ALL UK LEGISLATION PASSED SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID
Can this be so? I have no knowledge of law, constitutional or otherwise, but the MSM are ignoring this analysis by Christopher Story.
When the MSM ignores such a clear declaration by such a well respected journalist I wonder why.
Read it yourself and decide.
Posts
22 comments:
Rosie,
I have been contacted by two guys whose research indicates that the problem started way back in 1913.
The very best that this government can hope for is that people only concentrate on the last ten years. For almost a century their "lawmaking" has been illegal.
Keep an eye on my place. I will be doing a series of blogs on this most important subject.
The answer to your question:
"Can this be so?"
is yes.
CR.
Morning CR. This is something which has to be highlighted, over and over again.
I always keep an eye on your blog. ;)
Scary though CR, but we, the people, should insist this is corrected.
The ramifications though, are unimaginable.
Everyone convicted of "crimes" concerning the illegal statutes (since 1913!) has a case for appeal and/or compensation.
They will find a very big carpet and many brooms and begin sweeping.
My two new friends have a plan. I will work with them to execute it.
This is no longer a rabbit hole.
This is the Kimberley mine.
The truth we know is a lie. You are quite right: it needs a healthy dose of sunlight.
CR.
Cranks.
They should give away free tinfoil hats on that site. Generate much-needed publicity.
Christopher Story is a crank??? His credentials are impeccable.
William, I suggest you report immediately to your duvet and go back to sleep.
No tin foil hats are in evidence here. Before you retire you may want to study Hansard.
Or is that publication written by cranks too?
CR.
Well, it is interesting. Firstly, the site is quite clearly on the "enthusiastic" side - securitisation being illegal; the appalling condition of the EU accounts meaning the countries can claim the money back etc.
A quick review ...
The text of letters patent for peers (found in a 1992 SI here) include:
"hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors"
However, to be actually seated, a peer must also have a "Writ of Summons" to Parliament - historically, peers appointed abroad (Governors etc), Peers in rebellion, madmen and peers under age (21) have not been issued Writs of Summons. s5(2) off the 1999 Act cancels most of the then current HoL Writs of Summons. s4 and s6 of the Peerage Act 1963 make it clear that the right to hold the honours and titles of a peer and the right to receive Writs of Summons are linked but separate.
Although s1 of the 1999 act might have been more historically written "No-one shall receive a Writ of Summons to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage", I don't see that the extreme hyperbole of the linked site is justified.
They manage to ignore the fact that most of the British Public want a referendum on the EU, so this will seem like small fry.
Aye, DL that's what I thought too.
So no laws broken from your point of view SE. Thanks for your contribution.
They ignored millions protesting against the Iraq war too Sue, so I'm afraid you may be right.
Thanks for your comment William.
If half a million of you send me £500 quid each, I'll issue the writ.
This can of worms will never see the light of day let alone be tested in court. It's clear Alice & Looking glass thinking.
After all, we cannot get a war criminal convicted?
And at the end of the day we in Scotland need an authority we can deliver the letter of independence to.
It does show what little regard our governors have for the law of the land though RA.
I know wikipedia is not the best source of information, but going on the information about the author of that post (He apparently refers to the Worlds Wars as the Illumati Wars and suggested that Ted Heath was an agent of the Nazis before and after the war), I would place his theory with that of David Icke.
That's not to say that the UK constitution is perfect, but such a massive problem would be picked up and used, by say an appeal lawyer. Or simply legislated out of existence.
Who will guard the guards Rosa.
Because a new legislation overrides or amends some aspects of an old law it doesn't mean the old comes off the statutes.
A State cannot deny its own existence and sovereignty - that would leave it open to all sorts of liabilities and challenges.
Would you believe they could even sell it to the highest bidding bankers.
Wiki is not always perfect Hythlodaeus. It omits to mention Gordon Brown, when he was first parachuted into his Dunfermline East seat, was supported by two people with very strong ties to the Kremlin, Jack Jones and Alex Kitson.
I'm afraid your trust in lawyers is far greater than mine. Just thinking of how government lawyers behaved regarding the Iraq war showed me that.
RA I certainly didn't know that. Wouldn't they have to have the consent of the people?
As an aged cynic, I always read text with sections in block capitals with a very cold eye as in most cases, they are the mark of a crank. This seems to fit the bill pretty well.
Short answer Rosa - under the present Westminster arrangement no: only the consent of parliament.
Actually Richard, that's what troubled me about it, the sections with block capitals. It wasn't well written at all.
Thanks RA. :(
Post a Comment