Now this IS interesting.
You regular readers have heard me bang on about the House of Lords Act 1999 often enough. I have said ad nauseum that that Act, shat out by ZaNuLabour, was deeply, deeply flawed. What I never said (but often thought) was that it was a clear example of high treason.
I am delighted to learn that one Baron Mereworth is challenging the Act in the high court today.
Full details (and some other interesting factoids) are contained in these two video clips from The Runnymede Institute.
I owe my old mate Nominedeus a tip of the beret for finding the clips.
Let's see what the court has to say about it all. I will add an update as soon as I find anything.
If you want to, you can have a gander at the Runnymede Institute and for background you can learn more here about the Constitutional Transgression.
Fascinating stuff. Even more so when you discover that a win in court negates all those thousands of "laws" that have been enacted since 1999.
Here is the latest from the Runnymede Institute:
Thanks to Sue and Sike for the links.
CR.
Interesting find - thank you for sharing something that I'm sure will be fascinating to look through in depth a little later (when I stop following the #spanishrevolution so closely!).
ReplyDeletesaw this earlier, great stuff, you cant stop the movement its picking up too much momentum, we are winning and they are scared.
ReplyDeleteyou were born dead.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals%2Flqr20&div=18&id&page
Have got to admit to being very interested in how they deal with this one Cap'n, they put themselves into a completely illegal attack on the constitution and now they have been called out on it...lovely stuff...ta fer the H/T
ReplyDeleteOMG! How fascinating!
ReplyDeleteYou've got to give the Baron his due.
Well done him!
http://bit.ly/k45buG
ReplyDeleteSetback for Baron Mereworth at The High Court Today.
"Why isn’t the mainstream press gloating over the victory for European supremacy in Britain since the High Court ruled that they do not have the jurisdiction to hear this case? Is it common that only one (1) journalist would attend such a case and quickly disappear not to be heard from again? Are predetermined outcomes a possibility?"
They're going to wriggle out of this one.
Wow, that's quite a turn up for the books. Magna Carta really just won't go away will it, no matter what people say.
ReplyDeleteHope you don't mind... yoink!
Quite frankly. we've got ex copper Albert Burgess and his associate David Noakes to thank for bringing all of this into the public eye.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has never heard of Albert Burgess, go to BBCTV5 and search for him and watch his videos.
He's no doubt the one behind all of this, especially with
P.S.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say reagardng Edward Heath for taking us illegally into the EEC and thus destroying our sovereignty.
Harbinger
a-slight-setback-for-baron-mereworth-at-the-high-court-today
ReplyDeletethe High Court ruled that they do not have the jurisdiction to hear this case!
Having read article 61 of Magna Carta, I now understand the basis and reasoning behind lawful rebellion.
ReplyDeleteTo wit; "Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command."
Good comments from all, thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe update today was revealing, wasn't it?
The very first thing I will do in my upcoming court case is to challenge the courts jurisdiction.
I was surprised to hear that the court challenged its own jurisdiction to hear this case from Baron Mereworth. Seems like a cop out to me. The good news is that they stated that Letters Patent are still valid. This will be joyous news to the 100 or so Peers that were denied access following the disastrous (and unlawful) House of Lords Act 1999.
This case still has legs. I will watch it with great interest.
CR.
This is brilliant stuff! Of course TPTB won't let this happen, they will wriggle around it somehow, but the constant thorn in their side is a pleasure to watch.
ReplyDelete"The gallows should be put to good use" Seconded.
ReplyDeleteUrban11
This is most positive stuff. Hope someone blogs on it at Orphans.
ReplyDeleteEven more so when you discover that a win in court negates all those thousands of "laws" that have been enacted since 1999.
Okay - back for a second bite of the cherry and, having looked at the website and watched the videos, I'll throw my support behind these wonderful patriots and constitution defenders.
ReplyDeleteHaven't got much cash, but I can personally publicly pledge £10 (which just 10,000 of us need to do to get them their legal fund)...
...but we need somewhere to send it to, in trust, of course.
And this Symposium... no details, locations, times... most fascinating and I would happily attend - if it is a thing for the attending of - but we could do with more details from them.
Those things aside... all seems briliant and all - at face value - has my deep support and gratitude.
Apparently Baron W has instigated part 2 of his court battle. The briefs have been briefed and more paperwork will hit the judges desk very soon.
ReplyDeleteWe need to watch this one closely. It will have an impact on us all.
Still mulling over the donations initiative.
CR.
Talking clock,i feel much the same way as you.
ReplyDeleteI Have posted a request for any info on making a donation to a fighting fund on the runnymede institute website.
I'll update here with any news with the captains permission of course.
Thanks Berni.
ReplyDeleteYou are most welcome to update us here.
CR.
If it helps move matters along, I shall donate too.
ReplyDelete> Even more so when you discover that a win in court negates all those thousands of "laws" that have been enacted since 1999.
ReplyDeleteSadly, that just means this won't win. It's just a question of who they have to nobble to ensure that.