BREXIT IS UNLAWFUL

BREXIT – Just one chance left to stop the insanity.

Just one chance left before leaving the E.U. without a deal.

Just one chance left to challenge the LEGALITY of BREXIT; and secure an injunction in the Courts, to stop all procedures of BREXIT until the Court has heard the case.

 

BREXIT IS TOTALLY UNLAWFUL.

Three ‘prima facie’ reasons verify why BREXIT is unlawful,

1. The Referendum ballot paper was fraudulent and corrupt.
2. The ‘lies’ BORIS JOHNSON told perverted and corrupted the final vote of the Referendum.
3. “Article 50” of the E.U. (Withdrawal) Bill was passed in parliament by a “Whipped Vote”; which has no LEGALITY at all.

 

The ‘corrupt’ Ballot Paper


It only provided two boxes to tick to,  ‘LEAVE’ or ‘REMAIN’


It provided no information at all as to what was to happen if the voter's voted to ‘LEAVE’.

It provided no ‘MANDATE’ to anyone or anything to take charge of procedures if the declared vote was to, ‘LEAVE’ the E.U.

Parliament granted the democratic Referendum; therefore Parliament ought to have taken charge when the final declared vote was to ‘LEAVE’. But, THERESA MAY seized that control for herself; she declared “BREXIT IS BREXIT”; and she set her ‘red lines’ and undemocratically she began the withdrawal negotiations with the E.U.

THERESA MAY INSISTED ON A ‘WHIPPED VOTE’ IN PARLIAMENT IN ORDER TO PASS “ARTICLE 50” & SECURE THE ‘ROYAL ASSENT’ – Without any LEGALITY at all.

But, the worst thing about the ‘Ballot Paper’ was the fact that it provided no information whatsoever, about the ‘Disadvantages’ on leaving the E.U. The ‘Ballot Paper’ failed to advise the British people voting in that Referendum, that if they voted to ‘LEAVE’ the E.U.; they would also be leaving, ALL PROTECTION OF LAW, as well.

The only protection of LAW that they had, and have, is the protection of the “European Court of Justice” and the “European Human Rights Law”.

 The ‘elite’ establishment of MONARCHY, JUDICIARY, GOVERNMENT & PARLIAMENT does not provide any protection of ‘LAW’ at all. There is no, “Written Constitution”, “Bill of Rights”; or “Supreme Court of Law” where it is possible to test question or challenge the ‘abuse’ and the ‘prejudice’ of Parliament, from within ‘LAW’.

BORIS JOHNSON’s ‘lies’,

BORIS JOHNSON throughout the Referendum ‘LEAVE’ campaign repeatedly told lie after lie in support of that campaign. They were not only ‘lies’ they were ‘FACTUAL PROMISES’ promised to the voter, if they voted to, ‘LEAVE“

1. If you vote to leave the E.U. trade with Europe will continue uninterrupted precisely as it does now“
2. "If you vote to leave the E.U. trade with the rest of the World would be enhanced”.“
3. "If you vote to leave the E.U. ‘£350,000 per week presently paid to the E.U. would become available for the NHS” (The National Health Service”)
4. THESE LIES WERE, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF TELEVISION, TRANSMITTED TO EVERY TV RECEIVER THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THEY WERE ALSO WIDELY PUBLISHED IN EVERY NATIONAL NEWSPAPER. SO THESE ‘LIES’ WERE WHOLLY AVAILABLE TO BE SEEN AND HEARD, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 
5. This being the fact of the matter, it is safe to assert that BORIS JOHNSON’S ‘LIES’; ‘could have corrupted’ the final vote declared in that Referendum. Sufficient, therefore, for any honest Court to determine and declare the Referendum vote of 2016, to be UNSAFE. And, must not no longer be relied upon.

 “ARTICLE 50” and the “Whipped Vote

The WHIPS in parliament have no LEGALITY at all.

They are not ‘entrenched’ in LAW. And,

Throughout the entire National Archive of Great Britain there is not one legal document verifying the right and use of the “WHIPS” in Parliament.

When the WHIPS instruct ‘elected’ Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote; this overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon those Members, by the Constituents. That elected those Members in the first place.

This therefore causes the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”. Which is wholly proscribed by the ‘peoples protection’ provided by the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

This paragraph of the “Bill of Rights 1689” specifically instructs Parliament; that Parliament may ‘enact’ or ‘apply’ any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill; but only upon the conditions that parliament, “OUGHT NOT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.

This paragraph of that Bill, “The Said Rights Claimed” is the over-all superior authority of the Bill; for it states within its text, that it is the authority over “any of the ‘PREMISES’ of the Bill.

Here is the text of, "The Said Rights Claimed"

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”

There is no doubt whatsoever, that according to ‘LAW’ BREXIT has no LEGALITY whatsoever. The Courts must now declare, BREXIT IS UNLAWFUL.  

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.
    

BORIS JOHNSON "Worldwide Promise" "WE WILL OBEY THE LAW"

“WE WILL OBEY THE LAW”

In response to the, “Emergency Question” debate held in parliament; and the question JESS PHILLIPS MP posed; BORIS JOHNSON, for the Government; replied with these words;

“We Will Obey The Law”.

Furthermore, to all other “Emergency Questions” posed by other Members of Parliament; every Government Minister in reply, repeatedly quoted that phrase again.

Many faces of the TORY Party Members beamed a gleeful satisfied smirk; they being confident, that this reply by BORIS JOHNSON (Their Leader) had been very clever; and had therefore prevented all further ‘attacks’ of opposition to the Governments objectives for, BREXIT.

 

But, BORIS JOHNSON had not been clever at all. In promising the World; that the Government; “Will Obey the Law”; he had ‘opened the door’ to providing all the British People with the ‘rightful access to ‘LAW’, in order to challenge the true LEGALITY of a “Whipped Vote” in parliament; and, to bring about a “TRUE DEMOCRACY” in the country; replacing the “Totalitarian Regime” as endured now.

 

BORIS JOHNSON, his entire Government, and the TORY PARTY, now promising the World, that they, “WILL OBEY THE LAW” must now be asked this;

 

“WILL THEY OBEY THE LAW” of, “THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED”

 

This ‘LAW’ of the “Said Rights Claimed” is the most important ‘LAW’ provided by the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689”.

“Article 9” of that Bill provides the “SUPREMACY” of Parliament; but the, “Said Rights Claimed”, is the over-all supreme authority of the entire Bill; for it states within its text that it has the ‘authority’ over any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill.

 

“The Said Rights Claimed” makes it abundantly clear and provides precise instruction to all of parliament; that parliament may ‘enact’ or ‘apply’ any of the “PREMISES” of the Bill; but, only upon the conditions that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”. (Here is the evidence proving this is so)

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 ‘WHIPS’ in parliament instructing ‘elected’ Members of Parliament on how they must or should ‘vote’; does cause the “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”; Because, it overrules and supplants all rightful influence, of the Constituents. Who elected those Members of Parliament in the first place.

Therefore, the ‘WHIPS’ Office and political party activities in parliament has no LEGALITY at all. And, in consequence; a “Whipped Vote” in parliament; has no LEGALITY whatsoever. Wholly establishing in ‘LAW’ that, “BREXIT”, is undoubtedly COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL.

Because the, “EU (WITHDRAWAL) BILL ‘ARTICLE 50”, was passed in parliament in a ‘Whipped Vote”. HAVING NO LEGALITY AT ALL.

The mere challenge to the “Supreme Court” establishing, in LAW the legal validity of, “The Said Rights Claimed”, should force that Court to uphold that TRUE ‘legality’ of "The Said Rights Claimed"; thereby establishing once and for all that “BREXIT” must be abolished; because it has no LEGALITY at all.

 

For you further information,

 

“The Said Rights Claimed”

ONE LAW, “WRITTEN IN STONE”

The ‘one law’ that can never be amended or even abolished by parliament; without causing the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”

As, provided - by this LAW.

 

Prime Minister, BORIS JOHNSON; all Members of Parliament; and, all the JUDICIARY; and, all the profession of LAW in the country; cannot ever assert or claim, that the approval of the political party WHIPS in Parliament; has been granted to parliament; by a FREE vote.

 

Because, the mere proposition of presenting this to parliament for the vote; is wholly unlawful. Any attempt by parliament to amend or abolish “The Said Rights Claimed” does, “PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”. Which is, ‘proscribed’, by this LAW.

 

“The Said Rights Claimed” provides the “Protection of the People” from the ‘abuse’ of parliament - any attempt to amend or abolish it – takes that protection away. Thereby, causing the, “PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE”; provided, by this LAW.