Yet more evidence Supreme Court ruling was itself Unlawful

Dear Friends,

Hopefully you managed to catch last nigh’t very important if not you can catch up at the end of the article. We now enclose a further 3 exhibits of evidence to show how in fact the Supreme Court itself was Unlwaful. It is also very important that you share this article, you will see how the Fake News media are using Jo Cox to try and hit Boris whilst deflecting from this scandalous decision.

 

Exhibit A by Vince Cawthron:

 

Prorogue of the UK Parliament

Parliament is usually prorogued or adjourned before it is dissolved. … This tradition was again carried out at the most recent dissolution, in May 2017. The last dissolution of Parliament was on 3 May 2017, to make way for the general election to be held on 8 June 2017.
The Prorogue Act 1867 states :

Power to Her Majesty to issue proclamation for the prorogation of parliament.U.K.“Whenever (save as herein-after excepted) Her Majesty shall be pleased, by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Her Majesty, to issue her royal proclamation to prorogue Parliament from the day to which it shall then stand summoned or prorogued to any further day being not less than fourteen days from the date thereof (The Representation of the People Act 1918, changed the period for such an extension from 14 days to at least 20 days) such proclamation shall, without any subsequent issue of a writ or writs patent or commission under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, be a full and sufficient notice to all persons whatever of such the royal intention of Her Majesty, and the Parliament shall thereby stand prorogued to the day and place in such proclamation appointed, notwithstanding any former law, usage, or practice to the contrary.”

The Fixed Parliament Act 2011 states :

6. Supplementary provisions

“(1)This Act does not affect Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament.”

The Supreme Court acted Unlawfully, Freedom of Speech is guaranteed by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 “Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament”.

Article 9 of the English Bill of Rights, section II, item 11, which states “Freedom of Speech, That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”.

——————————————————————-

In 1997, John Major, the then Conservative prime minister, controversially prorogued parliament at a time that avoided parliamentary debate of the Parliamentary Commissioner’s report on the cash-for-questions affair. On that occasion, the prorogation was on Friday, 21 March until 2^nd May (6 weeks) which included dissolution for the general election on 1 May and resulted in a change of government to Labour led by Tony Blair.

Mr Major was accused by political opponents and the media at the time of doing this to prevent the “cash-for-questions” report being published before the upcoming general election. Whether or not that was his reason for proroguing parliament, it had that effect—the report was eventually published in July 1997.

——————————————————————-

Boris Johnson suspended Parliament on September 9 until 14^th October (5 weeks) vowing to push through Brexit by the October 31 deadline.

The PM defended the controversial move, saying the five-week suspension until October 14 would allow the government to set a new legislative agenda for the Queens speech on 14^th October 2019.

———————————————————————-

The supreme court judgement 24^th September 2019 against prorogation is unlawful iaw the 1689 Bill of Rights, Article 9, The 1867 Prorogue Act and The 2011Fixed Parliament Act. Therefore the Supreme Court have deliberately and purposely ruled unlawfully against the UK Government, not through ignorance but by pure intent to interfere with the Political Procedures within Parliament.
David Winders post 25th September 2019

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JacobReesMogg/permalink/2266716400096716/

“The Supreme Court is an EU affiliated Court. No British law or Constitution was broken by the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament but the Europhile judges quoted EU law in their summation. This is a constitutional coup by unelected Supreme Court judges, where no law was broken, yet you wish to celebrate it? The courts have no place in politics. Thats why the powers were seperated after the Civil War. Where is the scrutiny? Where is the public accountability? Who are these people who have literally just invented a new law without Monarch or Parliament being involved in the process and you are happy about it?

Frankly you have no understanding as to what just happened yesterday. If you did, you’d be as appallled as the rest of us. Dicey described the seperation of powers as being necessary for good reason, as without that seperation then Paliamentary Supremacy cannot exist. The Judiciary cannot make laws and then rule on them, that is tyranny and as such the Judiciary needs to be subordinate to Parliament.

After yesterdays ruling, the Supreme Court has just put itself above that of the Monarch.
Which has effectively put them as Head of State and removed the Monarch as Head of the Judiciary. With the consequence being that we are no longer a Constitutional Monarchy but a Constitutional Supreme-ocracy. Have you no concept of what this means to the very foundation of our systems of governance? We are ruled by unelected judges. We have a Politburo. Democracy is officially dead. Your votes count for nothing. Your Parliament counts for nothing. Manifestos that gained MP’s election now count for nothing as the Supreme Court has deemed itself capable of overuling all, including the Queen. This is a Constitutional Coup by an unelected group of 11 judges that has just overturned 400 years of convention that was needed to end the Civil War. Where yesterday they invented a law, outside of Parliament, then implemented it. That excess of power was why we had an uprising against the sitting Monarch, yet we are back here again through the arrogance of those who simply will not accept a vote that they disagree. God help us all “Credit David Winder.

 

Exhibit B courtesy of Roger: 

 

I was surprised to learn reading the Supreme Court text of Lady Hale’s statement about the judgement that “Mr Mark Harper, chief whip” attended a meeting of the Privy Council at Balmoral on 28th August 2019.

I seem to recall Mark Harper ceased to be Chief Whip well before recent events.

I was also interested to read that “During a recess (as opposed to a Prorogation break) written Parliamentary Questions can be asked and must be answered.” When we broke for the last summer recess the Order Paper told us written questions submitted after the last day of session would be tabled and answered when Parliament returned in September.

The Supreme Court argued that Prorogation was different from recess though there are many similarities.

Lady Hale argued that the memorandum from Nikki da Costa which recommended prorogation left out important matters Lady Hale wished to see in it. She stated that the “effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme”.

Most of us believe in the separation of powers. We need independent judges to judge individual cases and sometimes to interpret Statute and Common Law, and all the time we are in the EU overarching EU law as well. Where Judges use their powers to interpret Statutes in ways Parliament does not like, then Parliament can of course amend the Statute to clarify the intent.

Parliament has more power to decide the law by passing Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments, but usually has no power to judge individual cases under the law. Parliaments develop their own relations with the Executive or government which is part of Parliament but also has independent powers to decide and spend beneath a general Parliamentary approval. By convention government proposes new laws to Parliament for Parliament’s approval, amendment or rejection.

The danger of the present situation is no-one is in charge because the government no longer has a Parliamentary majority. We see daily jousting for temporary power or control of the agenda where no-one has the authority that comes from commanding a majority of MPs. The right answer is a General election so the public can decide who they want to govern the country. Instead we have a PM being held hostage by Parliament and Courts who are seeking to force him to do the opposite of what he has promised and believes to be right.

It cannot be the right answer to the big question of whether we remain or leave the EU to have that finally determined in a court of law based on an Act of Parliament rushed through against the wishes of the PM, the government and the majority who voted Leave in the referendum. Acts of Parliament were designed to provide sound and fair law for us all, not to be political traps and political statements against a Prime Minister who has insufficient MPs to endorse his view.

 

Exhibit C courtesy of Monty: 

 

“Which UK law/Legislation has the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson breached/broken in his decision to Prorogue Parliament?’ The Supreme Court ‘conveniently’ do not mention breach of any UK Law/Legislation in their decision against the UK Government/Prime Minister.”

Surely … (with acknowledgement to Mike Wyatt and Spencer Rowley) …

Any ruling by a court must be based on law. When ruling something illegal or unlawful, the presiding judge must quote the law, and specific clause within that law, that has been transgressed. The Supreme Court ruling on Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament held no such reference, and when you read all 24 pages of it, the ruling is shown to be based entirely on assumptions and opinions! The ruling is therefore itself NOT LEGAL!

But in any case, English law actually precludes the courts from ruling on Parliamentary procedures – Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 reads:

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

So Parliamentary proceedings can only be questioned and challenged in Parliament itself.

In addition, the prorogation was authorised by Her Majesty and is one of the few remaining prerogatives that are the exclusive right of the Monarch. The Fixed Parliament Act 2011, Section 6 states:

“(1)This Act does not affect Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament.”

Notice that the 2011 Act says, “Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament”, thereby acknowledging that it is the Crown’s PERSONAL Royal Prerogative, and not one that requires ministerial advice, although that would be taken into account (it’s also worth checking the Prorogue Act 1867).

THEREFORE these judges have clearly set themselves above the Queen, as well as basing their judgement on opinion and supposition, which is entirely contrary to legal requirements.

As well as conspiring against the democratically expressed will of the people, the Supreme Court has brought itself (and by association the entire legal system beneath it) into disrepute!

 

Watch below & SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube Channel: