A decree of nullity vs Repeal (or divorce).

Why the recent case of sharia Marriage is IMPORTANT!

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

[1953] 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.” “

and

“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.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

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!

DD

The Constitution limits Power of the Judiciary, Parliament and the Crown.

To see what the elites fear most you only have to look at what they attack.. what they stopped educating people on.. the substance and history of England and its very powerful written constitution. The Constitution is the will of the people and our ancestors, it is not the will of parliament. How do you remove the limits on power? Stop educating the people on the Constitution. Statutes are the will of parliament vs The Constitution is the will of the people. A Maxim of English Law: Parliament may NOT legislate in such a way that it causes revolt! Parliament is NOT sovereign YOU ARE!

So we need a Braver Man than Geoffrey Cox to initiate Judicial and Constitutional Reform and Braverman we got! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1242879/attorney-general-suella-braverman-human-rights-act-supreme-court-judges-cabinet-reshuffle

The problems with our Constitution stem from a political cancer called Marxism via two Groups (in the main) The Fabian Society and The Milner Group. Both of whom have sort to destroy England. Many of our not so civil, Civil Servants are or were members of either group. Over 200 MPs are members of the Fabian Society which the media suggest is a “think tank”. It is not just a think tank, the Fabians founded the Labour Party. They conned the working class, The Fabians founded the London School of Economics and their logo, emblems are a Turtle (slowly, Gradually get to where you want) and .. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. The latter being very evident and obvious deceit. The late Sir Jeremy Hayward was a member of the Fabian Society (He was the head of the Civil Service). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Heywood there are many others. The problem with our current situation stems from many issues with laws being enacted that are in constitutional terms VOID. That is they are Ultra Vires null and void, they should not be repealed as repealing legitimises them through until repeal. If they are ultra vires, they should be made void, as if they had never existed. Because they should never have been enacted. Examples are The European Communities Act 1972 – this is so obviously Ultra Vires. It conflicts directly with our written Constitution. See previous post https://daddydragon.co.uk/2020/02/04/reply-to-daily-telegraph-article-by-andrew-roberts-01-02-20/ i.e The Bill of Rights 1688/9 the supremacy clause.

It is so obvious what laws caused our current strife, The Parliament Act of 1911 being just one. Arrogance of the intellectuals and where were they educated in Fabian/Milner universities. Judges who are so obviously partisan and of Marxist doctrine also educated in the same such universities. Most of whom are not very bright.

It is very simple to put this right, the only way to stop this marxist brigade is to dissolve the Union of Scotland and England, remove any form of regionalisation of England. Go back to England and especially the North of England, put the English Parliament back into the heart of the North, recreate the Industries of old and the new industries that England will again invent. But most importantly, decentralise government, give the power back to local people via Counties, Districts, Parishes and wards. Let the Counties control their Business and Tax regimes, let the people control their own lives with liberty and freedom to invent, let the people protect our nation once more from tyranny.

Graham Moore Replies to The Daily Telegraph article by Andrew Roberts 01 02 20

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/02/01/britain-has-become-adult-againtaking-ultimate-responsibility/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw#comments

It is with respect, that I reply to Andrew Roberts article of 1st February 2020.

This article goes some way to shedding light on the history of the laws of England (there is no such thing as British Law) yet fails to detail the most obvious.  

In fact, it mentions exams in the future, yet fails to mention why the curriculum syllabus and bar exams from 1970 onwards exclude Civic and Constitutional Law – rather an important point I would suggest.

The reason, I contend, is an intention by the “elites” and enemies of this Country (England), Marxists and Socialists in all forms, their enemy is our written Constitution.  The enemy always attack what they fear the most!

There is nothing more powerful than the English Constitution – but only if it is enforced.

There are many Constitutional and Ancient Laws and Customs that are forever and unalterable!  In fact, there is a case, where the Judgement states that:-

[1953] 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.” “

and

“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.

Moving to The Bill of Rights 1688/9 authority (private law), the most powerful authority, the Convention of the people 1688 and its outcome.

The Declaration of Rights 1688 read to and signed by both William and Mary.

This convention is as important to England as the Magna Carta of 1215 and restates “our rights”. It is the detail and record of this convention that truly holds the keys to liberty and freedom of the people.  Including the Right to Bear Arms in self-defence.  A right which was subsequently passed to and included in our American Brothers and Sisters Constitution.

The Coronation Oath Act of 1688 sworn by Her Majesty the Queen on June 2nd 1953, and the substance of that Oath, being declared still valid on July 20th 1988 by Her Majesty to both Houses of Parliament (a Declaration).

Restated and confirmed by Betty Boothroyd (speaker of the House of Commons) in Parliament as advice to the Courts in 1993.

The Crown and Parliament Act 1688, The Act of Settlement 1701 and of course the Acts of Union 1706/7 did not diminish these ancient laws and customs in fact, it enshrined it for all time to come.

So then we come to Dicey, what did he say with reference to our Constitution

“All the conventions of the constitution, said Dicey, were ‘intended to secure the ultimate supremacy of the electorate as the true political sovereign of the State’.

Constitutional maxims are ‘subordinate and subservient to the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty’. (p253)

Now to the issue of Treaties and how very illegal (unlawful, unconstitutional) and extremely dishonest they were (are), to the point of perjuring ones oath “and” Treason.

Regions: Regions are a construct of the plan to divide England, not so much Little Englanders as England is too big. I quite like England as Counties, Districts and Parishes.

Treaty of Rome 1957

1992/3 Maastricht Treaty – no referendum

1997 Amsterdam Treaty – no referendum

2001 Nice Treaty – no referendum

2007 Lisbon Treaty – no referendum

Treaty of Rome 1957 (which we were lied to about) see below:-

Initially known as the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (or EEC Treaty in short), its name has been retrospectively amended on several occasions since 1957.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 removed the word “economic” from the Treaty of Rome’s official title and, in 2009, the Lisbon Treaty renamed it the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.

As you can see there was a deliberate sleight of hand (fraud).

The regions are seriously dangerous to England, solely intended to destroy and erase England from the map and “common law”.

There are nine regions of England according to the EU mandate and plan.

However; Scotland will remain a single region (one reason it now has a single police constabulary, instead of seven).  Its National Identity remains intact.

The same for Wales and NI.  (Although the eventual intention of the EU is to create a single republic of Ireland).

Now, do you understand that Nations and Regions of the United Kingdom are in effect code for the breakup and division of England?

I agree, with Winston, but do not be fooled by Boris Johnson or any political system which believes it is sovereign.

Nothing can save England if she will not save herself,” Winston Churchill told his countrymen on St George’s Day 1933. “If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told.”

Now shall we have the first English National Referendum on English Independence?

I believe we should!

PDF link