Category: Globalist

I’m using the Facebook system less and less these days. If ever a system was devised to keep the sheep in the pen, this is it. This morning, I dipped in briefly, to look at the details  there of a name which had come to my attention. I am told there that this person has over 2,000 ‘friends’, each of which has, on average, more than 1,000 ‘friends’ of their own.  It tells him nothing really. How many of the ‘friends’ we have against our Facebook ID could we actually call on, if we needed real help?

I often say, phlegmatically, that I have a recurring nightmare, in which I discover to my horror that Mark Zuckerberg turns out to be George Soros’s grandson.. What is for sure is that this diabolically cunning invention is proving to be a bigger time-waster than Baird’s gogglebox.

There were said to be more than 17.4 million of us UK citizens who, when David Cameron finally acceded to incessant pestering, graciously granting the sheeple a choice, surprised him by not obeying his instructions to vote REMAIN – in the EU. When he retired to nurse his bruised ego, had he possessed any shred of social conscience, he would have asked one of the 138 others of the Tories – who had said ‘Let’s get OUT’ – to pick up the reins and steer us away from Brussels. Then we may just have had some slight respect for ‘Old Sarum’. No chance, we end up with Teresa May-be.

Folks, if we trust her, we’ll all finish up, at best in BRINO, at worst, we’ll all be running around with our EU membership number tattooed on our foreheads. (I suppose at least then, the despised Burkha will have been declared ‘illegal’). We are going to have to dig much deeper than that, to get this nation on any sort of solid foundation again.

As I see it, we can all shilly-shally around, finding theoretical ‘friends’, thinking that ‘we shall be heard for our much tapping’, or each of us can take a really brave step into the unknown, and send our name, town and email address to ‘info@livingstones.uk’ and there become a part of the move to re-unite the millions who voted to LEAVE the corrupt EU – a failed vanity project, if ever there was one. There, you may just find out, who is actually ready to stand back-to-back, shoulder-to-shoulder with you, now the Thought Police have started restricting our right to meet and discuss anything more weighty than the soccer results or the weather.

The Unconstitutional Arrest Warrant – Part 2

Part 2 – Since the Weights & Measures Act 1985 did not explicitly repeal any provisions of the European Communities Act 1972, which it might have done by including words like “any provisions in or deriving from the ECA72 notwithstanding”, but didn’t, then, in this case, the earlier ECA72 must be held to prevail over the later WMA85. They even added, as a consolation “sop” to the defence and to Eurosceptics in general, that Parliament is in any case free to repeal the ECA72 whenever it wishes, as long as it does so explicitly.

The Metric Martyrs now presented an appeal to the House of Lords, but it was thought that their appeal was not worth hearing, so the decision of the Appeal Court acquired the status of legal precedent, which as every law student knows, is now binding on all subsequent decisions.

This “innovation” by Laws and Crane can be summarised in general terms as follows:

There are now two levels of law in the United Kingdom: a) Constitutional laws and b) Ordinary laws. There are different rules that apply if Parliament wishes to repeal any of them.

In cases where there is a conflict between two ordinary laws, the later law is deemed to annul those provisions of the previous law in conflict with it, under the well-established doctrine of “implied repeal”, whereby that part of the earlier law, if found to be in conflict with the later, is declared null and void.

In cases where there is a conflict between an ordinary law and a previous constitutional law, then the constitutional law is held to prevail over the ordinary law unless the subsequent ordinary law explicitly repeals a provision in the preceding constitutional law. Parliament can repeal any constitutional law by simple majority vote, for one bedrock rule of our constitution is that ‘No Parliament Can Bind Its Successors’. This is also the basis for the doctrine of implied repeal.

However what Laws and Crane established is the principle that Parliament cannot change the constitution by implied repeal.

So by the same token, if there is a conflict between two ‘constitutional laws’, then it must surely follow that unless the subsequent constitutional law explicitly repeals a provision in the preceding constitutional law, then the preceding constitutional law prevails.

So, if in a case against the Kent police charging them with unlawful detention or false imprisonment, their defence counsel should argue that the PTA1972 over-rides any provisions of Magna Carta 1215 or indeed Habeas Corpus, under “implied repeal”, the counter-argument could be to say that Magna Carta has constitutional status, and so has Habeas Corpus. Therefore, if the PTA1972 had been intended to over-ride it should have said so explicitly. In fact, it did not abrogate section 38 of Magna Carta! Indeed section 38 is hardly ever talked about because, in the English-speaking world at least, it is considered too obvious that you need evidence of wrong-doing before starting legal proceedings against anyone.

After all the public razzmatazz (on both sides of the North Atlantic) about celebrating our Magna Carta heritage in 2015, I would like to see a judge having the brazen face to deny that Magna Carta has Constitutional Status! And since Ms Southern is a Canadian citizen, and Ms Pettibone (who was also so detained) is a US citizen, and both countries proclaim Magna Carta as a founding document of their – and our – civilization, I think that this argument ought to have the power to crush these miserable bureaucrats who try to steal our liberties.

As indeed was the original intention of those who drafted it, all those centuries ago.

And indeed, as commentators from Coke to Churchill have repeated down the ages.

Previous attempts to get us out of the tentacles of the EU through the law courts have failed. Largely owing to the unwillingness of the judges to go against Parliament. And to the general climate of opinion which was held to be in favour of EU membership.

But now that Brexit has won the referendum, and the government is ‘officially’ in favour, some judges might at least be willing to follow the precedent of the Appeal Court’s Laws and Crane…. who will thereby be hoisted with their own petard!

I hope this may be helpful.

With a hat-tip to Torquil Dick-Erikson

The Unconstitutional Arrest Warrant – Part 1

The European Arrest Warrant is unconstitutional. It must – and can – be struck down. Not just EAW arrests, but all arrests made on no evidence, such as those recently suffered by Lauren Southern, and earlier, the case of David Noakes (q.v.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUEqmX1Ng8o and others.

Most of us may think the EAW is just about catching criminals. It is not. It is a tool for tyranny. It is a threat to the freedom of the innocent. It can be wielded by the British authorities, but also by any judiciary – however dodgy – anywhere in Europe, against any of us. The present Prime Minister Theresa May wants it to continue indefinitely, in a Security Treaty to be signed between the UK and the EU, even after Brexit.

Here is the shocking interview of Lauren Southern by Tommy Robinson.

Ms Southern, a Canadian citizen aged 22, was subjected to a banning order by the British authorities, preventing her from entering the UK, on the grounds that she intended to interview Tommy Robinson, who, they said, was a ‘right-wing, racist leader’. On a previous visit she had distributed leaflets saying that ‘Allah was a Gay God’ – as an experiment, to test the reaction of the public and the authorities, and to verify the extent to which freedom of speech is already being curtailed in the UK.

Not only was she banned from entering, she was also detained by Kent police for three days. During this time, they telephoned her father in Canada to tell him that they were holding her under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, although they had no reason to suspect her of being a terrorist. Her father took the precaution of recording that conversation.

It is indeed shocking, that people are now being detained, as Ms Southern was, without any evidence of wrong-doing. And, as indeed happens regularly with the EAW, although there is, in that case, the (fake) excuse that the foreign authority issuing an EAW ‘must surely’ already have evidence, although in fact the foreign authorities don’t have to have any evidence under their own Napoleonic laws, as was explained during the CIB conference which Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox kindly hosted in March 2017.

What happened to Ms Southern is a clear breach of Magna Carta, Section 38. This (usually unnoticed) section is the basis of ‘Habeas Corpus’, which prevents people from being arrested and imprisoned on no evidence.

In their incredible wisdom, 800 years ago, our forefathers laid down, in Latin – and the Latin text is important – in just 15 words, the basis of the freedom of the individual from arbitrary arrest and prosecution or persecution and harassment by officers of the state. It says:

Nullus balivus ponat aliquem ad legem, simplici sua loquela, sine testibus fidelibus ad hoc aductis.

In English: ‘No legal officer (balivus, originally ‘bailiff’) shall put anyone to the law i.e. shall start legal proceedings against anyone (NB ‘anyone’ ‘aliquem’ – this is a universal human right, not limited to ‘free men’), on his own mere say-so, without reliable witnesses who have been brought for the purpose.’

Note the use of the past participle ‘aductis’ (= English ‘adduced’): the witnesses, the evidence, must have been already collected BEFORE legal proceedings, such as an arrest, are started. In Continental jurisdictions suspects are often ordered to be arrested first, and then, AFTERWARDS, they seek evidence. They are allowed to do this under the provisions of their own Napoleonic-inquisitorial systems, which are alien to our own Magna Carta heritage. This procedure, also called ‘fishing expeditions’, is NOT ALLOWED under Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus laws.

This means that nobody can be subjected to any legal act, like arrest or detention, without previously collected evidence.

Ms Southern and Tommy Robinson talked about legal redress for her dreadful experience at the hands of the British state. Might I suggest that what she suffered was an abuse of due process, indeed a perversion of justice, at the hands of the Kent police officers who detained her thus, on NO EVIDENCE. Her Habeas Corpus rights were VIOLATED.

Now, if Ms Southern does bring a case against the Kent police for unlawful detention (or some such offence, maybe false imprisonment…?), the Kent police might put forward the counter-argument that the PTA provisions gave them that power, and, since it comes after Magna Carta and indeed after the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 (and any subsequent modifications), it over-rides those guarantees under the doctrine of implied repeal.

This counter-argument can be invalidated as follows:

There was a famous case some years ago, when some market traders in Sunderland were convicted and given a criminal record for having sold bananas by the pound weight instead of by the kilogram as had become compulsory under an order complying with an EU directive, issued under the legal force of the European Communities Act 1972. The defendants of this absurdly unfair conviction became known as ‘The Metric Martyrs’. They appealed against their conviction, but their appeal failed.

We must look at the reasons given, why their appeal was turned down.

When the Appeal Court, Lords Laws and Crane, confirmed the conviction of the Metric Martyrs, they gave a novel answer to their defence’s arguments: their defence had argued that the 1985 Weights and Measures Act, which allowed market produce to be sold in lb and/or kg, was subsequent to the 1972 ECA (under whose provisions the order criminalising the sale of fruit by the pound weight instead of by the kilogram had been issued). Therefore, argued the defence, the WMA1985 over-rode that part or that effect of the ECA1972 under the doctrine of implied repeal, whereby if there be a conflict between laws then the subsequent law is deemed to have over-ridden the provisions of the earlier law.

Not so, said their Lordships. They said that the ECA72 had the status of a ‘constitutional act’, and so could not be over-ridden by subsequent legislation under implied repeal, but only if the repeal was explicitly spelled out in the text of the subsequent Act.

Hat-tip to Torquil Dick-Erikson

 

LIVINGSTONES UK, working in conjunction with DEMOCRACY 17.4, is dedicated to the exposure of corruption, lies and treasonous collusion, as it has occurred both in the ‘Palace’ of Westminster as among the unelected, self-seeking  oligarchy which has , over a period of some 66 years, conspired to surreptitiously denude this nation of its democracy, its sovereignty, its judiciary and so much more.

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people realising what is happening. This can be achieved by successive steps, each disguised as having some ‘economic’ purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to ‘federation’’

Written by Jean Monnet (a Founding Father of the European Union) in a letter to a friend, dated 30^th April 1952.

This is the mantra which has fuelled the development of the unelected, bloated, self-seeking oligarchy which today sits, brooding like an inoperable cancer, in the belly of Europe.

Just think back –

1945 – the end of fighting in World War 11

1948 – the Treaty of Brussels – Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and the United Kingdom –with a mutual defence clause against the threat of further hostilities. [Attlee – Labour]

1951 – the Treaty of Paris – Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and  West Germany, established the ‘European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC)- ‘economic benefit’ [ Churchill – Tory did not join]

1957 – the Treaty of Rome – the same six countries – the European ‘Economic’ Community was founded.

1965 – the Brussels (Merger) Treaty – combined the ECSC, the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) with the EEC into a single institutional structure [ Wilson – Labour]

 1973 – the United Kingdom was ‘taken in’ to the EEC (still ‘economic’) with Parliament in recession, without full and open debate – a less than honest, if not downright illegal move.[ Heath – Tory]    

[FO30/1048- a secret government document, released on the 30-year rule, shows that Heath was fully aware, at the time, precisely what he was doing.

A letter from Lord Kilmuir, dated 1960, had laid out all the aspects and the risks of this undertaking, which is in itself indicative of the fact that this thing was not done hastily, nor ‘in a corner’. The links for both these documents are appended in ADDENDUM at the end of this article.]

1975 – the (European) Council Agreement on TREVI – after the Munich Olympic Games (hostage taking) – benefit? – countering ‘terrorism’..[Wilson – Labour]

1986 – the Single European Act – establishing a single market (economic benefit). Also, the European Parliament can now legislate, and the Council of Ministers can overrule that Parliament, when it votes against what the Council desires – neat, eh? [Thatcher – Tory]

1990 – the Schengen Agreement – internal border checks would now be abolished – hurrah, an uninvited terrorist can now travel from Italy to the UK, hidden in the back of a commercial vehicle, with less likelihood of detection. [Thatcher – Tory]

1992 – the Maastricht Treaty (formally, The Treaty on European Union – TEU) would finally integrate Europe (politically and economically, not geographically) into a single entity. Also started off the € EURO currency as a concept. Also reduced Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to EU citizen status. [Major – Tory]

 1997 – the Amsterdam Treaty – members agree to relax legislation on ‘immigration’ ‘ (after they had all surreptitiously signed up to the ‘Barcelona Declaration two years earlier), accept new civil and criminal laws – and open the door to further countries being admitted to the EU [Blair – Labour]

2001 – the Treaty of Nice – supposed to reform the EU’s structure to withstand ‘eastward’ expansion (what happened to THIS notion, then?). The Irish tried to disagree in a Referendum (where have we heard THAT word before?) but were told to vote again, until they fell in line [Blair – Labour]

2009 – the Treaty of Lisbon – the stated aim of this one was ‘to weaken democracy by moving power away from national electorates. Its supporters argued that better ‘checks and balances’ would be brought into the EU system, with stronger powers for the European Parliament and ‘a new role for national parliaments’ – how does THAT work when Brussels has assumed authority over those parliaments? [Brown – Labour]

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we now have the situation where, the UKIP party, (under Farage, having manfully pestered the Tories to ALLOW a UK Referendum), cannot stop its in-fighting, which has reduced them to the point of ridicule, the present LABOUR position is risible, so desperate to be in control, they are talking about offering the vote to puberty, the Liberal Democrats have shot themselves in the foot, thanks to no stable policies at all. The Tories have egg on their face, (David Cameron is on record as promising to implement the result of the Referendum), showing total disdain for the majority electorate by ensuring that another ‘REMAINER’ tries to ride the Brexit unicycle, along a DUP tightrope, whilst balancing a large BANKERs’ balloon on her head.

Every effort is being made by this government and Brussels to dilute the EU exit catastrophe, to reduce the public perception of it to a family ‘tiff’, as the EU house of cards realises that, without UK funding, its unbalanced finances will come crashing down to nothing.

DEMOCRACY 17.4 now calls on all those who truly love their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, their own, 1,000-year old judiciary, their outstanding military prowess and discipline  – in short, their international dignity – to commit to a programme of INDEPENDENT candidates as the only feasible and affordable way to unseat this unsuitable government system.

We offer a sensible, financially-feasible solution  –  local candidates for local issues.   

Join DEMOCRACY 17.4 today, let us work to the only sensible outcome.

Thank you. There are various ways to enlist:

Go to www.democracy17-4.org and enlist now, or

Call 07375 757 737 or email us at  info@democracy17-4.org or

Email LIVINGSTONES UK at info@livingstones.uk

Call 07496 536670 or write to us at PO Box 1684, Huddersfield HD9 1AU

Addendum:

With reference to Lord Kilmour’s advice to the Tory government Heath, please see:

http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/research-paper-10/79-letter-edward-heath-lord-kilmuir-december-1960

 With reference to Ted Heath’s deliberate deception, please see:

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.express.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F882881%2FBrexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public&h=AT0gv7w6Co4kXes1g1ZuF-6zDRI11u-jA2zU07Kt9R_A-RPRMkheTJcK8P-jFDtVZ_teh4QXb-ifDU8Bcn1jzHhmXO_US3ri8Dgahk7KqvK7LzlyDxuCOalk_gQAg1tiP6Ctmw