July 06, 2011

One IS Above The Law

So sayeth Her Madge.

I was over at Nominedeus to have a look at the latest article, penned by bollixed (a regular commenter here too) and I followed his link to The British Monarchy website.

Our mate bollixed had been rummaging and found this:

"People often wonder whether laws apply to The Queen, since they are made in her name. (1)

Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law. Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so. (2)

However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law. (3)

Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity (this usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen's name). (4)

In the case of European Union law, laws are enforced in the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom's national courts. There is therefore no machinery by which European law can be applied to The Queen in her personal capacity. (5)

However, it makes no difference that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law.  (6)

As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign." (7)

It raises a few questions, does it not?

1. I never wondered that for a yoctosecond. No-one, I repeat, no-one can be above the law.

2. Very good. Since Madge and I are equals, unless any law is specific enough to mention me by name, then I am untouchable as well.

3. Aren't we all?

4. Yup. We see examples of this every single day, don't we?

5. If EU law cannot be applied to Madge, then it cannot be applied to me.

6. Here we differ. I will never abide by any crap that that the EU hurls our way.

7. Impossible. Nowhere is it written that a monarch can be a citizen. She is either one or the other.

The floor is yours.

CR.

23 comments:

Michael Fowke said...

What if a mad monarch went on the rampage, killing and maiming? Surely something would be done?

Captain Ranty said...

Michael,

That is EXACTLY why Magna Carta came into being.

CR.

bollixed said...

More to follow CR.

The plot thickens.

Captain Ranty said...

Good stuff B,

Bring it on.

(As long as you know that digging in this shit is like Pringles. "Once you start.....).

CR.

Angry Exile said...

1. Same as CR.
2. Fuck me sideways with a sceptre, why the fuck not?
3. Good of Mrs Q if true, but what guarantee is there that her radar-lobed, tree shagging, wannabe tampon of an heir will choose to do so as well? Or Wills? Or whoever comes after him?
4. True but those government departments and agencies derive their income by forcibly taxing citizens now or running up debt and forcibly taxing them later. Thus any successful civil proceedings are Pyrrhic victories.
5. Lucky her. No wonder she wasn't concerned about her governmentalists signing everyone else up to it and gave the whole shooting match assent..
6. See 3. Also, idiot.
7. See 5. Also, if that doesn't affect her responsibilities as sovereign then she bloody well should have been concerned enough to stand in the way. Sounds like her main concern has been the taking care of the House of Windsor. Citizens? Meh.

Republic, please. Now.

bollixed said...

CR

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm building a wider picture and this is just one element of it that I have finished researching and now merely present as evidence. More to come in the next few days. Ultimately I hope to have presented folks with the various facts, my thought process, and the conclusions I have drawn. It will end in the birth registration process.

Then I will offer a very simple, peaceful solution. One that anyone can do to assert their power as a sovereign human being and shrug off the establishment ticks that gorge on our blood.

It would be no fun to just post one item called 'the solution to your problems' and then disappear back into obscurity, would it? :)

Take care
bollixed

James Higham said...

Impossible. Nowhere is it written that a monarch can be a citizen. She is either one or the other.

Yep, that one was clearly wrong - she's nothing to do with the EU.

Raphe said...

Wasn't Charles I above the law?

Captain Ranty said...

AE,

I'd be happy with monarchy that did what it is supposed to do.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

bollixed,

We look forward to your new posts.

As messy as this all is, I find it fascinating.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

James,

If she was doing her job we wouldn't be in the bloody EU.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Raphe,

If we use Magna Carta as the turning point then the only kings not subject to the rule of law were:

William I (1066-1087)

William II (1087-1100)

Henry I (1100-1135)

Stephen (1135-1154)

Henry II (1154-1187)

Richard I (1187-1199)

John (1199-1216) He was briefly above the law until he signed MC1215.

CR.

Angry Exile said...

Cap'n, I could live with it too if it did what it was supposed to, or at least I could find it easier to tolerate everything I dislike about monarchy. Sadly you can't guarantee any monarch will make good on their oath which is why there have been more than a few piss takers down the centuries. The current one isn't the worst but I think she just doesn't give a damn beyond maintaining the status quo for the House of Windsor. Of course you can't guarantee a president will keep an oath either, but at least you're not stuck with 'em.

Captain Ranty said...

AE,

All very true.

But can you imagine getting stuck with a Dubya for five or ten years?

Terrifying thought.

I think I'd even prefer Jug-Ears over George Bush.

CR.

Angry Exile said...

Tough call. 8 years of Dubs or 60 of Betty, Fuck You Who's Queen, Windsor? That's up there with Gordon Brown or Cameramong and which testicle I'd prefer to be kicked in. On reflection I'd say Dubya over the Queen because Congress could have but failed to curb his excesses in the same way that the Queen could have stood in the way of the last half dozen PMs handing over power to the EU, Cameramong because at least he kicked the ID cards into touch, and the left one for no particular reason. But it's a pretty marginal decision in all three cases, especially the first two.

Angry Exile said...

Oh, and definitely Dubya overt Jug Ears the Druid, tree shagger to the upper classes, purveyor of homeopathic biscuits, property rights hater and wannabe tampon. Never mind being the poster boy for a republic, I'd say he's the poster boy for an early vasectomy.

nominedeus said...

No need for Magna Carta in my view. As a Scot, MC1215 isn't relevant to me anyway. It also requires a monarch, which is why I logically started by proving we no longer have a constitutional monarch. No monarch = no UK constitution = dead horse being flogged.

So? Do we just give up? Far from it.

I urge everyone to read a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (the subject of my most recent post on the nominedeus dot wordpress dot com blog). I've even included the text and the link in my post for you guys because I'm a good egg. :)

Sorry for appearing to troll but I'm not. This is really important stuff for all freemen and sovereigns and it is still a current binding International Treaty in its entirety. No lawyers necessary as its in plain English and was intended to throw in the faces of the judiciary, not ask them to define it as suits them.

What we have in the Human Rights legislation is in many instances exactly the opposite of what this Treaty set out to do. Successive corrupt UK Governments interpreted the Treaty to suit their own political agendas. We just never complained about it. Most folk don't even know it exists. Time they did and it was pasted in all schools and educational establishments as agreed.

Also time that we put the whole Queenie/Magna Carta argument on a back burner and focussed on asserting our right to rebel against a tyrannical regime as human beings under the UDHR1948 IMHO.

Yep, it gives us that power.

I quote exclusively from UDHR1948 and it scares the crap out of officialdom because it confirms we are human (legislation doesn't) and bestows us with powers and rights from a loftier legal instrument than any national statute. I've had a 100% success rate so far and I use this to bully the bullies. The UDHR1948 isn't the main tool I use but its a good backup punch to my main armament of the birth registration problems. Put together its a winning combination.

I will explain all this, with documentary evidence, on Indyhat's blog in the coming days.

Any comments or suggestions or ideas more than welcomed of course. I value your opinions.

bollixed

Captain Ranty said...

B,

"As a Scot, MC1215 isn't relevant to me anyway"

According to the Act of Union 1707 it is.

The short versions is this:

Everything you had, we got. Everything we had, you got. Besides which, Madge rules over Scotland too. Scots can rebel against her just as easily as the English (or Welsh, or NornIrish).

I'll have another peruse of UDHR but if I recall, it is much diluted when compared with MC.

CR.

nominedeus said...

Maybe so CR, but it authorises us to rebel against tyranny and oppression. And it hasn't been repealed and it is written in plain language for us human beings, not just the aristocracy, to use to protect ourselves.

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

B. Our inalienable rights are protected as humans.

"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"

B. Intended to serve the interests of the common people.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

B. This authorises us to rebellion as humans.

"Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,"

B. Doesn't mention undemocratic destruction of the nations and their national sovereignty.

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

B. Dignity and worth of the human person (small case).

"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"

B. A written pledge to respect our rights as humans.

"Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,"

B. I understand this pledge in common English.

bollixed said...

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

Anonymous said...

One theory as to how the citizen/sovereign dichotomy could be explained:

Queenie and the Crown are separate things. The Crown is a corporation sole and it is the corporation sole that has the sovereignty, not the person who happens to be the office holder, because obviously these change from time to time. Under this, Her Madge is just the latest office holder of a corporation dating back (I think) to Henry VIII. From the Oxford Dictionary of Law:

"Crown n. The office (a corporation sole) in which supreme power in the UK is legally vested. The person filling it at any given time is referred to as the sovereign."

Note: "...referred to as the sovereign". Not "is sovereign". Blackstone also wrote that "the king is a sole corporation".

So it may be possible for Queenie to be a citizen because the corporation sole is a separate thing entirely, and it's there where the "supreme power" actually lies.

Notice how the words bollixed found don't refer to the Crown as having a "personal capacity" or to the Queen as having a "public capacity". So when we see "the Queen in her personal capacity....the Crown in its public capacity", the way it is written makes us assume that they are the same things acting in different arenas when they may be completely different things entirely.

The CP Act gives the Crown an out, anyway, as it forbids any claims made in rem ("against the thing"), i.e. against its property. The whole point of the corporation sole is to protect property. The corporation will never lose anything.

On "the historic development of the Sovereign as the Fount of Justice" - the Sovereign is the source of authority for the courts, therefore can't be compelled or bound by them. How that tallies with "equality before the law..." is another thing...

'Tis only an idea...

Regards

TSL

slimline66 said...

bolloxed, the udhr is a "Declaration" and so not legally enforceable. However, the state have a moral obligation to recognise the articles. Our "representatives" were signatories agreeing to the principles of the articles - only a tyrant would ignore them!

Speaking of Declarations Captain, I read recently that when Liz took her oath enabling her to act in the position of Queen, she signed the document as a "declaration" (not legally enforceable) and not a contract (legally enforceable)


The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

And the Queen answering,

I am willing.


History tells us that there IS a contract in place:


As to the terms of the original contract between King and people, these it seems are now couched in the Coronation Oath which by stat 1 W S M st 1 c 6 is to be administered to every King and Queen who shall succeed to the crown of these realms by one of the bishops in the presence of all the people who, on their part, do reciprocally take the oath of allegiance to the crown.


and continues ...


However in what form soever this oath be conceived it is most indisputably a fundamental and express original contract though doubtless the duty of protection is impliedly as much incumbent on the sovereign before coronation as after in the same manner as allegiance to the King becomes the duty of the subject immediately on the descent of the crown before he has taken the oath of allegiance or whether he ever takes it at all In the King's part of this original ...


Source

I also believe that she has broken her part of the contract and that it is now NULL AND VOID. Apart from allowing foreign powers to have free access to the resources of this country, she has broken her promise to the people to uphold (and I'm not religious) "Gods Laws". This has massive implications for those who draw their "authority" from the Crown and, act in the name of the Crown.

Keith.

Captain Ranty said...

Great comments guys, and a lot to chew on.

I'll do just that and get back to you.

Thanks for chipping in with differing theories.

CR.