I noted with great interest the recent case of two Pakistani heritage British Citizens attempted divorce. For two reasons 1. It was fo once a decision in law and not Judicial activism. 2. I use the marriage in a simple marriage as a basis of explaining the why the European Communities Act 1972 is void and should be decreed as void. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/akhter-v-khan-31.7.18.pdf This judgement and case is a great analogy of settled law.
We now have many cases that agree judicially with my analysis. Maybe Mr Tilbrook and our Barristers should look at again at my work on this subject as a potential court case. https://daddydragon.co.uk/2020/02/04/reply-to-daily-telegraph-article-by-andrew-roberts-01-02-20/
The first point the Judiciary try to make is simply – out of time – because the ECA 1972 was enacted well out of the three month time limit. A nullity can be brought at any time that it comes to the attention of an “individual”. And here is the importance of why… it affects inheritance laws. Could be very damaging for the Crown if these laws are not enforced or any other nobility.
So whats my point; let us take the Bill of rights 1688/9 just one clause and there are many other lawful points in this act and other acts that refer to the very definite word “forever”. The clause I am referring to is of course the supremacy clause. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Note a number of legal cases that refer to Constitutional Laws Lord Chief Justice Laws in the Sunderland Case. (this was used in the Gina Miller case). Note the other major case
 ScotCS CSIH_2, 1953 SC 396, 1953 SLT 255
“Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.
The Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain “could not” repeal or alter such “fundamental and essential” conditions. He was doubtless influenced in making this concession by the modified views expressed by Dicey in his later work entitled Thoughts on the Scottish Union, from which I take this passage (pp. 252–253):—
“The statesmen of 1707, though giving full sovereign power to the Parliament of Great Britain, clearly believed in the possibility of creating an absolutely sovereign Legislature which should yet be bound by unalterable laws.” “
“I have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the Parliament of Great Britain should be “absolutely sovereign” in the sense that that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at will.”
By reading this Judgement and Blackstone’s Commentary of the Laws of England one should now bring in one or two of these “Constitutional written Laws bound by Solemn Oath and Convention”
The Bill of Rights of 1688/9 (Public Law) clearly states;
1. The Bill of Rights 1688 “Adjudged”
2. The Bill of Rights 1688 “for all time to come”
3. The Bill of Rights 1688 “Forever” three times.
4. The Bill of Rights 1688 “shall stand remaine and
be the Law of this Realme forever”
And by no means least:-
Supremacy: The Bill of Rights 1688 “And I doe
declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or
Potentate hath or ought to have [any Jurisdiction Power
Superiority Preeminence] or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall
within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
These elements or canons of construction are very important. “You can” improve on the Bill of Rights but NEVER repeal or annul it. It is as it states forever. The Bill of Rights got its power from the Peoples Convention of 1688 which led to the Declaration of Rights, then was converted via the Crown and Parliament Act of 1688 into the Bill of Rights 1688 (notice it is not a normal Act, it does not have Act in its Title for a reason. It can never be repealed or annulled. No right can be discarded or disregarded by LAW (that includes your right to keep and bear arms).
For those of you that remember the Police arrested and charged me, then prosecuted me for “petitioning” Her Majesty. What happened? The Judge, and it was a Judge in the Notorious Westminster Magistrates Court was offered no evidence from the police or prosecution when I produced in court the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Coronation Oath Act 1688. I was declared free to leave the court. Why? They knew they had committed a serious offence against my individual fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms . Clause 6 –
“Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.”
In the Marriage Judgement the Judges referred to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Section 11 which set boundaries and for deciding what was a non marriage, a nullity, and what was a lawful marriage which could receive a divorce, decree nisi, decree absolute. Now look at at the Boundaries set by other Judgements in relation to our ancient laws and customs, now look at the Bill of Rights 1688 and the fact it cannot be repealed or annulled. On the same basis take the analogy used by the Judge in this decision.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 clause 11 sets boundaries. Does this marriage fall fowl of the boundaries? Yes annul. No, allow a divorce (repeal of marriage). A divorce (repeal) means the marriage and all laws that rely on it including divorce settlements were legal and give “cause” to either party. A nullity gives no such cause as the marriage did not exist. In law. therefore the normal protections do not exist for either party.
Does the ECA 1972 fall fowl of the supremacy clause of the Bill of Rights 1688 and The Coronation Oath 1688. Yes, Annul. No then repeal the ECA 1972.
What is the difference? Annul means it never existed and anything that come from it never existed. It has no effect.
Repeal means from the point of repeal it has no effect and does not exist. But, Cases and laws that stem from it while still “law” can and do still exist in law and can still be used. i.e VAT which is a European Tax not an English Tax. That means we can demand the VAT that was defrauded from the English (160 Billion) back from the banks that dispersed it to criminals).
It also means that all Sharia Law Courts (or Councils) must close as they are unlawful under our Bill of Rights. Article 4. Reads
“Ecclesiastical Courts illegal.
That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.” http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Hopefully someone will challenge on this and take back our money and rights!