April 20, 2012

The Toothless Tiger

Recently I have been witnessing yet another fascinating email exchange on the monarchy. I asked my pal Bob if I could reproduce it here and he very kindly agreed.

It all started when someone wrote to the police asking them to investigate charges of treason against certain individuals. The police, by way of Sergeant Parsons, responded to the letter, and from there, the debate bloomed.

Here is the letter:

"Dear Mr Xxxxxxxx
 
Thank you for your email dated 15th April 2012..  I am sure that you appreciate officers will take and rely upon legal advice and, where that advice differs from your understanding of the law, officers are entitled to rely on the advice they receive from the Legal Services Unit.
 
Our Legal Services Unit advise that there is still no offence known to law that can be, or should be, investigated.
 
The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution.  The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown and created a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament).  The Bill of Rights also enshrined into English law (for at that time there was no United Kingdom) the prohibition on any impeachment for words or deed made in Parliament.
 
The recent prosecution of a number of MPs for fraud was in relation to their conduct outside the chamber of the Commons (or in the case of some Defendants, the Lords), and therefore parliamentary privilege did not apply (see for example R v. Morley and others [2010]).  However, that can be contrasted to a number of cases where so-called super injunctions were breached by MPs naming the parties but because they enjoyed parliamentary privilege (the statements were made in the chamber) no action could be taken for what would otherwise be contempt of court.
 
The Bill of Rights also founds the common law principle that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, therefore any Parliament can repeal the acts of a former Parliament and no Act of Parliament can be ultra vires, as Parliament’s competence to legislate is absolute (though the Courts have drawn a practical distinction between legislative theory and legislative practice, for example it would be practically impossible to repeal an Act giving independence to a former colony, but theoretically possible). 
 
Because of this principle Acts of previous Parliaments that have been repealed no longer have any legal effect and that includes all previous Acts relating to treason that have been repealed or amended.  The supremacy of Parliament also allows for Parliament to legislate to give effect to treaties relating to international or supranational bodies, such as the European Union and whatever ones personal political viewpoint there is no offence at criminal law (whether treason or otherwise) committed by such an enactment.
 
As you are aware the enforcement of any law would be through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament or the actions of the government in entering into international treaty obligations.  Indeed one of the very issues you refer to, the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union (or the European Economic Community as it then was), was considered by the Court in the case of Blackburn v. The Attorney General [1971].  In that case the Court was asked to make a declaration that in signing the Treaty of Rome the Government would surrender the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and that in doing so it would be acting in contravention of the law.
 
The Court held that the treaty was a matter for the exercise of the sovereign power of the Crown (exercising the Royal Prerogative) but that it was not binding unless and until ratified by an Act of Parliament, and once there was an Act of Parliament the treaty became the ordinary law of the United Kingdom to the extent that Parliament decreed.  In that Judgement Lord Justice Salmon also stated that the Courts have no power over, and are not concerned with political decisions. 
 
As for Acts of Parliament, the Courts have also decided that there is no power to declare them ultra vires or to overturn them (there is no power to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional as there is in some other jurisdictions: the best that can be achieved is to make a declaration of incompatibility as is possible with the Human Rights Act, but the Court cannot overturn a Act), see for example Pitkin v. British Railways Board [1974] or Manuel and Others v. Attorney General [1982].
 
I must therefore conclude on the basis of legal advice that there is no offence known to law identified in your email or its attachments, or any of your earlier emails and that the views expressed, while doubtless passionately held, are political views and therefore not the concern of the police or the Courts.  I am therefore unable to progress these matters any further.
 
I am grateful for the evident love for and loyalty to your country that you show, however in light of the above we cannot lawfully act on any of the information which you have provided.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Andy
 
Sgt Andy Parsons, Humberside Police."
 
And this is Bob's rebuttal:
 
COMMENT:-   Sgt Parsons writes it as he has been persuaded to understand it and with clear explanation but opens with a misleading statement.  "The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution." 
 
He fails or declines to mention that our Constitution is a common law constitution and as such is beyond the control of Parliament, just as statute law is subordinate to common law. Parliament can only undo that which Parliament has done. By the same token the letter of the law is subordinate to the spirit and intention of the law.
 
"The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown creating a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament)." 
 
The first half of this statement seemingly contradicts the second half. If the Crown is the supreme authority in Parliament it can hardly be restricted. The Declaration of Rights 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689 changed the powers of the Monarch as custodian of the Crown from that of ruler by assumed divine right to that of official Governor of the nation, a political office very similar to that of a national president.
 
 
".......no Act of Parliament can be ultra vires, as Parliament’s competence to legislate is absolute."
 
Parliament is not above the law in particular the common law as  upheld by constitutional constraint. No Bill can lawfully become an Act if the Parliamentary process of its construction is carried out in breach of constitutional constraint. If by means of deceit and breach of Parliamentary protocols an unlawfully constructed Bill became an Act such an Act would not have been created and passed by lawful Parliamentary procedure and therefore would most certainly be ultra vires, or to use a word from the Bill of Rights, void.  
 
"Because of this principle Acts of previous Parliaments that have been repealed no longer have any legal effect and that includes all previous Acts relating to treason that have been repealed or amended.  The supremacy of Parliament also allows for Parliament to legislate to give effect to treaties relating to international or supranational bodies, such as the European Union and whatever ones personal political viewpoint there is no offence at criminal law (whether treason or otherwise) committed by such an enactment."
 
This loosely suggests that the treason Acts have all been repealed. Some have and some have been amended, Blair would have done away with them all but the Treason Act 1351 and the Treason Felony Act 1848 remain extant, they are constitutional Acts and as such are beyond implied repeal. The supremacy of Parliament is a myth for Parliament is subject to the rule of law, constitutional constraint and subordinate to the people by oath of allegiance to the people's elected Monarch who has the final word and discretion on all of Parliaments doings thus the people retain control over their Parliament. Parliament may legislate to give effect to treaties but only within the lawful constraints of its office. The ratifying of the Treaty of Rome and subsequent EU treaties all of which were carried out in violation of constitutional constraint placed those involved subject to charges of treason.
 
"As you are aware the enforcement of any law would be through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament or the actions of the government in entering into international treaty obligations."
 
This seems something of a sleight of hand, it suggests that the Courts believe Parliament to be above the law. Clearly the Courts cannot interfere with the lawful procedures of Parliament, but what if there are unlawful procedures such as the surrender of the people's sovereignty and their lawful rights and liberties as enshrined in the Constitution? This is not a hypothetical possibility, it is a reality which is plain for all to see and the Courts have the same duty and obligation as all British subjects to challenge it and expect the police to take the appropriate action to enforce recognition and adherence to the rule of law.
 
" Indeed one of the very issues you refer to, the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union (or the European Economic Community as it then was), was considered by the Court in the case of Blackburn v. The Attorney General [1971].  In that case the Court was asked to make a declaration that in signing the Treaty of Rome the Government would surrender the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and that in doing so it would be acting in contravention of the law."
 
In this the government was without any doubt whatsoever acting in contravention of the law.
 
"The Court held that the treaty was a matter for the exercise of the sovereign power of the Crown (exercising the Royal Prerogative) but that it was not binding unless and until ratified by an Act of Parliament, and once there was an Act of Parliament the treaty became the ordinary law of the United Kingdom to the extent that Parliament decreed.  In that Judgement Lord Justice Salmon also stated that the Courts have no power over, and are not concerned with political decisions."
 
Here it seems the Court rightly passed the buck onto the Monarch who in turn declined to uphold her sworn duty and obligation to govern according to and within the constraints of her coronation oath. The ECA72 was passed but for reasons explained above could never be recognised as lawful. Lord Justice Salmon's statement was correct, but the Courts according to the obligations of their office are or should be very much concerned with unlawful practice in public office be it in or outside of Parliament. It would seem that Lord Justice Salmon did not have the intestinal fortitude to face up to a despotic political force in Parliament or the establishment which was protecting the Queen from accusations of dereliction of sworn, statutory and moral obligation, allegations that still stand and might now be also well directed at out politicised judiciary and police forces.
 
In conclusion, something to consider: The ratification of the Treaty of Rome surrendered the sovereignty of the nation and the supremacy of the Crown  to a foreign power. There can be no sovereign head of state in a nation which is no longer sovereign and no governor of a nation which is no longer self governing. In effect it meant the abdication of the Monarch and the end of the monarchy. In legal terms this is to 'imagine the death of the Monarch' for the Monarch takes office for life. Anyone so doing is then subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848 and treason is at the head of all crime. If it is no longer the responsibility of the police to investigate serious crime then to whom does that obligation fall?
 
To which I will add my own thoughts.
 
My research, and my understanding of the way the UK is governed is as follows:
 
We have a tri-partite system. The triangle of "power" is the monarch, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The monarch sits at the head of the triangle, is supreme and has the final say.

If any of the three elements are removed, the triangle breaks and the jig is up. 

As we know, the monarch has violated her oath many, many times, and is therefore null and void. She cannot breach her contract with the people and expect to carry on as if nothing has happened. As you read above, she is not just in error, she has broken the contract, and in law, when one party breaches a contract, the contract is over. 

Now, all police officers, court officials, judges, magistrates and the like, swear an oath to the monarch. If the monarch is in breach, so are they, by default. It cannot be any other way. If the monarch-since 1992 a mere citizen-, and is therefore no longer monarch, where do the police and the judiciary get their authority from? The short answer is that they don't. No-one else in the land can give them authority. They are, for want of a better word, toothless. There is absolutely no need to obey any court order, any court official, or any serving police officers. They are all acting ultra vires. None of them are acting lawfully. None of them are acting legally.

I asked Bob this question: "Where is it written that a Madge cannot be a monarch and a citizen at the same time?"

Bob replied: "It isn't written because it doesn't need to be. In the same way that a general cannot be a private. That isn't written anywhere either".

A great analogy and it surely makes absolute sense to anyone reading this.

The ramifications are great. 

Anyone (no matter how heinous the crime) gaoled or fined or punished by the UK courts since (at least) 1992 were punished outside the law as we believed it to be in this country.

And until they fix the problem, as a start by leaving the European Union and repealing ALL legislation emanating from Brussels/Strasbourg, the judiciary (and anyone connected to it) is a toothless tiger. Their having all the guns is not a defence either. Their ability to swoop at dawn and cart you off to gaol is no defence.

They have no power. None at all.

CR.
 

18 comments:

coz said...

Local guy here tried to have Gillard charged with treason, a few years back, the courts slapped a 'vexatious litigant' label on him, meaning he now needs permission from the Supreme Court for any legal action he wishes to undertake.

Brits might have better luck, but uh not sure about taking aggressive action, seems we're limited to the passive actions of responding to their 'legal' claims.

Anonymous said...

Hi Cap'n,

The way I see it is simple. The monarch still retains power, however with the smokescreen of Parliament. Therefore nothing has really changed, apart from the fact that the money lending elite (Rothschild) control the Queen ("Give me control of a nation's wealth and I care not who makes the laws"). Money controls the world because it funds security services. The Rothschild in the mid 1800's were reputed to own 50-75% of the world's wealth. As many will know, they never lost any of it. It continued to grow.

The Parliament in the UK merely moved from one under the previous control of the monarchy, pre rise of Cromwell, to one under the control of the Dutch Bankers, post 1666 after Cromwell had taken away the powers of the monarch through revolution. Is the Queen above Rothschild? I don't think so. Every war fought over the last 240+ years was created by them, not the monarchy. They did what the Rothschilds told them to do. When the Chinese tried to stop the Opium which was destroying their people, from being flooded into their land, British troops started the Opium wars in order to protect Rothschild interests, not Britain's. When the Rothschilds wanted Africa for gold, it was British troops who instigated war against the Boers for Rothschild interests, not Britain's. The Queen, I believe is a puppet of the Rotschilds.
I say this simply because the system in control at the moment is a monetary system which of course favours civil law over common law. Civil law is of course the law of the Banks. Almost every court case is fought over some kind of monetary reparation. Therefore governments are puppets of the bankers because they create the acts of Parliament that the bankers want, legislation that will directly benefit them. More so, look at the occupations of most MP's and you'll see that they've either come from a law or banking based one before stepping into Parliament.

Therefore, these politicians want to remove treason and do not believe in the authority of treason because they do not see treason as being valid in their money controlled world. Treason is outdated to them. People having their heads lopped off for committing crimes against the monarchy, but more importantly the people and their nation no longer exists within their minds. It's a relic from the past. More so, when one realises that the drive for a globalist society is the nemesis to the nation state, then this will make any treason invalid, because people will not belong to nations as they no longer exist. The globalist agenda, is a monetary backed agenda, for total control and the removal of all individuality and thus sovereignty of the individual.

So, the English Civil war was created in order to bring about the creation of a banking controlled British Empire, under the guise that the people would have a say in how their country would be run. The monarchy over the next two centuries would come under the complete control of the European banking elites, still maintaining the national status, until the time came to change that into a globalist one (now). The Queen has authority over Parliament over the politicians and institutions, but the Rothschilds have power over the monarchy. That's what I strongly believe anyway. The Queen is merely a very well paid employee of them.

regards

Harbinger

coz said...

^ in top form Harby.

IIRC the guy in Aust based his case on the Aust Constitution bit about 'ceding sovereignty to foreign powers', but I was never consulted nor ceded sovereignty to the constitution. If you cite the constitution you have ceded sovereignty, and are stuffed. They'll have you for breakfast.

I can't check if this is the right youtube, cos I'm 'shaped' to 56k, but the search criteria picked this one, I've watched one before about this guy, hope this is the right one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuTtKxP4skg

Woodsy42 said...

"through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament"

Isn't that exactly what they do everyday when they impose EHRC rulings?

pitano1 said...

hi cap.

i agree with harbinger.

maybe her maj was made an offer she could not refuse..eh
j.f.k probably sprung to her mind.

the truth is not going to be buried,and
i`m sure this will be cited in court again,and again.

i say court,but todays courts/judiciary are an insult to inteligence,

the world today reminds me of the wildwest..the nation states being with`outlaw.

one`or should i say,the main problem is,all these so called authorities,are running round on limited liability..ie they realy dont have a lot to lose,or they have more to gain by acting dishoorably.

or maybe they dont want to have an accident,and have someone find they
have zipped themselves up in a sports bag,from the inside..er

or be strung up under a london bridge.

but these are strange times we are going through,and the cracks are appearing.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with your most of your commentary on the piece Captain, but it matters not that they can't do A or B, they still do it.

The judiciary unfortunately ISN'T a toothless tiger because they destroy livlihoods every day with their corrupt practices, and YES 'they' cartainly are not allowed to 'swoop at dawn' but the bastards do.

We know they've got no right to do these things, that they're unlawful (and some of them illegal), but the fact remains that they still do them.

The time for talking is over. They need to be destroyed.
David

NewsboyCap said...

captain

Agree with Harbinger and David, there is no future for us within the system. The rest of the population either don't think or don't give a shit ( I think it is the later ).
Been reading a book recommended by a previous commenter on another post.Europe on £387 million a day, by Olly Figg.
Wastemonster is an irrelevance to Brussels, we cannot leave, we have no power to remove them, we're Fucked.
Armed insurrection, unfortunately, is our only hope.
So.......Fuck it, I'm up for it, what say you!

Anonymous said...

I agree some kind of armed insurrection is needed, this is where the voice of the people really gets listened too, come on web warblers, armchair warriors, smoke shelter wingers, the time for walking the walk must surely be near.

Animal man

farmland investment said...

First of all - if I am understanding the situation correctly - I find it astounding that a policeman actually took the time to write such a detailed response. Whether he is right or wrong, that strikes me as quite unusual for a copper. I mean, he could have ignored the email or wrote a one sentence note back dismissing the whole thing as a crank (again, if I am correctly understanding what actually occurred).

Now, as for this one chap's obsession with the Rothschilds' above, that is over the top. If you want to go in that direction, at least let's up date the facts from the Rothschilds to the City writ-large, and in particular some of the true Vampire-Squid like Goldman Sachs. In many ways unfortunately, the analysis of where power lies today in the political system cannot be understood without taking into account the financial influences. Let's bear in mind we have come to a situation where the PM of the country sells private meetings for 250K as though the whole government is for sale like a car at a dealership.

bollixed said...

I for one will have no truck with armed insurrection. Maintain the higher moral ground and be clever peeps..

Educate, educate, educate! An awake and knowledgeable peasant class is what they fear most.

Anonymous said...

bollixed

Appreciate where you're coming from but we're at the point where what you are suggesting is teaching a drowning man to swim so he can save himself. We are running out of time.

David

Anonymous said...

farmland investment,

"Now, as for this one chap's obsession with the Rothschilds' above, that is over the top. If you want to go in that direction, at least let's up date the facts from the Rothschilds to the City writ-large, and in particular some of the true Vampire-Squid like Goldman Sachs."

Obsession? Since when did discovering the truth from the lies we've been fed since childbirth become an obsession? Nice psycho babble there, I must say.

If you are prepared to do some research then you'll most certainly uncover some rather disturbing facts about the 'Red Shield'. More so, I hate to burst your bubble, but Goldman Sachs? Come on, don't make me laugh. They're paupers compared to the Rothschilds. And for your information, you'll also find, if you're prepared to dig deep enough, that ALL THE MAJOR BANKING ORGANISATIONS (Rockerfeller, JP Morgan, Kuhn & Loeb, Goldman Sachs etc) are nothing but subsidiaries of the Rothshchild Empire. It is overwhelmingly possible that all were started through the Rothschilds money lending in the past, for they controlled the monetary organisations then as they do today.
Nothing in this world happens without the permission of the Rothschilds. Period!!!

regards

Harbinger

Anonymous said...

It's well documented that I think were fucked unless people get off their arses. People won't even stick their neck out so all the talk of armed insurection is pointless because you wouldn't get the numbers. As for educate..... Good idea but knowing their rules doen't mean that they won't break them.. So were equally as screwed unless people get organised and start becoming a pain in the arse and cause a little friction in their "system".

Not voting...... If everybody not connected to these criminals didn't vote it would get the debate going and more people than ever would realise how corupt our country is.

Simply by people just organising themselves and moved their money to a local building society would immediately hit the banksters where it hurts.

Everybody refuse to pay council tax, what they going to do? imprison everyone? there are only about 1500 places left in England and Wales (I would imagine Scotland are in the same boat)

3 examples (2 legal, 1 against their rules) quite easy to do, doesn't require much effort just to create some friction and/or get the debate going but I believe people will just not that bothered. The reason doesn't matter when you are being opressed. Not being opressed is what matters.

Kyd,

PS for the record ALL this shit eventually comes back to the Rothschilds (just follow the money). Very dark history with those bastards.

Snakey said...

It is true to say that the Rothschilds are a relatively new player in the vampire squid's game but that does not mean we must dismiss their very large influence both in the UK, USA and Israel.

BTW prior to the Rothschilds and their banking machinations their fellow members of the tribe introduced the Law of Shetar into our country. The Law of Shetar (or Starr) is from the Babylonian Talmud. It is, therefore, not English common law or even law based on the bible (which is also fictional), but a foreign law forced upon us by an alien interloper.

Lex Mercatoria was introduced into our country by the Jewish money lenders and merchants. Then Edward 1 kicked them out but continued to use the debt laws he'd got the Jews to write for him. Without the Law of Shetar we would not have mortgages (dead pledge) that enable the banks to remove your land on default of returning their created out of thin air fiat currency to them.

Anonymous said...

Snakey,

I wouldn't say they were new in the vampire squid game. Correct that they are mere youngters in the tribe (Ashkenazi false, non semitic Jews), but when you look at their beginnings back in the mid 18th century, we see that they have dominated banking over the last 250+ years. They are without a doubt either the head of the vampire squid or the strongest tentacles.

When you look back through history, EVERY conflict which involved Europeans and/or Americans, the Rothschilds have caused. The friction between peoples was instigated by the Rothschild controlled media throughout the 20th century. They have been the players in the 'grand chess game'. So without a doubt, they have caused more deaths, misery and corruption than anyone else within their tribe and certainly its most powerful.

Edward 'Longshanks' 1293 edict of expulsion still stands to this very day making it illegal, on pain of death, to live anywhere in the UK. Therefore, the queen is guilty of not abiding by the common law of this land.

regards

Harbinger

Dazed And Confused said...

Harbinger:

Whatever happened to you.....The little problem with certain UAF parties has been solved completely, and they wont bother you anymore, as I tracked them down one by one, and showed their faces to the world.....(Well, I named them actually).....Hell....Even the "Lancaster Unity" blog faded away because one of the good Comrades from YouTube was the major contributor there....The BNP are mugs, the UAF were just nasty.......But they've gone away.....And hopefully for good.

Anonymous said...

Dazed And Confused,

Hi and long time no hear!
I did shut down the blog and then re-opened it in order to put up a few reprisal posts and then blogger shut it down, not allowing me access including my google email as well. I lost lots of important info and email addresses of many people (yourself included) when they shut down the email. It really pissed me off and most certainly the work of Daisterizche (or whatever his name was), that prick in the UAF.

Well done on getting rid of them. You always were incredibly good at researching and finding out what was needed to be known. I commend you on that D&C. And yes the BNP & UAF are all merely part of the dialectic, there to cause friction. We'll have to chat again. Drop me a line at:

bloodyannoyingemailaddress@gmail.com

I reply to alot of the captain's articles, although he's been cutting down alot of late, due to things happening in his life. I just continue to educate myself on what's going on and don't blog anymore.
Anyway, hope all is well.

regards

Harbinger

James Higham said...

As you are aware the enforcement of any law would be through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament or the actions of the government in entering into international treaty obligations.

Whoa! Pandora's box.