Sunday, 20 July 2008

One law for them


By Sarah Maid of Albion

Apparently two Britons, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle, who have been convicted at Leeds Crown Court of publishing race-hate articles on the internet, have skipped bail and flown to America, where they have claimed political asylum.

Given that the first amendment of the US constitution guarantees the right of free speech, such a prosecution would technically be impossible in America, so one might expect the US authorities to view this claim sympathetically. However, in reality, the chances of Sheppard and Whittle receiving a sympathetic hearing in America are remote irrespective of the merits of their claims.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, very few, if any, white Europeans have benefited from Asylum legislation either here or in the States. Some might argue that most European countries no longer have oppressive governments so their citizens do not qualify for asylum. Others would question that assertion, and in any event how can these two men be considered guilty of anything other than a thought crime and the false belief that the right of free speech existed in Britain?.

These two men have a valid claim for asylum. Indeed it could be argued that the first amendment of the US constitution, was written specifically to protect people like Mr Sheppard and Mr Whittle, however, I suspect that the modern day reality is that they are the wrong colour to benefit from it's protection. I may be being pessimistic but I suspect that the most likely outcome from this case will be that their claim will be rejected and they will be swiftly shipped back to the UK to face sentencing.

If so, that will be a shameful day for America, as it will signify the abandonment of any pretence to a belief in Universal civil rights, and expose their Asylum laws as offering protection only for a preferred non white minority. (as many a white South African may soon learn, should their worst fears become reality and they find themselves in need of a safe haven)

Whether or not America shames itself, this case has already shamed Britain, which is exposed again as a land where if you think, say or write something which the state does not approve of you can be subject to a show trial and get sent to prison.

In modern day Britain, telling the truth is no defence against hate crime charges.

The 1976 race relations act is a piece of legislation, amongst others, of which the worst totalitarian state could be proud, because it had the effect of enshrining in law the fact an opinion can be illegal, and that telling the truth can be a criminal act, if it is the wrong truth.

Britain calls itself a free country, however, it is many years since it was any such thing.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

If the two are extradited I really do hope they set the ball rolling for the status of "political prisoner". There are political prisons in Ulster and it is, due to the state's war exerted over us, applicable and long-overdue that we have them here in repressive Britain.

Hunger strikes by these two might be the push needed to wake up the dormant sheeple.

Anonymous said...

The 1979 act like all the crap laws against our freedoms are a load of bollocks.
I have a blog and i don't give a toss, i say what i mean, and mean what i say.
As is my birthright!
And that is where the problem arises.
We have no idea of our own constitution bill of rights or anything else except the manager of any given football team.
Wilson in the 60s ceased the teaching in schools of our constitution in the commies own interest.
Slowly over the years they have walked all over us and our country and we say sod all.
The daughter of an high court judge now deceased, Elizabeth picked up the interest in our constitution becoming a student of said laws.
Our freedom of speech is written into our laws.
Politicians can bring in whatever they feel like bringing in, but these laws are illegal!!!
The Parliament act it'self is illegal so when bills are pushed thru using this act...well, the BILL is then illegal also.
Why no media coverage of this case?
They don't want you to know!
You just might wake up to the fact we are being played for SUCKERS.
sorry this is long winded...
This from the high court from a student of long standind of our rights!!
ELIZABETH BECKETT..GOOGLE HER STORY!
SHE'S FIGHTING ON OUR BEHALF, WHEELCHAIR BOUND, SHE HAS THE HEART OF A LION!

ELIZABETH BECKETT..CUMBRIAN TAKES ON THE UK GOVERNMENT AND COUNCILS RE TAX LAWS.

Elizabeth felt driven to research the issue of Council Tax accounts, having observed various related, supicious news articles in the press one of which involved the North West Regional Council of the UK purchasing a house in Brussels, a totally inappropriate action in view of the sufferings of the Cumbrian fishermen and farmers. This alarmed her to the fact that she might well, as a law abiding honest Council Tax payer, be assisting in the potential breakup of her country. We must enphasise that Constitutional Law is not a matter of politics, whether one votes to drive on the left or the right, but a matter of law like the dividing of Britain into ‘Lander’ such as the county of Kent becoming part of France, and Wales becoming part of Ireland etc. That is against our law and Elizabeth said she could not pay for the destruction of the sovereignty of this country. She then asked for full disclosure of how her Council Tax is being spent. This has not been forthcoming because of the liability order against her; the order is an executive order and in Britain alone is governed by the Royal Prerogative. The Enforcement Officer and people in charge of the courts refused to admit that the Liability Order could be challenged in any way. According to the Petition of Right of 1627 all taxation should be honoured by Parliament, under the Royal Assent and Parliament cannot pass acts that are against our Constitution.

Elizabeth further discovered a covert plan to do with the regional assemblies. These are voluntary bodies that are designed to break up England, e.g. Northumberland up to Carlisle will became part of Germany. This was not mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto.



Amongst the papers she handed to the judge at her trial, were the details of Common Purpose and their assemblies, which have increased by 500% since the year 2000. Taxation emanates from the Chancellor’s Office and these are illegal under what is known as the ‘fiscal prerogative’ and the ‘Petition of Right’. Because these assemblies are voluntary bodies, they are not available for funding by the taxpayer. Our Constitution states that ‘all laws’ that go through Parliament ‘must have Royal Assent, in order to become law.’ Instead, they are now validated on a false claim that the Royal Assent is automatic. However, the power to grant this is part of the prerogative, which it impassable.



The automatic assent was invented by the Fabian Prime Minister Asquith who gave the qualification based on the premise that Queen Ann had been the last monarch to send back a bill. The implication being that the monarch could not send back bills, whereas in fact, their power lies in the support of our Constitutional Laws by refusing to give Assent to bills that are unconstitutional.



In fact Edward VII had refused to pass the Parliament Act in 1910 and as such Asquith had to go to the country for a vote which he lost. A plan was devised to get this bill back, so he invited 40 Fabian Socialists and 82 Sien Fien to join his party in order to destroy the House of Lords which had been holding on to the fiscal prerogative and in so doing he set out to destroy the British Constitution.



The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’ which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution - No taxation without representation). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.



At the time of the French Revolution and the American Independence, political parties weren’t fixed as in the Masonic Constitution of America, which is based on the principal of divide and rule. Whereas in Britain, the British Constitution was made by the People for the People and the monarch holds them together according to our Constitutional laws. In relation to this fact, Elizabeth put forward to the judge the question of Brussels acting illegally under European Laws which invalidated the court itself. e.g. the 1988 Mercantile Shipping Act in relation to Spaniards fishing within the British 12 mile limit. Brussels overruled it and fined the British £300,000. In doing this Brussels claimed rights over our Sovereign and Parliament who had passed the Act. She pointed out to the court under this ruling it had no validity. At which point the judge shut her up and said, “I am under contract to make a liability order against you since the order allowed no exception.”

This is entirely against our constitutional laws. Elizabeth then asked for leave to appeal. The judge replied, “You can do what you like.”



Elizabeth explained to the judge that Queens Council has given her his opinion, “Technically under the Rules of Erskine May, it is stated the Automatic Assent, if not complied with, would invalidate ALL laws since 1911”.



Elizabeth’s Plaint lays the ground for important legal and Constitutional constraints which are being side-stepped and their legal validity is being denied by our present legal system and government. The fact they are still part of our British Common law is undeniable, Sir Edward Coke said, “The Royal Prerogative is part of the Personality of the Monarch and could not be taken from them even by an Act if Parliament” which the Law Lords Halbury and Jowitt agree. (Halbury’s Laws, The Birth Right of the People of England (These are legal reference books of great prestige).

Since the Assent is given under the regal ‘Prerogative Power,’ it is invalid if it is given to an unconstitutional act. So in a different way, both Counsel’s opinion and Elizabeth’s lead to the same conclusion. Therefore, she says that one can conclude that ALL of the bills that have been made law since 1911, which includes 1972 entry into Europe, and all that follows, together with the Civil Contingencies Bill, the Constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act and the Immigration Act ARE VOID.


It is clear that our entry into the European Union is INVALID, ILLEGAL and against our Constitution. (see article page 31)


www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/beckett1-22-08.html

SEE WHY THERE IS A MEDIA BLACKOUT?
SHE ASKED THE POLICE TO ARREST THE MPs....CLEARLY THEY BEING TRAITORS...POLICE REFUSED TO DO THEIR DUTY ADDING...IT WOULD MEAN ARRESTING EVERY MP SINCE 1911 THAT WERE STILL ALIVE!
IN THAT CASE..THE ARMY SHOULD ARREST REFUSING POLICE OFFICERS, AS THEY REFUSE TO AKNOWLEDGE SOME LAW BREAKERS THAT WAY NEGLECT OF DUTY.
OTHER INFO ON RIGHTS..
WWW.TPUC.ORG
WE HAVE THE POWER...HAVE WE THE BALLS TO USE IT?

Anonymous said...

Supporters, thanks to the publication covering the story paid her debts, she still fights on living in her home.
But what pillocks these people are trying to kick a lady of 83 out of her home!
This is the calibre of the scum in Westminster it should fill you with anger.
If not then the country has no hope and no future!
The Fabian bastard Brown and his Fabian mates at Westminster are traitors one and all.
Their aim which i might say is almost complete, is to take you and me into a New World order based on a Marxist/Communist doctrine.
America also has been infected with the same filth, that spread from this country via the London school of Economics, a Marxist conveyer belt throwing out the filth!

Don't play the game to the rules they set down!
Game...is calling them anything other than what they are!
These are FABIANS..DISGUISED BY NAMES LIKE TORIES-LABOUR-LIBDEMS.

Eventually the end game..TAKE OVER ALL PROPERTY INC YOUR HOME!



OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER BROWN



Dear Mr. Brown,



It appears that you are acting under the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, imagining that you, as a Prime Minister, hold the 'prerogative power.'



Are you sir, aware of the meaning of the 'PREROGATIVE POWER'?


Have you taken constitutional legal advice on this very serious action of entry into the EU?

If so from whom have you sought such advice?



Are you aware that this is a serious crime against the People of Britain? It is TREASON.


Yours Sincerely

Mrs Elizabeth Beckett



THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO ASK MR BROWN BECAUSE - UPON TAKING OFFICE HE MADE A OATH OF ALLIGENCE WHICH INCORPORATES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE SAID OATH OF ALLIGENCE IS ALSO TREASON.



We ask readers to please to copy the above letter and replace Elizabeth's name with their own name and send to number 10 Downing Street and see what response they get. All letters received from number 10 Downing Street to the above letter, if any, will be placed on this website. Please send to: Namaste Publishing, PO Box 127, Shrewsbuy SY3 7WS.



Update:
24th December 2007

There is a delay in the appeal for judicial review because the court in now informed Elizabeth that since a certificate of service has not been received by the court the case can't move forward. The fact is the certificate of service was faxed to the court on 1st December by a government employee on Elizabeth's behalf. She also has a letter from the local council dated 8th December, confirming receipt of the certificate of service and she has sent copies of the said letters to the court. Thus Elizabeth has asked the court for an upgrading of her case which has been delayed because they claimed they had not received the certificate of service.



A notice is about to be served on Elizabeth for a court hearing in February 2008 to implement the bankcruptcy order made against her in March 2007. The hearing will take place in Carlisle.



Interestingly, the interlocutory injunction filed by Elizabeth to stop Brown and his associates taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation, seems to be delayed lost in the system. How unusual!

The hearing for the implementation for the liability order against Elizabeth will take place on the 6th February at Carlisle Court, Rickergate at 2.40pm. Anyone who can attend would be a very great support.



Further updates on Elizabeth's situation will be posted as and when we have more information.



Namaste Magazine Vol 10 Issue 2
PO Box 127, Shrewsbury SY3 7WS
Email: info@namastepublishing.co.uk
Tele: + 44 (0)1743 341303
www.namastepublishing.co.uk

FABIANS CHECK THEM OUT...EUGENICS..THEY ACTUALLY TAUGHT ADOLF NOT HE THEM!
ABBO KIDS IN OZ REMOVED FROM PARENTS..FABIAN POLICY!
THESE PEOPLE ARE DEADLIER THAN EVER HITLER WAS!!
When they label the BNP...The BNP are PUSSY-CATS in comparrison, infact there can be no comparrison.

islaminisation is a deliberate Fabian policy..goes back to the founder George Bernard Shaw and co in 1884.
incompetant government?..don't believe a word of it!............it's for a reason that will become clearer!
what do they keep loosing?
How long before they say..." ok lets chip the whole nation?
It has started in certain quarters....

Like The Roman said...

Another interesting article, Sarah! It´s nice to know the GA blog hasn´t ceased to be.

Anonymous said...

Breaking A law...Just arrived an E-mail from a European group, that keeps me upto date with news our media prefer to keep to themselves!






Hi there

I attach the following video of the attack made by Jean-Marie Le Pen on Nicholas Sarkozy in the European Parliament as sent to me by Cyber-Resistent, our French correspondent. I also give you the translation into English.

SPEECH OF JEAN-MARIE LE PEN
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, STRASBOURG,
THURSDAY 10 JULY 2008
Video of Le Pen's attack on Sarkozy at the European Parliament: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x652q5_sarkozy-ridiculise-au-parlement-eur_news

Transcript in French: http://www.frontnational.com/doc_interventions_detail.php?id_inter=115

English translation by http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4066#comments.

Mister President,

You are currently in charge, for the next 6 months, in this rotating and short-lived position, as President of the European Union. Contrary to the majority of the French electorate, you have revealed yourself as a zealous europeist, even daring to reintroduce (under a hardly changed format of the Lisbon Treaty) the Constitution that the Dutch, alongside the French, rejected in 2005.

Your project to re-introduce the Lisbon Treaty has failed again because it has stumbled on the will of the Irish people. Therefore, it is null and void, despite all the manoeuvers to try to impose the will of the reining euro-internationalist camarilla on the European people.

As a young deputy, I voted in 1957 against the Treaty of Rome, which was the first stage of a process aiming to lead to the United States of Europe according to its promoters: Monnet and Coudenhove-kalergi among others.

Given that this Tower of Babel was only able to be built on the debris of the nations and initially of my fatherland France, I have been its determined adversary ever since. It is said that globalization involves fundamental changes everywhere to which we must subdue ourselves.

But the truth is that, in the world, the nations are getting stronger, supported by enthusiastic patriotism, except in only one place, Europe, where nations and fatherlands are sold off, dismantled, demoralized for the profit of a project without power, without identity, while the foreign migratory waves invade it gradually and that the opening of our economic borders, delivers it to the unrestrained competition of the rest of the world.

None of the promises made (so that Europeans could accept the loss of their independence, their sovereignty, their identity, of their culture) were kept - neither economic growth, neither full employment, neither prosperity, nor safety. And it is anguish which prevails at the start of the coming systemic crisis: energy, food and financial meltdown. By then, it is true the media carousel will continue to turn; yesterday, the European soccer tournament, tennis at Roland Garros, tomorrow the Olympic games of Beijing and today the miraculous saga of an icon: Ingrid who laughs, who cries, who prays, who comes and goes supported by your fraternal arm.

In your desire to be the libertador (the liberator in English), you were misled in accepting negotiations with the terrorists of the FARC. But it is neither you, nor Mr Chavez who released the Colombian Senator Mrs Betancourt, it is President Uribe, who with tenacity, against the general mobilization of world progressives, gained a decisive victory over criminal terrorism.

You multiplied the approaches to negotiate in vain and you even went to the length of inviting the repented communist terrorists of the FARC to profit from asylum in France, but to protect them from whom? From Uribe the democrat! While you were at it, why not the talibans, the Hezbollah, the Tamils Tigers? You are like the amphisbene, dear to Césaire.

Do not doubt at any moment Mr. President that all your talent as media director will not be enough to avert the brewing crisis which you will have to face before the end of the year. Your Europe is a drifting vessel, windswept and beaten by the waves. It is the only region in the world to have deliberately dismantled its political and moral structures.

Without borders, gradually invaded by a mass immigration which is only at its beginning, economically ruined by the ultra-liberalism, socially impoverished, weakened demographically, without spirit and military strength. At best, it will fall under the American protectorate, at worse it will become a slave of the dhimmitude.

It is now long overdue to give up on the deadly illusion of federalism and to build a Europe of the nations, united in concrete alliances, probably more modest, but more effective.

Both failures, the Constitution and the Treaty, must be used as warnings. The people of Europe do not want them. They will not allow them to be forced upon them because they do not want to die.

Now take Hesrt Europeans are fighting back.
It's time that we joined them!

Spook said...

Hello Arrow, can you give some insight on what exactly these two men were convicted of, as in what did they say that was so bad?

Also, try to put out for other Britons to see that if they're going to seek asylum or help in the US, they need to not fly into California, New York or DC.

Fly into the SOUTH, the Gulf Coast. We are more friendly because we are very conservative down here, no more LA! They would give themselves a better chance down here with conservative judges.