(see end of article for Letters Patent-definitions.) All UK legislation passed since 2000 is null and void
12 April 2010 All UK legislation passed since 2000 is null and void –
including Lisbon Treaty
Mismanagement of House of Lords Reform
Should Create Constitutional Crisis
But will Lawless Government Ignore Legal Consequences?
Letters patent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Pleaseimprove this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (April 2009) |
Letters patent (pl. letters patent; Latin: litterae patentes) are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government, granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or to some entity such as a corporation. The opposite of letters patent are letters close (Latin: litterae clausae), which are personal in nature and sealed so that only the recipient can read their contents. Letters patent can be used for the creation of corporations or government offices, or for the granting of city status or a coats of arms. A particular form of letters patent has evolved into the modern patent granting exclusive rights in an invention.
In the United Kingdom and countries formerly under that country's influence, letters patent are issued under the prerogative powers of the head of state ("royal prerogative"). They constitute a rare, if significant, form oflegislation without the consent of the parliament. Letters patent may also be used to grant assent to legislation.
In the United States, the forgery of letters patent granted by the President is a crime subject to fine and/orimprisonment up to ten years (18 U.S.C. § 497). Without letters patent, a person is unable to assume an appointed office. Such an issue prompted the Marbury v. Madison suit, where William Marbury and three others petitioned the United States Supreme Court to order James Madison to deliver their letters for appointments made under the previous administration.
[edit]See also
- Commissioning scroll
- Letter of marque
- Letters close
- Lettre de cachet
- Patent of Toleration
- Royal Charter
- Statute of Monopolies 1623, an attempt to rein in the abuse of letters patent in England
- Land patent, in the United States
[edit]External links
[edit]Examples of letters patent
- (Blank) forms of letters patent granting peerages
- Letters patent of George VI (1947) constituting the office of Governor General of Canada
- Letters patent of Elizabeth II (1984) constituting the office of Governor-General of Australia
Definitions of letters patent on the Web:
- patent: an official document granting a right or privilege
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Letters patent (pl. letters patent; litterae patentes) are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government, granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or to some entity such as a corporation. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent - royal letters containing instructions to an official or initiating legal action, sent in open form and certified by seal
medievalwriting.50megs.com/glossary2.htm - Sealed and "open" letters, often enrolled on Patent Rolls. (Sayles, George O. The King's Parliament of England, 145) Related terms ...
www.netserf.org/Glossary/L.cfm - An open letter issued by the Sovereign, by which peerage titles are granted.
www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/glossary.aspx - A document issued by the Sovereign that serves as an instrument of conveyance or grant, in areas as diverse as land, franchises and offices. The Letters Patent issued by King George VI in 1947 transferred most of the Sovereign's powers to the Governor General to be exercised in Canada.
www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/fr-rf/crnCdn/112-eng.cfm - Formal term for the document that defines a patent.
ALL UK LEGISLATION PASSED SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID
IMPLICATIONS OF MISMANAGEMENT OF 'REFORM' OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Saturday 10 April 2010 01:01
UPDATE: BRITAIN FACES A COLOSSAL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Now that the deception over the Hereditary Peers’ Letters Patent has been placed decisively in the public domain [see below] THE CRISIS CAN NO LONGER BE GLOSSED OVER AND IGNORED.
•That’s what they will try to do, but they can’t.
Here are the issues that the UK Political and Bureaucratic Establishment face which PRECLUDE the usual cynical official procedure of pretending there’s no problem here:
•The nation will have to be told that TEN YEARS’ WORTH OF LAWS don’t exist in reality, only on paper, and that all legislation since 2000 is NULL AND VOID.
•The European Union Collective will have to be informed that none of the legislation that it has inflicted on the Westminster Parliament since 2000 is valid, the whole lot being NULL AND VOID*.
•The Privy Council, the Lord President of the Council (Lord Mandelson!), the Lord Privy Seal (Harriet Harman QC, MP!), an office combined with the office of Leader of the House of Commons, and whoever else advises The Queen as Head of State, will HAVE to grasp this nettle and inform Her Majesty that all the Bills she has signed since 2000 are NULL AND VOID.
•All foreign and Commonwealth Governments will have to receive a Diplomatic Note from Her Majesty’s Government to the same effect. THIS CANNOT BE DELAYED, or there will be serious consequences arising from thorny UK legislative issues affecting governments abroad.
•The Hereditary Peers will have to petition The Queen EN MASSE for Her Majesty to intervene to enable the Hereditary Peers’ reinstatement to the House of Lords and the return of their Letters Patent. If the Government have taken custody of the Letters Patent of Hereditary Peers whose Letters Patent were granted centuries ago, that is another scandal.
•NO FURTHER LEGISLATION CAN BE PASSED BY PARLIAMENT until this mess has been sorted. Not now that the whole world knows about this unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal state of affairs.
•If the usual British official modus operandi of IGNORING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM and pretending that the problem doesn’t exist is adopted, there will be very serious accumulating, ongoing consequences for ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT, and the situation could run completely out of control before the Establishment has had breakfast.
* When informing Brussels that the past ten years’ worth of Westminster legislation is VOID, the opportunity should be taken to add that remittance of taxpayers’ funds into the hands of a criminal enterprise is illegal (as we have proved), according to the UK Serious Fraud Office.
The European Commission’s accounts have not been approved by the EU’s own Court of Auditors in Luxembourg for the past FOURTEEN YEARS, which reveals that the European Commission is operating UNLAWFULLY AND ILLEGALLY, and thus that the British Government is committing an ongoing CRIMINAL OFFENCE by remitting the proceeds of its VAT collections to Brussels. UK VAT taxpayers may have a case against the Government for illegally diverting their VAT tax remittances.
It ALSO means that the Member Governments can sue the European Commission for the RETURN OF THEIR UNLAWFULLY REMITTED VALUE ADDED TAX PAYMENTS plus compound interest going back for fourteen years, as the European Commission is criminally retaining their taxpayers' funds remitted by the Member Governments in error.
•As we recommended last autumn, and previously, British VAT accruals should be placed into a special Treasury account, to be offset against the colossal Government deficit and to pay down the permissive debt incurred by the discredited Labour Government.
•It is ANOTHER SCANDAL OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS that the British Government sees fit to commit the crime of remitting its taxpayers’ funds into the hands of a criminal enterprise when the country is all but bankrupt thanks to the Government’s stupidity and profligacy, when the accruals in question CAN LEGITIMATELY BE DIVERTED INTO OFFSETTING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE GOVERNMENT’S SPENDTHRIFT BEHAVIOUR.
•That would CUT SHORT THE DISHONEST ELECTION CAMPAIGN NON-DEBATE about how the deficit and the colossal volume of unnecessary new official debt are going to be addressed.
All in all, therefore, we have the ingredients of an IMMENSE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS right across the political and financial spectrum. IGNORING THIS ONE WILL HAVE FATAL CONSEQUENCES.
•SUBVERSIVE PLAN TO IMPOSE FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
•'CONSERVATIVE' LEADER DAVID CAMERON BACKS THIS WHEEZE, TOO
•MONARCH’S KEY RESIDUAL POWER IS TO CALL FOR
A SUITABLE CANDIDATE TO FORM A GOVERNMENT
•ALL LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID
•HEREDITARY PEERS NOT REMOVABLE BY GENERAL LEGISLATION
•AUTHORITY FOR THIS STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT ITSELF
•ANALYSIS OF BARONESS ASHTON’S LORDS STATEMENT
•900 HEREDITARY PEER-SPECIFIC BILLS WOULD BE NEEDED
•BOTCHED OBFUSCATION OF BLAIR’S HAM-FISTED MISCALCULATION
•THE UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF PEERS’ PASSES TO THE LORDS
•RECAPITULATION OF THE ANALYSIS TO THIS POINT
•HOUSE OF LORDS WAS THEN PACKED WITH BLAIR’S CRONIES
•DEFINITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BOTCHED REVOLUTIONARY OPERATION
•HOW THIS CHAOTIC STATE OF AFFAIRS CAN BE RECTIFIED WITH MINIMAL HASSLE
•WHY THE REVOLUTIONARIES HAVE SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT
•POSTSCRIPT: NOTHING THE NEW PARLIAMENT PASSES WILL BE VALID, EITHER
•‘SCUM OF THE EARTH’, ‘TOO CLEVER BY HALF’
•WITHOUT ABOLITION OF THE 1999 ACT, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS POINTLESS
•Note: The report dated 11th April 2010 entitled 'POLAND’S SUSPICIOUS SECOND KATYN MASSACRE TRAGEDY' can be accessed at once by pressing 'Archive' or the Archive button.
'Seeing what's at the end of one's nose requires constant effort'. George Orwell.
SECURITIZATION IS ILLEGAL UPDATE: In the Subs/Books Update panel immediately below the NEWS panel that you are currently viewing, you will see an announcement concerning publication ofEconomic Intelligence Review, Volume 12, Numbers 7 & 8. If you press that announcement text and open up the panel, you will see the contents list for the new [2010Q1] issue of E.I.R., including a breakdown of the Chapter Headings for the detailed analysis showing that Securitization is illegal. See our NEWS report dated 10th March 2010 for summaries of some of the data from this analysis. We understand that the report has created uproar in certain corridors of corrupt power.
•Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review and associated intelligence services cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or to any of the earlier reports.
•BOOKS: Edward Harle Limited has so far published FIVE intelligence titles: The Perestroika Deception, by Anatoliy Golitsyn; Red Cocaine, by Dr Joseph D. Douglass, Jr.; The European Union Collective, by Christopher Story; The New Underworld Order, by Christopher Story; and The Red Terror in Russia, by Sergei Melgounov. All titles are permanently in stock. We sell books DIRECT.
•ADVERTISEMENT: Details of the INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION software offered by this service in conjunction with a donation can be accessed immediately: See the Home Page World Reports Limited serials catalogue by clicking World Reports Limited and scrolling to foot of page. Scroll to the foot of THIS page to read our extended Ad. for the INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION.
•AS PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED, OUR LANDLINES REMAIN CLOSED BECAUSE OF UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT. WE CAN BE CONTACTED VIA EMAIL OR THE WEBSITE 'CONTACT US' FACILITY.
NEW REPORT STARTS HERE:
SUBVERSIVE PLAN TO IMPOSE FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Having successfully degraded Britain’s public finances and its currency, first by years of inordinate socialist public spending and then by burdening all future generations with unconscionable public debt obligations because he didn’t like the sight of Argentine-style queues of customers lining the streets to withdraw their savings from the corrupt Northern Rock bank, the international socialist British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is secretly continuing the subversive operation launched by his corrupt predecessor, Tony Blair, to destroy the Monarchy and to convert Britain into a Republic.
Mounting evidence that the revolutionary UK Labour Government seeks the destruction of the Monarchy was confirmed on 8th April, when Brown stated, at the outset of the General Election campaign, that he will introduce fixed-term Parliaments and a referendum on the reform of the British first-past-the-post voting system if Labour is re-elected on 6th May.
In announcing an intention to impose fixed-term Parliaments, Brown is clearly accommodating the Campaign for Fixed-Term Parliaments – an innocuous-sounding but in fact thoroughly subversive, revolutionary so-called ‘cross-party’ initiative that has been campaigning behind the scenes to persuade gormless politicians whose brains reside mainly in their boots that the Prime Minister’s power to call for an election at the time of his choosing is by some alchemy an anti-democratic constitutional anachronism, and should be replaced by a fixed term of four or five years.
•Any such 'reform' would be consistent with, and would pressupose, the conversion of Britain into a chaotic Republic like the worst extant contemporary example, the United States: see why, below.
•Another clue here is that nobility (and 'fake' nobility, such as is represented by Blair's cronies in the House of Lords) is incompatible with any Republican form of Government. [The original 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, drafted around 1800, banned Titles, Nobles and Esquires, and barred such title-holders from being US citizens and therefore from holding high office, a state of affairs that triggered the War of 1812 with Britain, leading to the sacking of Washington in 1814; whereupon the 13th Amendment was quietly dropped, with the assumption being that it was not ratified. However in recent years, state-by-state archival research has proved that it WAS ratified].
'CONSERVATIVE' LEADER DAVID CAMERON BACKS THIS WHEEZE, TOO
On 26th May 2009, the 'Conservative' David Cameron – front man for the alternative intelligence-promoted (Notting Hill) clique that has been readied, US-style, to replace the intelligence-promoted (Islington) claque headed by Blair and Brown from the 1990s if the forthcoming election cannot be adequately rigged to ensure a Brown victory – indicated that he is stupid enough to have fallen for this ruse, as well, when he pronounced that ‘a Conservative Government will seriously consider the option of fixed-term Parliaments when there is a majority Government’.
MONARCH’S KEY RESIDUAL POWER IS TO CALL FOR
A SUITABLE CANDIDATE TO FORM A GOVERNMENT
Why does this stance threaten the Monarchy? Answer: because one of the British Monarch’s residual OVERT powers consists in her power to consent to a Prime Minister’s request for a dissolution of Parliament, and her power also, on advice, to call for the elected parliamentary leader most likely to be in a position to form a Government, in the event of uncertainty – powers that may need to be deployed if the outcome of this General Election turns out to be as indecisive as many observers think is extremely likely.
And why can we state without fear of contradiction that the Campaign for Fixed-Term Parliaments is a subversive operation which has as its ultimate objective the overthrow of the Monarchy?
Because this tinkering with the UK Constitution needs to be seen in the context that it follows the Labour Government’s wholly unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful semi-destruction of the House of Lords – which can clearly be viewed as part of the same operation, as will now be demonstrated.
ALL LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID
Investigations into this dimension of the secret revolutionary plan to destroy the Monarchy – which stands in the way of covertly antagonistic foreign powers’ hegemony strategies – and to convert Britain into a Republic, have yielded the remarkable finding that ALL LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT SINCE ABOUT 2000 HAS BEEN NULL AND VOID.
•There are NO exceptions, contrary to assertions from some quarters that Finance Bills are not captured by this crisis. Rubbish! ALL Westminster legislation since 2000, INCLUDING all the rubber-stamping of legislation shovelled at us from Brussels, is NULL AND VOID, as explained below.
•PLUS: ALL LEGAL ACTIONS BASED ON LAWS PASSED AT WESTMINSTER SINCE 2000 FALL TO THE GROUND BECAUSE THOSE LAWS ARE BASED ON FRAUDULENT, RIGGED PROCEDURES.
Here’s how this definitive conclusion is reached: bear with us as we step through the evidence as deftly as possible, without omitting any of the necessary simple steps here:
HEREDITARY PEERS NOT REMOVABLE BY GENERAL LEGISLATION
Membership of the House of Lords is dependent upon the issuance, on ennoblement, by officials directly serving the Monarchy, of Letters Patent.
Removal of a Peer of the Realm from his seat in the House of Lords cannot be procured by General Legislation, such as the Blair Government’s House of Lords Act 1999.
This piece of General Legislation did NOT empower Her Majesty’s Government to impede a single Hereditary Peer who had taken his or her seat in the House of Lords after having sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, from continuing to carry out their solemn duties in the House of Lords as Councillors to the Crown, in accordance with the British Constitution.
AUTHORITY FOR THIS STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT ITSELF
Please do not argue with this.
The authority for this statement comes from the Labour Government itself:
29 September 2008 : Column WA398:
House of Lords: Letters Patent
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what means Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed;
and in what legislation that has occurred. [HL5196]:
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):
The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application.
Thus, the Peerage Act 1963 allowed Peeresses in their own right to sit in the House of Lords regardless of the terms of any Letters Patent creating the peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions. Conversely, the House of Lords decided in 1922 in the case of Viscountess Rhondda that the terms of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 were not sufficiently specific to allow her to take her seat in the Lords when her Letters Patent allowed her to inherit the peerage, but not the seat in the Lords. I am aware of only one case in which the effect of individual Letters Patent has been changed by Act of Parliament, which is that of the
Duke of Marlborough in 1706.
ANALYSIS OF BARONESS ASHTON’S LORDS STATEMENT
The first two sentences here are crucial:
‘The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application’.
Having taken their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, some 900 Hereditary Peers (with the exception of a specified rump group of 92 hereditary peers) had the ‘effect’ of their Letters Patent ostensibly annulled by The House of Lords Act 1999, which was GENERAL LEGISLATION.
However, as Baroness Ashton told the House of Lords on 20th September 2008: ‘The effect… cannot be changed by legislation of general application’.
In standard double-minded fashion, Baroness Ashton then told the Lords that:
‘The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions’.
900 HEREDITARY PEER-SPECIFIC BILLS WOULD BE NEEDED
But since The House of Lords Act 1999 was GENERAL LEGISLATION, the ‘right’ in question, part of the ‘effect’ specified at the beginning of Baroness Ashton’s pronouncement, removed that right illegally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Because:
•In order for ‘the effect of Letters Patent’ to be modified, given that it cannot be modified by General Legislation, it is necessary for:
•900 PEER-SPECIFIC BILLS TO BE PASSED BY PARLIAMENT changing ‘the effect of Letters Patent’, as per Baroness Ashton’s opening sentences:
'The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application’.
BOTCHED OBFUSCATION OF BLAIR’S HAM-FISTED MISCALCULATION
At some stage early in this process after passage of the 1999 legislation, the Blair Government realised that it had messed up and had browbeaten The Queen to append her signature to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNLAWFUL BILL, with all the hazards associated with such a miscalculation.
So, in order to OBFUSCATE the situation and to smother any ‘untoward consequences’ from the subversive Blair Government’s perspective, Ministers embarked upon two subsidiary underhand, surreptitious, unconstitutional operations:
•First, we are informed that the Labour Government somehow managed to persuade most of the hereditary peers to hand over their Letters Patent to some Government Department (from which extracting the documents will of course be impossible) – notwithstanding that the Letters Patent remain the property of each Hereditary Peer to this day.
•Secondly, immediately after The House of Lords Act 1999 had received the Royal Assent, those hereditary peers whose names were not included among the rump of hereditary peers who were still 'allowed' to continue carrying out their duties as Councillors to the Crown, had their passes removed from them, so that they were thereby prevented from gaining access to the Chamber.
•The main traitor in this scandal was the ‘Conservative’ Peer Lord Cranborne, then the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, who perpetrated this tawdry ‘deal’ with the corrupt Blair behind the backs of the leaders of the Conservative Party.
THE UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF PEERS’ PASSES TO THE LORDS
The scandalous removal of the hereditary peers’ passes came to light in 2008 when an Hereditary Peer requested a pass so that he could present his Letters Patent, take his oath of Allegiance to the Crown and thereby take his seat in the House of Lords.
When he discovered that the House of Lords authorities would not issue a pass enabling him to gain access to the Chamber, Lord Mereworth wrote as follows to The Lord President of the Council, the responsible official concerned:
The Lord President of the Council
The House of Lords,
Westminster,
London SW1A 0PW
By First Class Special Delivery
22nd June 2009
Dear Lord President,
Please accept the following as a token of esteem. Set out below is the published written question asked by Lord Laird of Artivargan and the written response given by your predecessor Baroness Ashton of Upholland on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government on 29th September 2008.
[see above: Editor].
Given the answer, it is clear that the hereditary peers’ Letters Patent were not amended by the House of Lords Act 1999 owing to the fact that the said Act is a piece of legislation for general application. Your predecessor’s answer put beyond doubt that my peerage and connections with the House of Lords do meet the requirements for a pass to be issued to me forthwith.
I enclose a copy of my letter dated 24th April 2009 to Sir Michael Wilcox KCB, the then Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, requesting him to renew my pass to the House before it expired at the end of April 2009 [not shown here: Editor].
I felt sorry for Sir Freddie Viggers, the current Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, [who is] clearly a dignified man of honour, who would not have demeaned himself by signing the letter on 17th June in response to my letter of 24th April unless he had been ordered to do so.
The response was as follows:-
‘I have looked into the renewal of your House of Lords pass and I have discussed this with the Lord Speaker, the usual channels and the Clerk of the Parliaments. I must inform you that it will not be possible to agree your request. Your peerage and connections with this House do not meet the requirements for a pass to be issued, and I am not able to issue a waiver.
I enclose a copy of the said letter. In light of the above and bearing in mind that I have had to wait two months for a totally incorrect and an extremely embarrassing response, I hope you will upon receipt of this letter acknowledge it by return and confirm that you have instructed Sir Freddie Viggers, to issue me with a House of Lords pass within seven days of the date of this letter.
Yours faithfully, Lord Mereworth.
RECAPITULATION OF THE ANALYSIS TO THIS POINT:
(1): The hereditary peers’ Letters Patent were not amended by the House of Lords Act 1999 owing to the fact that the said Act is a piece of legislation for general application.
(2): The withdrawal of the hereditary peers’ passes to enable them to enter the Chamber and so to fulfill their duties as Councillors to the Monarch is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful.
(3): The consequent destabilisation and variation of the membership composition of the House of Lords is likewise unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful.
(4): The consequence that most hereditary peers are unable in practice to exercise their duties as Councillors to the Crown further represents an unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful deprivation of their rights (and also, let it be added, of their human rights) to serve the Monarch in accordance with their Oath of Allegiance and consequent duties to the Crown.
HOUSE OF LORDS WAS THEN PACKED WITH BLAIR’S CRONIES
Having thrown the constitutional furniture around the room in this barbaric and wanton fashion, the Blair-Brown Revolutionary Government then packed the Upper House with their own cronies, for whom Letters Patent were issued in spades. This behaviour encapsulated the following ironies:
•Having started this destructive revolutionary process, the revolutionary socialists led by the corrupt opportunist criminal Blair and the hardened international socialist Brown then lost their bottle and decided that THEY quite fancied joining the élite themselves one day – making it possible for themselves and their cronies to become Lords and Ladies of the Realm.
In other words, their egos got the better of their sterile ideological preoccupations.
•Having thus abused the Letters Patent system in the manner described above, they accordingly proceeded to abuse it further by issuing new Letters Patent to a bunch of preferred and randomly selected hacks, thereby, contrary to law, discriminating against the Hereditary Peers who retained every right to sit in the Chamber and perform their serious duties as Councillors to The Queen.
[see above].
DEFINITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BOTCHED REVOLUTIONARY OPERATION
So, what are the consequences of this incredible state of affairs?
Why, as stated above, it means that:
•Every piece of legislation passed by the British Parliament since 2000 IS 100% NULL AND VOID because it was passed though an improperly constituted House of Lords which therefore lacked the power to approve any legislation for sending down to the House of Commons at all.
•Included within the UK legislation which is therefore null and void is the legislation approving the Lisbon Treaty – to which, therefore, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is NOT BOUND and can fully disregard and disavow, for this reason alone.
•Also included within the bogus legislation is the toxic public debt arising from the reckless bail-out 'Statutes' enacted in order to rescue Gordon Brown from being sunk without trace due to the media images of long street lines of Northern Rock customers pulling their savings. These 'laws', which bind/enslave future generations ad infinitum ARE VACATED, given this state of affairs.
HOW THIS CHAOTIC STATE OF AFFAIRS CAN BE RECTIFIED WITH MINIMAL HASSLE
If the incoming British Government wants to ensure that its future legislation is legitimate, and that it has any purpose at all, it has two alternatives to rectify this chaotic state of affairs:
•EITHER it must table about 900 separate Bills specific to each Hereditary Peer of the Realm and must have these Bills passed by Parliament individually, so that, in the words of Baroness Ashton of Upholland: 'The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can he changed by legislation which has that specific effect'. This would have to be done AT ONCE, before passing any other laws.
•OR: On taking power, it must immediately introduce legislation to ABOLISH The House of Lords Act 1999, thereby 'restoring' the said unlawfully, unconstitutionally and illegally removed rights and duties of the Hereditary Peers to enable them to perform their duties as Councillors to the Crown as per their Oaths of Allegiance to the British Monarch. (This would NOT render legitimate all the laws published since 2000, which will remain unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal indefinitely).
•If the second, sensible clean-up option is chosen, the Bill to ABOLISH The House of Lords Act 1999 MUST be the FIRST piece of legislation to be introduced: because any legislation introduced into Parliament absent such a Bill to ABOLISH the 1999 Act will be a complete waste of time and resources, as it cannot be lawful under these circumstances. (This would NOT render legitimate all the laws published since 2000, which will remain unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal indefinitely).
•If The Queen's Speech MAKES NO MENTION OF A BILL TO ABOLISH THE 1999 ACT, you can take it that the next Government intends to operate unconstitutionally, unlawfully and illegally.
•That will mean that, as is the case with ALL LEGISLATION PASSED AT WESTMINSTER SINCE 2000, the legislative activity of the new British Government will be NULL AND VOID, too.
WHY THE REVOLUTIONARIES HAVE SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT
Two related points in conclusion:
•Charles I was beheaded when he refused to go along with the Will of Parliament – a fact of history of which every subsequent British Monarch has of course been ‘cognisant’.
•On this occasion, Parliament hasn’t disposed of the Monarch in the aforementioned manner; as a direct consequence of which:
•THE SECRET REVOLUTIONARY INTENTIONS OF THE SUBVERSIVE LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN SELF-FRUSTRATED, GIVEN THAT ALL THEIR LEGISLATION SINCE 2000 IS VOID.
‘SCUM OF THE EARTH’, ‘TOO CLEVER BY HALF’
Shortly after the Blair Government was elected in 1997, an extremely sober and respected British analyst remarked to the Editor that the Labour Government that had just come to power consisted of ‘the scum of the earth’. This gentleman is probably the most upright and sober observer known to the Editor – a person of the highest integrity not inclined to fruity language in any way, shape or form. So when he said this, the Editor took careful note. And it turns out that he was ‘right-on’.
But a characteristic of these self-important parasitical revolutionary scum of the earth is that, since their intentions and behaviour are rooted in lies and confusion, they invariably ‘mess up’. They are always 'too clever by half’, so that they always wind up with a dog's dinner.
And in respect of what we have reported above, it can be said that they have messed up quite spectacularly, because ALL their convoluted Talmudic legislation – including of course ALL THE TAX LEGISLATION, ALL THEIR BUDGETS – SINCE 2000, ARE DEFINITIVELY NULL AND VOID.
•Well done, Blair and Brown, you prize revolutionary buffoons.
The British people will always be grateful that your sterile arrogance blinded you to what you were doing, and to what you thought you’d got away with.
WITHOUT ABOLITION OF THE 1999 ACT, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS POINTLESS
Corollaries to this chaotic state of affairs, which the corrupt elements of the Establishment and the bureaucracy thought you'd never hear about, include the following:
•Absent one of the alternatives outlined above (900 individual Bills or outright ABOLITION of the 1999 Act), the incoming Parliament will KNOWINGLY, FOLLOWING THIS POSTING, BE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION, deceiving itself, the nation and foreign powers alike.
•THEREFORE, by extension, THE PRESENT ELECTION WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND A FARCE, entailing the election of a Westminster Parliament WITH NO POWERS TO LEGISLATE.
NOTICES:
Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review and associated intelligence services cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or to any of the earlier reports.
We are a private intelligence publishing house and have no connections to any outside parties including intelligence agencies. The word ‘intelligence’ on this website and in all our marketing material is used for marketing/sales purposes only and has no other connotations whatsoever: see ‘About Us’ on the red panels under the Notes on the Editor, Christopher Story FRSA, who has been solely and exclusively engaged as an investigative journalist, Editor, Author and private financial and current affairs Publisher since 1963 and is not and never has been an agent for a foreign power, suggestions to the contrary being actionable for libel in the English Court.
ADVERTISEMENT: INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION
YOU CAN ORDER THIS DIRECT FROM THIS WEBSITE. Summary:
Press Internet Security Solution or go to the World Reports Limited serials catalogue and scroll down until you come to this product. Then proceed through the simple and ultra-safe ordering procedure [Visa or MasterCard only]. Send a donation as you order this RECOMMENDED solution.
NON-U.S. INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION CD AVAILABLE: FAR BETTER THAN NORTON ETC
It has now been established that the National Security Agency (NSA) works with/controls Microsoft, Norton, McAfee, and others, in pursuit of the Pentagon's vast BIG BROTHER objective, directed from the 'highest' levels (not the levels usually referred to) which seek to have every computer in the world talk direct to the Pentagon or to NSA's master computers.
This should come as no real surprise since the cynical spooks even assert this 'in-your-face' by advertising 'INTEL INSIDE', which says exactly what it means. More specifically, NSA have made great strides in this direction by having a back door built into Microsoft VISTA. Certain computers, especially those labelled with the logo of the 'fully collaborating' firm Hewlett Packard, have hard-core setups which facilitate the remote monitoring and controlling of personal computers by NSA, Fort Meade. We now understand that if you are using VISTA* you MUST NOT enable 'file and printer sharing' under any circumstances. If you say 'YES', so to speak, to 'file and printer sharing', your computer becomes a slave at once to NSA's master computers. DO NOT ENABLE SHARING.
Unfortunately, this abomination is so far advanced that this may not be the only precaution that needs to be taken. As long as Microsoft continues its extensive cooperation with NSA and the NSC (National Security Council), the spying system which assists the criminalised structures, and thus hitherto the Bush-Clinton 'Box Gang' and its connections, with their fraudulent finance operations, NSA may be able to steal data from your computer. The colossal scourge of data theft is associated with this state of affairs: data stolen usually include Credit Card data, which the kleptocracy regards as almost as good as real estate for hypothecation purposes. Even so, you can make life very much more problematical for these utterly odious people by NOT USING U.S.-sourced so-called Internet Security and anti-virus software. Having been attacked and abused so often, we offer a solution.
We use a proprietary FOREIGN Internet Security program which devours every PC Trojan, worm, scam, porn attack and virus that the National Security Agency (NSA) throws at us. We are offering this program (CD) to our clients and friends, at a premium. The program comes with our very strong recommendation, but at the same time, if you buy from us, you will be helping us finance ongoing exposures of the DVD's World Revolution and the financial corruption that has been financing it.
The familiar US proprietary Internet Security programs are by-products of US counterintelligence, and are intended NOT to solve your Internet security problems, but to spy on you and to report what you write about, to centralised US electronic facilities set up for the purpose. You can now BREAK FREE from this syndrome while at the same time helping us to MAINTAIN THE VERY HEAVY PRESSURE UPON THE CRIMINALISTS WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSING, by ordering this highest quality FOREIGN (i.e., non-US) INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION that we have started advertising on this website. This offer has been developed in response to attacks we have suffered from the NSA nerds who appear to have a collective mental age of about five years, judging by their output.
•To access details about the INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION, just press THE LIVE LINK YOU HAVE JUST READ, or else press SERIALS in the red panel below. This opens up our mini-catalogue of printed intelligence publications. Scroll right down to the foot of that section, where you will see details of this service. When you buy this special product, you will also, as we clearly state above, be paying a special premium by way of a donation to help us finance these exposures.
Act of Parliament
In Westminster System parliaments, an Act of Parliament is a part of the law passed by the Parliament. It can also be a private bill. It usually starts as a draft proposal, known as a White Paper. A Bill is then introduced into the House of Commons or House of Representatives or the House of Lords or Senate. Byconstitutional convention, Bills which contain significant provisions relating to taxation or public expenditure start in the House of Commons; in Canada this is the law. In the UK, Law Commission bills and consolidation bills start in the House of Lords. In some countries, the bill receives different names if it's initiated by the Government (Project) or by the Parliament (Proposition), like in Spain.
| Table of contents |
| 1 Procedure 2 UK Details |
Procedure
UK
In the UK, each bill passes through the following stages:
- Pre-legislative scrutiny: It is increasingly common for a small number of Government bills to be published in draft before they are presented in Parliament. These bills are then considered either by the relevant select committee of the House of Commons or by an ad hoc Joint Committee of both Houses. This is not strictly speaking part of the legislative process, but it provides an opportunity for the Committee to express a view on the bill and propose amendments before it is introduced.
- First reading: This is a formality; no actual vote occurs. The Bill is presented and ordered to be printed and, in the case of Private Members' bills, a date is set for second reading.
- In the case of a Government Bill, Explanatory Notes, whcih try to explain the effect of the Bill in more simple language are also usually ordered to be printed.
- Second reading: A debate on the general principles of the bill is followed by a vote. Normally, the Second Reading of a Government bill is approved. A defeat for a Government bill on this Reading signifies a major loss. If the bill is read a second time, it is committed to a standing committee for the committee stage.
- Procedural Orders and Resolutions: Immediately after Second Reading, in the case of Government Bills, the House normally passes forthwith (i.e. without debate) a Programme Order, setting out the timetable for the committee and remaining stages of the Bill. It may also pass a separate Money Resolution, authorising any expenditure arising from the Bill; and/or a Ways and Means Resolution, authorising any new taxes or charges the Bill creates.
- Committee stage: This usually takes place in a standing committee in the Commons and on the Floor of the House in the Lords. In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons utilizes the following committees on bills:
- Standing Committee: Despite the name, a standing committee is a committee specifically constituted for a certain bill. Its membership reflects the strengths of the parties in the House.
- Special Standing Committee: The committee investigates the issues and principles of the bill before sending it to a regular Standing Committee. This procedure has not been used in many years; the pre-legislative scrutiny process (see above) is now preferred.
- Select Committee: A specialized committee that normally conducts oversight hearings for a certain Department considers the bill. This procedure is used very rarely; the quintennial Armed Forces Bill, however, is always referred to this committee.
- Committee of the Whole House: The whole house sits as a committee in the House of Commons to consider parts of the annual Finance Bill and also bills of great constitutional significance. This is also the procedure used in the upper house.
- Consideration (or Report) stage: this takes place on the Floor of the House, and is a further opportunity to amend the bill. Unlike committee stage, the House need not consider every clause of the bill, only those to which amendments have been tabled.
- Third reading: a debate on the final text of the bill, as amended. In the Lords, further amendments may be made on third reading, in the Commons it is usually a short debate followed by a single vote; amendments are not permitted.
- Passage: The Bill is then sent to the other House (to the Lords, if it originated in the Commons; to the Commons, if it is a Lords Bill), which may amend it. The Commons may reject a bill from the Lords outright; the Lords may amend a bill from the Commons but, if they reject it, the Commons may force it through without the Lords' consent in the following Session of Parliament, as is detailed below. Furthermore, the Lords can neither initiate nor amend Money Bills, bills dealing exclusively with public expenditure or the raising of revenue. If the other House amends the Bill, the Bill and amendments are sent back for a further stage.
- Consideration of Lords/Commons Amendments: The House in which the bill originated considers the amendments made in the other House. It may agree to them, amend them, propose other amendments in lieu or reject them. A Bill may pass backwards and forwards several times at this stage, as each House amends or rejects changes proposed by the other. If each House insists on disagreeing with the other, the Bill is lost, unless the Parliament Acts are invoked.
- The Parliament Acts: Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, which do not apply for bills seeking to extend Parliament's length to more than five years, if the Lords reject a bill originated in the House of Commons, then the Commons may pass that bill again in the next session. The Bill is then submitted for Royal Assent even though the Lords did not pass it. Also, if the Lords do not approve of a Money Bill within thirty days of passage in the Commons, the bill is submitted for Royal Assent nevertheless.
Australia
In Australia, the bill passes through the following stages:- First Reading: Again, this stage is a mere formality.
- Second Reading: As in the UK, the stage involves a debate on the general principles of the bill is followed by a vote. Again, the Second Reading of a Government bill is usually approved. A defeat for a Government bill on this Reading signifies a major loss. If the bill is read a second time, it is then considered in detail
- Consideration in Detail: This usually takes place on the Floor of the House. Generally, committees are not used to consider the bill in detail.
- Third reading: A debate on the final text of the bill, as amended. Very rarely do debates occur during this stage.
- Passage: The Bill is then sent to the other House (to the Senate, if it originated in the House of Representatives; to the Representatives, if it is a Senate Bill), which may amend it. If the other House amends the Bill, the Bill and amendments are sent back to the original House for a further stage.
- Consideration of Senate/Represetntatives Amendments: The House in which the bill originated considers the amendments made in the other House. It may agree to them, amend them, propose other amendments in lieu or reject them. However, the Senate may not amend Money Bills, though it can "request" the House to make amendments. A Bill may pass backwards and forwards several times at this stage, as each House amends or rejects changes proposed by the other. If each House insists on disagreeing with the other, the Bill is lost.
- Disagreement between the Houses: Often, when a bill cannot be passed in the same form by both Houses, it is "laid aside." Sometimes, a special constitutional procedure allowing the passage of the bill without the agreement of both houses is allowed. If the House twice passes the same bill, and the Senate twice fails to pass that bill (either through rejection or through the passage of unacceptable amendments), then the Governor-General may dissolve both Houses of Parliament. If the House again passes the bill after the election, but the deadlock between the Houses persists, then the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of both Houses, where a final decision will be taken on the bill. The procedure only applies if the bill originated in the House of Representatives. Six double-dissolutions have occurred, though a joint session only became necessary once.
Canada
In Canada, the bill passes through the following stages:- First Reading: Again, this stage is a mere formality.
- Second Reading: As in the UK, the stage involves a debate on the general principles of the bill is followed by a vote. Again, the Second Reading of a Government bill is usually approved. A defeat for a Government bill on this Reading signifies a major loss. If the bill is read a second time, then it progresses to the committee stage.
- Committee stage: This usually takes place in a standing committee in the Commons.
- Standing Committee: The standing committee is a permanent one; each committee deals with bills in specific subject areas. Canada's standing committees is similar to the UK's select committees.
- Special Committee: The procedure is not used often.
- Legislative Committee: A legislative committee is especially appointed a certain bill, like the UK's standing committees.
- Committee of the Whole House: The whole house sits as a committee in the House of Commons to consider appropriation bills.
- Consideration (or Report) stage: this takes place on the Floor of the House, and is a further opportunity to amend the bill.
- Third reading: A debate on the final text of the bill, as amended. Very rarely do debates occur during this stage.
- Passage: The Bill is then sent to the other House (to the Senate, if it originated in the House of Commons; to the Commons, if it is a Senate Bill), which may amend it. If the other House amends the Bill, the Bill and amendments are sent back to the original House for a further stage.
- Consideration of Senate/Commons Amendments: The House in which the bill originated considers the amendments made in the other House. It may agree to them, amend them, propose other amendments in lieu or reject them. If each House insists on disagreeing with the other, the Bill is lost.
- Disagreement between the Houses: There is no specific procedure under which the Senate's disagreement can be overruled by the Commons. The Senate's rejection is absolute.
Since the mid-19th century, in most but not all cases, the votes by the House of Commons are a formality in which the vote is predetermined by party lines. Because the Westminster system requires the government to keep the support of the House of Commons, the rejection of a bill by Commons is a major political crisis. Therefore, the government will in almost all cases ensure passage of a bill by a combination of modifying the bill so that it is acceptable to members of the ruling party and pressuring party members to vote for the bill. In some cases, such as the Hunting Bill in the 2002-03 Session of Parliament, this has entailed accepting very significant amendments, transforming the purpose of the bill (in this case, from a bill to licence and regulate hunting with dogs, to a bill imposing an outright ban). Unlike the American system, a member of parliament rarely votes against party instructions.
Exceptions are cases of political crisis or matters of conscience such as the age of consent, in which the government may declare a free vote in which Members of Parliament are absolved of the requirement of voting with their party.
It can either fail or pass and then go on to final, formal examination by the Monarch who invariably gives it the Royal Assent. Although the Monarch can in theory refuse to endorse a bill at this stage, this power has not been used since the early 18th century. The Monarch signs letters patent to signify her Assent to one or more Bills. When this happens at the end of a Session of Parliment, it is usually accompanied by an elaborate ceremony in the House of Lords. It then becomes part of the law of the land.
UK Details
Types of Acts
Acts of Parliament are of two types -
Private Bills, common in the 19th Century, are now rare, as new planning legislation introduced in the 1960s removed the need for many of them. They are subject to a different procedure from that for Public Bills, described above, involving a quasi-judicial committee of three MPs.
Sovereignty
In the UK, Parliament has almost unlimited sovereignty. (In particular its sovereignty over the Church of Scotland was disputed for three centuries with Parliament finally admitting its lack of sovereignty in the 1920s.) As such Acts of Parliament are generally without limit or constraint. Although in modern times, European Law and Human Rights Legislation can overturn some Acts, this is only because another Act has declared so.
English law is also made through Statutory Instruments (SIs). These are laws which are written by a Government minister, exercising legislative powers delegated to him or her by Act of Parliament. Some of these must be approved by Parliament before they can become law, others need only be laid before Parliament a certain number of days (usually 40) before coming into force. They are used because they are much faster and simpler to implement than a full act of Parliament. SIs are sometimes described as "secondary legisaltion, not second class legislation". They have the same force as an Act of Parliament, and much of the UK's law is made in this way. There are literally thuosands of SIs each year, compared with around 50 Acts.
International treaties are not effective in domestic UK law until enforced by an Act of Parliament (e.g. The Single European Act, which brought the UK into the European Union, or the strangely named Outer Space Act which deals with international treaties on Space).Historical Records
All UK Acts of Parliament since 1497 are kept in the House of Lords Record Office, including the oldest Act: The "Taking of Apprentices for Worsteads in the County of Norfolk" Act 1497, a reference to the wool worsted manufacture at Worstead in Norfolk, England.
Acts before 1962 are referenced using 'Year of reign', 'Monarch', c., 'Chapter number' - e.g. 16 Charles II c. 2 - to define a chapter of the appropriate statute book. Since 1962, the regnal year has been replaced by the calendar year. All Acts have a short title, or citation (e.g. Local Government Act 2003, National Health Service Act 1974).
Parliament Acts
Parliament Acts are executed by the Administration and its superior and directive dome, the Government (specially using the administrative regulations), are applied by the judicial power (judges), and must be obeyed by everybody.
Acts of Historical Importance
The most important Acts in UK history are listed below:
- Act of Settlement- established a line of succesion for the monarchy and provided that the monarch cannot will the throne to any person, as was previously common
- Bill of Rights- placed limits on the sovereign's power
- Act of Union 1707- united England and Scotland into Great Britain
- Act of Union 1801- united Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom
- Statute of Westminster- gave independence to the British dominians overseas
- Scotland Act 1998- established a quasi-independent Scottish Parliament
Topical Acts
Current Acts of Parliament of special interest:External Links
- All Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments are available free on-line under Crown copyright terms from Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO) at " class="external">http://www.hmso.gov.uk/
Posts
