This in from http://nominedeus.wordpress.com/
If there was ever any doubt that the government are all crooks, just read this letter and slap your-self in the face for not doing anything about it.
Oh and fuck me you need to be watching the vid at the end of this post, just watch it, hell if you never come here again just watch this one little vid.
The House of
Each house of parliament has a common law cognisance to run its own business, in its own way; neither house can by Common Law interfere in the internal working of the other house.
This is the constitutional settlement placed upon parliament by our forefathers, and described in the Prerogatives of the King by Sir Mathew Hale 1713 Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. And F W Maitland Late Downing Professor of the Laws of England in the University of Cambridge. At the university press 1908.
Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice of the Kings Bench 1628 ruled that parliament may some times pass a law which is repugnant or impossible to perform in which case the common law will intercede and strike it down. Giving the Common Law the status of higher law than statute law.
There are a number of cases of the cognisance of the commons to conduct its own business its own way, but I have not been able to find one case which deals with either house interfering in the running of the other house. Yet this is exactly what the House of Commons has done to the House of Lords, they started this process in 1661 after the restoration of King Charles II when the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill only accept it or reject it, the commons were claiming without any legal authority, complete autonomy in all things financial. This was the commons interfering with the cognisance of the upper house to do its job of scrutinising legislation. For some inexplicable reason the Lords accepted this state of affairs. This was the precursor to all the subsequent parliament acts.
In 1910 Asquith put forward a money bill and the upper house being erroneously of the opinion that they had no authority to amend this bill rejected it. In fact the upper house had the common law right to amend it and return the amended bill to the commons for approval.
As a result Asquith put forward the first parliament act which limited the authority of the upper house, Asquith told the upper house if they did not consent to this bill he would put 500 new Peers into the hose who would vote for its abolition, when this bill to restrict the upper house was submitted to King Edward VII he refused the assent on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. In fact it interfered with the cognisance of the upper house to perform its duties in the manor laid down by the constitutional and common laws of England, these laws are so good they have travelled to every common law jurisdiction in the world. Even Talleyrand our sworn enemy said when the English Constitution goes freedom goes.
King Edward VII fell ill and died, and on coming to the Throne King George V was told by a government minister he keeps all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a government minister. This principle is unknown to our constitutional or common law. The assent was given to the 1911 Parliament Act which effectively weakened the authority of the upper house but with no constitutional or common law authority for the commons to even contemplate such a move. The mere fact they are the elected house does not authorise their actions. Because at no time have the public been put in the constitutional picture, which would allow them to make an informed decision. As to whether they wish to weaken the upper house in this or any other way. In fact Asquith toured the country slanting the true position so much as to be an outright lie.
The 1948 Parliament Act was yet another interference with the cognisance of the upper house to perform its constitutional duties, as our forefathers set it up. Once again this was done without the benefit of law, nor is there any justifiable legal principle which can be quoted to justify the unjustifiable.
The 1998 House of Lords Act by the same token interferes with the cognisance of the upper house to determine itself who does or does not sit in the upper house. This is a clear breach of the constitutional arrangements of parliament and is contrary to constitutional and common law.
Each of the above acts has subverted the constitutional arrangements of parliament; this is the major crime of Sedition at Common Law, and at this level of Sedition an act of High Treason.
The letters patent as granted to a Baron of the realm are such as to be a clear and lawful order from the King, to the recipient of the letter patent to undertake certain duties on the Kings behalf, it is clear that the King can not possibly know or understand every thing put before him, he should have a good general understanding of his Kingdom, his subjects, and world affairs. But there will always be occasions when his knowledge or understanding will fall short of allowing him without assistance from reaching the right decision. In order that he has a ready source of advisors who are good and capable men, he uses those peers of the realm that he or his ancestors have appointed to Baronetcies, and the letters patent represent a lawful order from the King to the holder of the Letters Patent to undertake this work. They instruct the holder of the Letters Patent that he must sit in the upper house of parliament and scrutinise legislation passing through the parliament to ensure it is in the best interests of the country and his subjects, it further gives a lawful order to the holder of the letters Patent that he is to act as an advisor to the King. In short the King requires those with the best available knowledge and experience to advise him as to the best course of action under any circumstances.
England is a Monarchy and we all owe a duty of loyalty and obedience to our lawfully anointed sovereign, the letters patent are by our laws to be obeyed.
For any one who ever they may be, whatever position they hold within the Kingdom be they farm labour or Prime Minister to come between the King and the holder of the letters patent so as to prevent the holder from carrying out the lawful commands of the King is for that person to set himself above the King. That by our law is an act of High Treason contrary to the Common Law of England and the 1351 Treason Act.
I respectfully submit that is just what Anthony Blair did when he put through the 1998 House of Lords Act. He in effect set Her Majesty’s lawful order to those hereditary peers sat in the upper house at nought thereby imagining the death of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen. Contrary to Common Law and the 1351 Treason Act.
He also removed Her Majesty’s honour as a Sovereign Queen by assuming he had a greater authority in this Kingdom than Her Majesty. Contrary to Common Law and the 1848 Treason Felony Act.
I would like you to explain to me why I should comply with any law passed in Parliament since 1911 because since that day parliament has not been properly constructed according to the tripartite agreement set in place by our forefathers, and as such it has no mandate to pass any legislation.
I would further request that for every hereditary peer removed from the upper house, under the 1998 House of Lords Act. A warrant should be issued for the arrest of Anthony Linton Blair one time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on a charge of High Treason for imagining the death of the Anointed Queen of England Queen Elizabeth II Contrary to Common Law and the 1351 Treason Act.
- Congressional and Parliamentary Systems of Government (socyberty.com)
- A Middle Way for the Upper House? (politicsontoast.com)
- Act of Parliament (englishlearnersweb.wordpress.com)
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said the country could turn to a meaner, nastier place than the dark and divisive days of the 1980s, unless the government revises its policy of savage cuts, the daily Mirror reported.
Barber compared the coalition government with the Thatcher government of the 80s, and said it is vital, as many people as possible take part in Saturday’s March for an Alternative, to clearly show their anger and opposition to the government policies.
It is expected that more than 100,000 people attend the TUC-organized anti-cuts rallies in London on Saturday March 26.
“This marks a really new phase in the whole of this Parliament and is potentially of realpolitical significance,” Barber added.
“It will be the British people not just trade union members, but people who use services, rely on services, people in voluntary groups and community groups looking for a way of expressing their anger and opposition,” the TUC general secretary went on to say.
“They [the cuts] are hitting the poorest and weakest hardest and we need to send a message that the British people oppose what they are doing and they need to change course,” Barber noted.
Barber also warned the government the Saturday march was the start of a summer of protests.
“Local groups have started to work together as they see the implications, whether it’s libraries or services that support old people or facilities for young people. And after March 26 this campaign isn’t going to be going away. We are going to be putting pressure on MPs, particularly Coalition MPs in their constituencies.”
Hmmm it looks like the MP`s can smell the shit that’s about to hit the fan, well they all have brown noses anyway a little bit more wont hurt, its funny these days just watching any MP on the old telly or pc, look into their eyes you can see that somethings bothering them, that shakyness to the voice speaks volumes.
Anyway this in from press TV,
A number of Parliament’s joint committee on human rights are extremely worried about the dangerous tactics the police may use to confront the May 26 demonstrators.
Met Police used “kettling” tactics during students’ protests, which caused a chaos across the country.
According to MPs, the tactics the police force may use, could spread anger among peaceful demonstrators
There will be a huge demonstration in Hyde Park on March 26. Ed Miliband, Labour leader, has said he would give a speech in Hyde Park. However, he has not yet said if he would join the central London march afterward. Peter Hain, a Labour shadow cabinet member, has said he would march with the protestors.
Hundreds of public transportation vehicles will bring thousands of activists and protestors to join the demonstration.
The anti-cuts demonstration is to be held on March 26, started at 1100 GMT on the Victoria Embankment between Temple Place and Blackfriars.