Intervention by written submission 17th September 2019

Cherry and others Supreme Court


Miller and others in the Supreme Court

Blackstone Commentaries:

Book 1, Chapter 6

Of the King’s Duties

I PROCEED next to the duties, incumbent on the king by our constitution; in consideration of which duties his dignity and prerogative are established by the laws of the land: it being a maxim in the law, [that protection and subjection are reciprocal].1 And these reciprocal duties are what, I apprehend, were meant by the convention in 1688, when they declared that king James had broken the original contract between king and people. But however, as the terms of that original contract were in some measure disputed, being alleged to exist principally in theory, and to be only deducible by reason and the rules of natural law; in which deduction different understandings might very considerably differ; it was, after the revolution, [judged proper to declare these duties expressly; and to reduce that contract to a plain certainty. So that, whatever doubts might be formerly raised by weak and scrupulous minds about the existence of such an original contract, they must now entirely cease; especially with regard to every prince, who has reigned since the year 1688.]

Graham Moore is an English Constitutionalist and believes in right and wrong, the Rule of Law, not left or right politics.  The Bill of Rights 1688 clearly states

“[Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted], To which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and Things therein contained [by the Force of a Law] made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the [Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed] in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and [soe shall be esteemed allowed [[adjudged]] deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and [[strictly holden and observed]] as they are expressed in the said Declaration] And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors [according to the same in all times to come].

That said:

First.  The Bill of Rights clearly states ‘adjudged” single word but important. So I am saying that the Supreme Court 1. Have the power to void primary legislation, If it conflicts with our Constitution. 2. Scottish Sessions Court is not a “UK Court” for Constitutional purposes.  It is Scottish and only has devolved powers given by the UK.  The UK Court is the only court that can judge a UK matter. 

But, the Scottish court did not have jurisdiction on this case because of the Act(s) of Union 1706/7 gave authority to UK Parliament and UK House of Lords (which morphed into the Supreme Court of the UK). The Scottish Court cannot adjudicate prerogative, as it is a Constitutional device. 

The Queen in my opinion can be challenged for three reasons 

1. Her Majesty was elected (watch the coronation for proof)

2. Her Oath clearly states her obligations to our rights and civil liberties.  To uphold the ancient laws and customs, and statutes. 3. Perjuring an Oath is as serious as Treason but not called Treason.

The Lisbon Treaty is online.  EU Parliament Document.  The Regions issue is not Just Lisbon Treaty although it is self-amending and self-appending, which is very bad. 

The vote on the “common market” was just that.  Although the plan was known and NOT expressed to the British people. So in effect;

The enabling treaties for “regions” of England were;

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

Maastricht Treaty 1992/3 (no referendum)

Amsterdam Treaty 1997 (no referendum)

Nice Treaty 2001 (no referendum)

Lisbon Treaty 2007  (no referendum) in effects a full-blown Constitution. Renamed. 

Renaming the Lisbon Treaty was largely cosmetic, you can put lipstick on a pig, and it is still a pig. BUT far more serious was, 

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 serious and dangerous to England.  They are solely intended to destroy England and erase England off of the map and “common law”

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

However; Scotland is a single region (and one reason it now has a single police constabulary, instead of seven).  Its National Identity is not affected.

Wales and NI are the same. 

Although the eventual intension of the EU is to create a single republic of Ireland. 

Good video: at 18:20 describes the regions

Also a good book is the Great Deception.

To Judge this you simply have to read the Bill of Rights 1688 and Blackstone’s Comments on the Laws of England.