C.STORY: ALL UK LEGISLATION PASSED SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID

ALL UK LEGISLATION PASSED SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID

IMPLICATIONS OF MISMANAGEMENT OF 'REFORM' OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Saturday 10 April 2010 01:01

[link to worldreports.org]

• SUBVERSIVE PLAN TO IMPOSE FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

• 'CONSERVATIVE' LEADER DAVID CAMERON BACKS THIS WHEEZE, TOO

• MONARCH’S KEY RESIDUAL POWER IS TO CALL FOR
A SUITABLE CANDIDATE TO FORM A GOVERNMENT

• ALL LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID

• HEREDITARY PEERS NOT REMOVABLE BY GENERAL LEGISLATION

• AUTHORITY FOR THIS STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT ITSELF

• ANALYSIS OF BARONESS ASHTON’S LORDS STATEMENT

• 900 HEREDITARY PEER-SPECIFIC BILLS WOULD BE NEEDED

• BOTCHED OBFUSCATION OF BLAIR’S HAM-FISTED MISCALCULATION

• THE UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF PEERS’ PASSES TO THE LORDS

• RECAPITULATION OF THE ANALYSIS TO THIS POINT

• HOUSE OF LORDS WAS THEN PACKED WITH BLAIR’S CRONIES

• DEFINITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BOTCHED REVOLUTIONARY OPERATION

• HOW THIS CHAOTIC STATE OF AFFAIRS CAN BE RECTIFIED WITH MINIMAL HASSLE

• WHY THE REVOLUTIONARIES HAVE SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT

• POSTSCRIPT: NOTHING THE NEW PARLIAMENT PASSES WILL BE VALID, EITHER

• ‘SCUM OF THE EARTH’, ‘TOO CLEVER BY HALF’

• WITHOUT ABOLITION OF THE 1999 ACT, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS POINTLESS


SUBVERSIVE PLAN TO IMPOSE FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Having successfully degraded Britain’s public finances and its currency, first by years of inordinate socialist public spending and then by burdening all future generations with unconscionable public debt obligations because he didn’t like the sight of Argentine-style queues of customers lining the streets to withdraw their savings from the corrupt Northern Rock bank, the international socialist British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is secretly continuing the subversive operation launched by his corrupt predecessor, Tony Blair, to destroy the Monarchy and to convert Britain into a Republic.

Mounting evidence that the revolutionary UK Labour Government seeks the destruction of the Monarchy was confirmed on 8th April, when Brown stated, at the outset of the General Election campaign, that he will introduce fixed-term Parliaments and a referendum on the reform of the British first-past-the-post voting system if Labour is re-elected on 6th May.

In announcing an intention to impose fixed-term Parliaments, Brown is clearly accommodating the Campaign for Fixed-Term Parliaments – an innocuous-sounding but in fact thoroughly subversive, revolutionary so-called ‘cross-party’ initiative that has been campaigning behind the scenes to persuade gormless politicians whose brains reside mainly in their boots that the Prime Minister’s power to call for an election at the time of his choosing is by some alchemy an anti-democratic constitutional anachronism, and should be replaced by a fixed term of four or five years.

• Any such 'reform' would be consistent with, and would pressupose, the conversion of Britain into a chaotic Republic like the worst extant contemporary example, the United States: see why, below.

• Another clue here is that nobility (and 'fake' nobility, such as is represented by Blair's cronies in the House of Lords) is incompatible with any Republican form of Government. [The original 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, drafted around 1800, banned Titles, Nobles and Esquires, and barred such title-holders from being US citizens and therefore from holding high office, a state of affairs that triggered the War of 1812 with Britain, leading to the sacking of Washington in 1814; whereupon the 13th Amendment was quietly dropped, with the assumption being that it was not ratified. However in recent years, state-by-state archival research has proved that it WAS ratified].

'CONSERVATIVE' LEADER DAVID CAMERON BACKS THIS WHEEZE, TOO

On 26th May 2009, the 'Conservative' David Cameron – front man for the alternative intelligence-promoted (Notting Hill) clique that has been readied, US-style, to replace the intelligence-promoted (Islington) claque headed by Blair and Brown from the 1990s if the forthcoming election cannot be adequately rigged to ensure a Brown victory – indicated that he is stupid enough to have fallen for this ruse, as well, when he pronounced that ‘a Conservative Government will seriously consider the option of fixed-term Parliaments when there is a majority Government’.

MONARCH’S KEY RESIDUAL POWER IS TO CALL FOR
A SUITABLE CANDIDATE TO FORM A GOVERNMENT

Why does this stance threaten the Monarchy? Answer: because one of the British Monarch’s residual OVERT powers consists in her power to consent to a Prime Minister’s request for a dissolution of Parliament, and her power also, on advice, to call for the elected parliamentary leader most likely to be in a position to form a Government, in the event of uncertainty – powers that may need to be deployed if the outcome of this General Election turns out to be as indecisive as many observers think is extremely likely.

And why can we state without fear of contradiction that the Campaign for Fixed-Term Parliaments is a subversive operation which has as its ultimate objective the overthrow of the Monarchy?

Because this tinkering with the UK Constitution needs to be seen in the context that it follows the Labour Government’s wholly unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful semi-destruction of the House of Lords – which can clearly be viewed as part of the same operation, as will now be demonstrated.

ALL LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID

Investigations into this dimension of the secret revolutionary plan to destroy the Monarchy – which stands in the way of covertly antagonistic foreign powers’ hegemony strategies – and to convert Britain into a Republic, have yielded the remarkable finding that ALL LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT SINCE ABOUT 2000 HAS BEEN NULL AND VOID.

• There are NO exceptions, contrary to assertions from some quarters that Finance Bills are not captured by this crisis. Rubbish! ALL Westminster legislation since 2000, INCLUDING all the rubber-stamping of legislation shovelled at us from Brussels, is NULL AND VOID, as explained below.

• PLUS: ALL LEGAL ACTIONS BASED ON LAWS PASSED AT WESTMINSTER SINCE 2000 FALL TO THE GROUND BECAUSE THOSE LAWS ARE BASED ON FRAUDULENT, RIGGED PROCEDURES.

Here’s how this definitive conclusion is reached: bear with us as we step through the evidence as deftly as possible, without omitting any of the necessary simple steps here:

HEREDITARY PEERS NOT REMOVABLE BY GENERAL LEGISLATION

Membership of the House of Lords is dependent upon the issuance, on ennoblement, by officials directly serving the Monarchy, of Letters Patent.

Removal of a Peer of the Realm from his seat in the House of Lords cannot be procured by General Legislation, such as the Blair Government’s House of Lords Act 1999.

This piece of General Legislation did NOT empower Her Majesty’s Government to impede a single Hereditary Peer who had taken his or her seat in the House of Lords after having sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, from continuing to carry out their solemn duties in the House of Lords as Councillors to the Crown, in accordance with the British Constitution.

AUTHORITY FOR THIS STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT ITSELF
Please do not argue with this.

The authority for this statement comes from the Labour Government itself:

29 September 2008 : Column WA398:

House of Lords: Letters Patent
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what means Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed;
and in what legislation that has occurred. [HL5196]:

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):

The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application.

Thus, the Peerage Act 1963 allowed Peeresses in their own right to sit in the House of Lords regardless of the terms of any Letters Patent creating the peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions. Conversely, the House of Lords decided in 1922 in the case of Viscountess Rhondda that the terms of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 were not sufficiently specific to allow her to take her seat in the Lords when her Letters Patent allowed her to inherit the peerage, but not the seat in the Lords. I am aware of only one case in which the effect of individual Letters Patent has been changed by Act of Parliament, which is that of the
Duke of Marlborough in 1706.

ANALYSIS OF BARONESS ASHTON’S LORDS STATEMENT
The first two sentences here are crucial:

‘The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application’.

Having taken their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, some 900 Hereditary Peers (with the exception of a specified rump group of 92 hereditary peers) had the ‘effect’ of their Letters Patent ostensibly annulled by The House of Lords Act 1999, which was GENERAL LEGISLATION.

However, as Baroness Ashton told the House of Lords on 20th September 2008: ‘The effect… cannot be changed by legislation of general application’.

In standard double-minded fashion, Baroness Ashton then told the Lords that:

‘The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions’.

900 HEREDITARY PEER-SPECIFIC BILLS WOULD BE NEEDED
But since The House of Lords Act 1999 was GENERAL LEGISLATION, the ‘right’ in question, part of the ‘effect’ specified at the beginning of Baroness Ashton’s pronouncement, removed that right illegally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Because:

• In order for ‘the effect of Letters Patent’ to be modified, given that it cannot be modified by General Legislation, it is necessary for:

• 900 PEER-SPECIFIC BILLS TO BE PASSED BY PARLIAMENT changing ‘the effect of Letters Patent’, as per Baroness Ashton’s opening sentences:

'The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application’.

BOTCHED OBFUSCATION OF BLAIR’S HAM-FISTED MISCALCULATION

At some stage early in this process after passage of the 1999 legislation, the Blair Government realised that it had messed up and had browbeaten The Queen to append her signature to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNLAWFUL BILL, with all the hazards associated with such a miscalculation.

So, in order to OBFUSCATE the situation and to smother any ‘untoward consequences’ from the subversive Blair Government’s perspective, Ministers embarked upon two subsidiary underhand, surreptitious, unconstitutional operations:

• First, we are informed that the Labour Government somehow managed to persuade most of the hereditary peers to hand over their Letters Patent to some Government Department (from which extracting the documents will of course be impossible) – notwithstanding that the Letters Patent remain the property of each Hereditary Peer to this day.

• Secondly, immediately after The House of Lords Act 1999 had received the Royal Assent, those hereditary peers whose names were not included among the rump of hereditary peers who were still 'allowed' to continue carrying out their duties as Councillors to the Crown, had their passes removed from them, so that they were thereby prevented from gaining access to the Chamber.

• The main traitor in this scandal was the ‘Conservative’ Peer Lord Cranborne, then the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, who perpetrated this tawdry ‘deal’ with the corrupt Blair behind the backs of the leaders of the Conservative Party.

THE UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF PEERS’ PASSES TO THE LORDS

The scandalous removal of the hereditary peers’ passes came to light in 2008 when an Hereditary Peer requested a pass so that he could present his Letters Patent, take his oath of Allegiance to the Crown and thereby take his seat in the House of Lords.

When he discovered that the House of Lords authorities would not issue a pass enabling him to gain access to the Chamber, Lord Mereworth wrote as follows to The Lord President of the Council, the responsible official concerned:


The Lord President of the Council
The House of Lords,
Westminster,
London SW1A 0PW
By First Class Special Delivery
22nd June 2009

Dear Lord President,
Please accept the following as a token of esteem. Set out below is the published written question asked by Lord Laird of Artivargan and the written response given by your predecessor Baroness Ashton of Upholland on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government on 29th September 2008.

[see above: Editor].

Given the answer, it is clear that the hereditary peers’ Letters Patent were not amended by the House of Lords Act 1999 owing to the fact that the said Act is a piece of legislation for general application. Your predecessor’s answer put beyond doubt that my peerage and connections with the House of Lords do meet the requirements for a pass to be issued to me forthwith.

I enclose a copy of my letter dated 24th April 2009 to Sir Michael Wilcox KCB, the then Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, requesting him to renew my pass to the House before it expired at the end of April 2009 [not shown here: Editor].

I felt sorry for Sir Freddie Viggers, the current Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, [who is] clearly a dignified man of honour, who would not have demeaned himself by signing the letter on 17th June in response to my letter of 24th April unless he had been ordered to do so.

The response was as follows:-

‘I have looked into the renewal of your House of Lords pass and I have discussed this with the Lord Speaker, the usual channels and the Clerk of the Parliaments. I must inform you that it will not be possible to agree your request. Your peerage and connections with this House do not meet the requirements for a pass to be issued, and I am not able to issue a waiver.

I enclose a copy of the said letter. In light of the above and bearing in mind that I have had to wait two months for a totally incorrect and an extremely embarrassing response, I hope you will upon receipt of this letter acknowledge it by return and confirm that you have instructed Sir Freddie Viggers, to issue me with a House of Lords pass within seven days of the date of this letter.

Yours faithfully, Lord Mereworth.

RECAPITULATION OF THE ANALYSIS TO THIS POINT:

(1): The hereditary peers’ Letters Patent were not amended by the House of Lords Act 1999 owing to the fact that the said Act is a piece of legislation for general application.

(2): The withdrawal of the hereditary peers’ passes to enable them to enter the Chamber and so to fulfill their duties as Councillors to the Monarch is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful.

(3): The consequent destabilisation and variation of the membership composition of the House of Lords is likewise unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful.

(4): The consequence that most hereditary peers are unable in practice to exercise their duties as Councillors to the Crown further represents an unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful deprivation of their rights (and also, let it be added, of their human rights) to serve the Monarch in accordance with their Oath of Allegiance and consequent duties to the Crown.

HOUSE OF LORDS WAS THEN PACKED WITH BLAIR’S CRONIES
Having thrown the constitutional furniture around the room in this barbaric and wanton fashion, the Blair-Brown Revolutionary Government then packed the Upper House with their own cronies, for whom Letters Patent were issued in spades. This behaviour encapsulated the following ironies:

• Having started this destructive revolutionary process, the revolutionary socialists led by the corrupt opportunist criminal Blair and the hardened international socialist Brown then lost their bottle and decided that THEY quite fancied joining the élite themselves one day – making it possible for themselves and their cronies to become Lords and Ladies of the Realm.

In other words, their egos got the better of their sterile ideological preoccupations.

• Having thus abused the Letters Patent system in the manner described above, they accordingly proceeded to abuse it further by issuing new Letters Patent to a bunch of preferred and randomly selected hacks, thereby, contrary to law, discriminating against the Hereditary Peers who retained every right to sit in the Chamber and perform their serious duties as Councillors to The Queen.

[see above].

DEFINITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BOTCHED REVOLUTIONARY OPERATION

So, what are the consequences of this incredible state of affairs?

Why, as stated above, it means that:

• Every piece of legislation passed by the British Parliament since 2000 IS 100% NULL AND VOID because it was passed though an improperly constituted House of Lords which therefore lacked the power to approve any legislation for sending down to the House of Commons at all.

• Included within the UK legislation which is therefore null and void is the legislation approving the Lisbon Treaty – to which, therefore, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is NOT BOUND and can fully disregard and disavow, for this reason alone.

HOW THIS CHAOTIC STATE OF AFFAIRS CAN BE RECTIFIED WITH MINIMAL HASSLE

If the incoming British Government wants to ensure that its future legislation is legitimate, and that it has any purpose at all, it has two alternatives to rectify this chaotic state of affairs:

• EITHER it must table about 900 separate Bills specific to each Hereditary Peer of the Realm and must have these Bills passed by Parliament individually, so that, in the words of Baroness Ashton of Upholland: 'The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can he changed by legislation which has that specific effect'. This would have to be done AT ONCE, before passing any other laws.

• OR: On taking power, it must immediately introduce legislation to ABOLISH The House of Lords Act 1999, thereby 'restoring' the said unlawfully, unconstitutionally and illegally removed rights and duties of the Hereditary Peers to enable them to perform their duties as Councillors to the Crown as per their Oaths of Allegiance to the British Monarch. (This would NOT render legitimate all the laws published since 2000, which will remain unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal indefinitely).

• If the second, sensible clean-up option is chosen, the Bill to ABOLISH The House of Lords Act 1999 MUST be the FIRST piece of legislation to be introduced: because any legislation introduced into Parliament absent such a Bill to ABOLISH the 1999 Act will be a complete waste of time and resources, as it cannot be lawful under these circumstances. (This would NOT render legitimate all the laws published since 2000, which will remain unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal indefinitely).

• If The Queen's Speech MAKES NO MENTION OF A BILL TO ABOLISH THE 1999 ACT, you can take it that the next Government intends to operate unconstitutionally, unlawfully and illegally.

• That will mean that, as is the case with ALL LEGISLATION PASSED AT WESTMINSTER SINCE 2000, the legislative activity of the new British Government will be NULL AND VOID, too.

WHY THE REVOLUTIONARIES HAVE SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT

Two related points in conclusion:

• Charles I was beheaded when he refused to go along with the Will of Parliament – a fact of history of which every subsequent British Monarch has of course been ‘cognisant’.

• On this occasion, Parliament hasn’t disposed of the Monarch in the aforementioned manner; as a direct consequence of which:

• THE SECRET REVOLUTIONARY INTENTIONS OF THE SUBVERSIVE LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN SELF-FRUSTRATED, GIVEN THAT ALL THEIR LEGISLATION SINCE 2000 IS VOID.

‘SCUM OF THE EARTH’, ‘TOO CLEVER BY HALF’
Shortly after the Blair Government was elected in 1997, an extremely sober and respected British analyst remarked to the Editor that the Labour Government that had just come to power consisted of ‘the scum of the earth’. This gentleman is probably the most upright and sober observer known to the Editor – a person of the highest integrity not inclined to fruity language in any way, shape or form. So when he said this, the Editor took careful note. And it turns out that he was ‘right-on’.

But a characteristic of these self-important parasitical revolutionary scum of the earth is that, since their intentions and behaviour are rooted in lies and confusion, they invariably ‘mess up’. They are always 'too clever by half’, so that they always wind up with a dog's dinner.

And in respect of what we have reported above, it can be said that they have messed up quite spectacularly, because ALL their convoluted Tamudic legislation – including of course ALL THE TAX LEGISLATION, ALL THEIR BUDGETS – SINCE 2000, ARE DEFINITIVELY NULL AND VOID.

• Well done, Blair and Brown, you prize revolutionary buffoons.

The British people will always be grateful that your sterile arrogance blinded you to what you were doing, and to what you thought you’d got away with.

WITHOUT ABOLITION OF THE 1999 ACT, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS POINTLESS

Corollaries to this chaotic state of affairs, which the corrupt elements of the Establishment and the bureaucracy thought you'd never hear about, include the following:

• Absent one of the alternatives outlined above (900 individual Bills or outright ABOLITION of the 1999 Act), the incoming Parliament will KNOWINGLY, FOLLOWING THIS POSTING, BE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION, deceiving itself, the nation and foreign powers alike.

• THEREFORE, by extension, THE PRESENT ELECTION WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND A FARCE, entailing the election of a Westminster Parliament WITH NO POWERS TO LEGISLATE.