The strength of English law lies in its flexibility

  • 0 Replies
  • 500 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4115
  • +75/-0
The strength of English law lies in its flexibility
« on: January 15, 2019, 08:36:15 PM »
The reason it took nearly fifty years to even begin to extricate ourselves form the New Reich is because no one could understand or wished to understand that this issue has never been one of politics but one of law and constitution and it remains so to this day. The strength of English law lies in its flexibility. We have the people’s common law, the book of rules by which we live our social lives and statute law created by our elected administration which is subject and subordinate to the people's common law which is appropriate as the people hold the supreme power in the land.
 
Parliament, having no powers of its own what so ever it being a temporary and subordinate authority is constrained by the people’s common law constitution, the safeguard against despotism. Another safeguard is the principle that the letter of the law is subordinate to the spirit and intent of the law which is why we have Hansard as a permanent reference. Another limitation on Parliament is the fact that it can only undo that which Parliament has done.
 
All statutes can be amended or repealed by Parliament but some such as recognised and accepted as constitutional statutes have special status and as such require particular procedures.  Where as most statutes become repealed by Implied repeal, constitutional statutes require Express repeal, a much more complicated procedure that can even require a general election to resolve the complications.
 
On the issue hereby under discussion namely the illegality of our so called membership of the EU it is inarguable that in 1972 the Conservative Party then in government, without consent or mandate by the British people despotically engaged in a treasonous agreement with a foreign political power and in what can only be seen as an act of capitulation to that power signed away the sovereignty of the nation state thus deliberately extinguishing the supremacy of the peoples Crown and deposing the peoples elected monarch as sovereign head of state.
 
As Parliament formerly drew its legitimacy from the Crown it follows that since that time Parliament has been acting without lawful legitimacy and as such has been an unlawful assembly. It cannot and must not be overlooked that the instant PM Heath put pen to paper in signing up to the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome he dismissed himself from office and rendered himself subject to charges of high treason against the Nation State. Heath's signature therefore was then and remains meaningless.
 
Despite this, Parliament, then acting without legitimacy or lawful authority engaged in a charade of creating an act of Parliament, the ECA72,  to create the pretence that its act of surrender and capitulation to a foreign political power was indeed justified and lawful, often claiming itself to be sovereign over the British people, although that claim seems to have melted away of late.
 
Not only has Parliament destroyed its constitutional legitimacy by its arrogant despotism it has destroyed its purpose by transferring its loyalty and allegiance to the British people to its chosen foreign masters.
Even after our leaving the EU supposedly later this year this will not change until the treachery, corruption and deceit has been openly exposed and accountability demanded and upheld. 
 
The establishment and the political class have made a mockery of our ancient constitution and law. So widespread and extensive is the treachery it seems almost impossible to know where to begin.
Perhaps arguably the Conservative Party as an institution have the most to answer for, it was the Conservative Party that initially sold us out to foreign rule and it is the Conservative Party that despite the people's referendum result are still desperately attempting to maintain our subordination to that self proclaimed political empire. Perhaps a private prosecution against the chairman of that party on the grounds of misprision of treason might start the ball rolling.
 
Bob Lomas.   The Magna Carta Society.#

==================================================================================

REXIT] Your Article in Brexit Central.
 
John/Martin firstly there is no British constitution there is a very good English constitution comprising Magna Carta 1215 the Petition of Rights 1628 Habeas Corpus 1795 the Bill of Rights 1689 not my selection but Professor Taswell-Langemeds Professor of constitutional history and Law at the university college London 1879. The Scots have their own law which was not affected by the Act of Union which is why Scots law varies from our today. The Bill of Rights cannot be amended because it incorporates the Declaration of Rights which was made by a meeting of the estates of England, England's highest law giving body with authority to fire and hire Kings which they did when they effectively fired James II and hired William III and Mary II. The Parliament which enacted the Declaration of Right as a Parliamentary bill was comprised of the representatives of the people summoned by Prince William of Orange to decide how we the English wished to be ruled they were not elected politicians in the ordinary way they were co-opted by William after the estates of England had offered him the Crown subject to him accepting the Declaration of Rights in its entirety, as such Parliament was simply the representatives of the people putting as a statute law the full terms of the Declaration of Rights. This Parliament being merely an extension of the estates of England added two codicils this bill cannot be amended after September 1689 and this Bill is for all time. As it was made by the same estate of England who had fired James II and hired William and Mary it is the over arching law of England it does not include Scotland who later put into law their own version the claim of rights. Both the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Rights simply reissued existing law. Most of which were legal contracts between the King and the subject renewed when a new King takes the oath at their coronation. Albert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [BREXIT] Your Article in Brexit Central.
 
Dear Martin,   Your reply shows that you are part of the establishment which peddles the lie that parliament is sovereign.  It is not. The people are sovereign; that is why they had to hold a referendum to let the people decide if we should stay in the EU.
The Bill of Rights 1689 came from a document which codified the British constitution in one document. It cannot be altered by parliament because any subsequent act which purports to change this is no law because the Bill of Rights is the common law codified.
Lord Kilmuir, the lord chancellor wrote and told Edward Heath, that if he signed the treaty of Rome he would be committing treason. Since 1972 parliament has dug itself deeper and deeper into the crime which allows the paedophiles and corrupt bankers free reign, because they have the power of blackmail that the knowledge that government operates outside the law gives them.
Our constitution, which the parliaments, up to about a year ago would not mention, has been mentioned many times in the Brexit debates. I suspect that if I asked you for a copy of what you believe to be our constitution, that you might trot out the reply that we don't have one, or if challenged, that it developed over time and so is in several documents. This of course is not true. Until 1688 it was true and that is why the judges of the day, guardians of our common law, codified into the declaration of rights. Parliament thought it so good that they enacted the bill of rights
There are many so called Brexiteers who know this including Farage, Gerard Batten, and Jacob Rees Mogg. They all commit the offence of misprision of treason but presumably they are safe in the knowledge that they are complying with the establishment's wishes.
I suspect that you are of the same ilk, in that you care more for your position than the truth and the law; after all you work for the so called law which cannot be justified by parliament because it would be against the Queen's oath of office. The law which allows you to call yourself a QC, which in reality is a corporation which depends on the deceit of the legal fiction.
Perhaps, just perhaps I have written to a man with a convenience. More likely I have written to a man who refuses to expose the corruption in our society by speaking the truth, even though he knows more children will be abused by the establishment and more people will be robbed by the bankers. People who ignore the serious suffering of others are called Psychopaths. Yours sincerely John Timbrell.#


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Your Article in Brexit Central.
 
Dear John
 
Thanks for your comments.
Unfortunately neither the common law nor the Bill of Rights 1689 (which is a statute capable of being amended or over-ridden by a later of Act of Parliament) can prevail against an Act such as the European Communities Act 1972 which gave direct effect to the European treaties.
So the battle against this latest attempt to give away our sovereignty has to be won at the political level and I hope we have your support in that.
 
Best regards
 
Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Your Article in Brexit Central.
 
Dear Martin I tried posting the following on Lawyers for Britain but the send wheel is permanently spinning so I'll use this method.
 
Your article and most of the other articles in Lawyers for Britain discuss at lengths detailed legal arguments regarding Brexit.
The truth is that for all your espousing of the advantages and need for Brexit, you are causing much harm to your supposed cause.
You must know that all our treaties giving away our sovereignty to the EU is against our constitution which is common law made statute in the Bill of rights 16.89
Are there no courageous men and women out there to stand up to the people who control our MPs.
You could rescue our country if you told the truth. John Timbrell
 


_______________________________________________
BREXIT mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailkat.net/mailman/listinfo/brexit_mailkat.net

To JOIN this list send an email to:
[email protected]

To LEAVE this list send an email to:
[email protected]





 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk