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 15^th 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Because of this principle Acts of previous Parliaments that have been repealed no longer have any legal effect and that includes all previous Acts relating to treason that have been repealed or amended.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.