Thats a better answer. It isn't for parliament to decide . If Bruges Group
publicised the evidence the public would be incensed. The reason the government
want to give us a new bill of rights is to get rid of the constitution. Please
I do believe I now have your interest. Ask more questions .Further law backed
up by two cases this year that went all the way to the supreme court arguing
over a statute, an act of parliament. The supreme court stated that the acts of
parliament were against the common law and were therefore null and
void.http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/damning-letter-from-lord-kilmuir-the-lord-chancellor-to-edward-heath-2/Read
this and get back to me with more questions Thank you JohnT
From: robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Bruges group.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:48:01 +0000
Send me the Edward Heath quotes and those of the then Lord Chancellor
supporting this view.
I would be surprised if the legal establishment agreed with you, they are
complicit.
John Bercow is unlikely to do anything, he has turned from being anti-EU to
pro.
I am still unsure as to the remedy. I am not sure we can rely on the
current Parliament for a complete u-turn, they caused this problem in the first
place.
Parliament would need to recognise that the acts it passed were
fraudulent?
From: john TIMBRELL
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 4:40 PM
To: Robert Oulds
Cc: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Bruges group.
I never suggested taking it through the courts. I suggested that
you publicise it.
If you or your group examined the evidence you could publicise it.
If Carswell put a point of order to the speaker to rule on it the speaker
would have to follow common law.
It is not a minority interpretation. The then Lord Chancellor ruled on it.
No one in the law has disagreed. If you can quote me anyone that has I will
thank you.
You should know the legal maxim.
If any seemingly lawful act follows on from a fraudulent act the later act
must in an of itself be fraudulent.
Edward heath admitted that it was unlawful signing the treaty. So why are
you not publicising it.Or are you like the rest too full of yourself to admit
that you have been wasting your time all these years. I suggest that you read
the evidence. The letters that were hidden under the 30 year rule. Perhaps you
will then circulate the letters in your nice shiny pamphlets and really get the
subject out into the open.
From: robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
Bruges group.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:53:31 +0000
Your not offering a way out of the EU. The crime reports have not resulted
in any persecutions and the courts do not entertain those arguments when they
have been laid before them about the unconstitutional nature of our
membership.
I too agree with you but not only is Nigel Farage right but the
establishment, the courts, will never overall Acts of Parliament even if their
basis is illegal. There have been many legal cases but yours is a minority
interpretation and not realistic, I am sorry but there we are.
So your simply stating that it is illegal changes nothing but may make you
feel better.
From: john TIMBRELL
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 3:36 PM
To: robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Bruges group.
Hello Robert, I was sent a circulation with the invite to write to
you.
I have found that most of the groups who want us to leave the EU are not
what they seem.
It's almost as if they are there as a safety valve to divert people away
from the truth.
I've never Challenged the Bruges group but I have challenged Lord Tebbitt
who also appeared on your circulation.
My question or challenge is: Why doesn't your group highlight that all
treaties with the EU are illegal because they are against our constitution. The
proof can be seen it the top law officer's letter at the time to prime minister
Edward Heath. Edward Heath's private letters now in the public domain shows
that
Heath knew this.
The letter can be read if you visit the English constitution group's
website.
Nigel Farage wrote to me some two years ago that he agreed with me but he
dare not use it because "a a lot of people think I'm mad now, if I were to
expose this, more would think the same."
I accepted his judgement then but before the last election when he was far
more famous he still persisted with the lie. The only time that his confident
replies wavered was when someone on his LBC radio show asked him about our
constitution. All the UKIP candidates that I have spoken to refuse to admit to
the facts.
You will probably not know that 12 separate Chief constables accepted crime
reports against David Cameron.You can be sure that because it was Cameron that
they scrutinised the law to make sure that there was a prime facie case. The 12
crime complaints were sent to Bernard Hogan Howe to investigate. This was about
the same time as he submitted his resignation to the Home secretary who refused
to accept the resignation by presumably offering him protection.
Another Group; The Campaign for an Independent Britain refuse to discuss
the illegal treaties. Their Chairman gets quite aggressive when I point out
that
the Lisbon Treaty is a stupid way to exit. He accepts that it would take two
years but will not accept that the uncertainty would cause the stock market to
fall and put pressure on people who previously want out to change their mind.
He
also refuses to address the fact that the Lisbon treaty will be subject to
Qualified Majority Voting.
So there we have it. Is the Bruges group another safety valve or do you
really want us out of the EU.
The treaties are against our constitution. When are you influential people
going to speak out.
Sincerely. JohnTimbrell. Cider Mill Cottage. Drybrook. Glos. GL17 9EY
This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
