Constitution'; and, the reasons why every American has the right to own a gun, is firstly to protect themselves from attack; and, secondly, to protect the 'State' and the 'Country', from ever becoming a "Totalitarian State".

As long as "The People" have the right to bear arms, Governments can never get too big for their boots. Governments, will always be fearful, of what "The People" might do.

That is why America is a DEMOCRACY. And, why, Great Britain, is not.

The British have no protection of LAW, whatsoever:

1. They have no written constitution.

2. They have no proper 'Bill of Rights' setting out the rights and responsibilities of 'Subjects'.

3. They have no "Supreme Court of Law" where it is possible to test, question, or challenge their Parliament, from within LAW.

4. Furthermore; denied all this protection of LAW; yet, rightfully, provided with the protection of the "Reigning Monarch", sitting upon the throne, who is charged with the responsibility of honouring the "Original Contract", requiring, the 'protection of the people', from the tyranny of the 'abuses' and 'prejudice' of Parliament. The, present, "Reigning Monarch", provides no protection at all.

The "Original Contract" is the unwritten contract existing in British Law betwixt King and “The People" It's concept is abundantly clear as, 'precedent', in English LAW:

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

King James the Second was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) in 1688, for, “Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People”. In, respect of the, 'Lineal Descent', (All succeeding reigning Monarchs), the CONVENTION ruled:

"The CONTRACT is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the CONTRACT, he, too, can be Deposed".

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the 'Original Contract' all the time she has occupied the throne.


AMERICAN'S, never give up your, "Right to bear Arms". It is the best protection of law, that you have.

If we British had that same right, possibly, today, we would not be governed by a 'coalition administration' masquerading as Government; that was not 'elected' by the People, at all.

 

If we British had that same right, we would not be governed by the domination of the political parties, and their, WHIPS, in Parliament; that has no 'legality' at all.

IF WE BRITISH HAD THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS; WE TOO, MIGHT ENJOY, PROPER PROTECTION OF LAW.

For as long as we remain, "Subjects of the British Crown" - wholly defenceless- we shall never enjoy that right.

Gordon J Sheppard

 

 

Historical Sexual Abuse...

With the arrest and allegations against, Stuart Hall; and, his being suspected, of, 'historical' sexual rape and assault. This, entire sex abuse 'hysteria', is now getting way out of hand.  If, this continues, at this present ludicrous pace, it will not be too long before the police start making enquiries into:

The, rape and pillage of the 'VIKINGS';

When, they invaded England, centuries ago.