Reply With QuoteI think removal of the Leader can be brought about by 20 Constituency Branch Chairmen simply calling for a vote of removal/no confidence.Originally Posted by Millennium3
See the UKIP Constitution to confirm this.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
SuperiorSteve, you do miss a lot don't you.
Firstly, you read the various treason laws that remain in force (you have neither read nor understood them). All good law libraries and lawyers offices have up to date editions of a book called 'Is it in Force?' There are also books of statutes, although links can be found on Wikipedia. Then, when you have read the real laws, and not David Noakes' ramblings, you will see that you are completely wrong.
Perjury is giving false evidence under oath. If you lie, without having sworn an oath, then it is not actionable at law as perjury.
For there to be a contract at law there has to be an intention to create a contract. There has to be consideration (that is to say, the 2 parties to a contract must exchange something). If you agree to give me something and I agree to give you nothing in return then there isn't a contract to breach (don't confuse the philosophical concept of social contract with a legally binding contract). A contract must be certain - if you say I will sell you some fish for some money there is no contract; if you say I will sell you a pound of haddock for 7/6d and I agree there is a contract. You may have an invitation to treat - a piece of haddock marked 7/6d per lb - it becomes a contract when we agree that I will buy it.
A referendum is not a contract at law since there was no intention to create a contract either by those who drafted the referendum (after we joined the EEC) and those, like me, who voted. Since the vote was secret and since there were 2 different options it is clear to me at least, but not to the barking mad legally expert non-lawyers, that the 'contract' is void for uncertainty. You actually have to know the name of the person or legal entity that you are contracting with.
I could go on, but what's the point.......none of the people I am arguing against has even the vaguest understanding of any law whatsoever.
SuperiorSteve - if you want to argue law read the books first. If you think something is treason and someone is a 'traitor' give me an extant statute, a section and a direct quotation. Give me a reference I can work to when I go to the Bodleian Law Library on Friday to read up on some more mundane matters (what constitutes a public place for the purposes of various road traffic offences - actually worth knowing as it turns out). I will have access to over 500,000 properly catalogued law books so should have no problem finding any reference you can give me.
I think removal of the Leader can be brought about by 20 Constituency Branch Chairmen simply calling for a vote of removal/no confidence.
See the UKIP Constitution to confirm this.
SuperiorSteve, I was asking for concrete proof that the treason laws were removed secretly by a law that was passed without any member of Parliament having sight of it.
Every time I ask for proof people like you say 'there's lots of proof', but when you are tied down to specifics - date, time, place etc - no evidence ever materialises.
Do you lot not realise the damage you do the cause by being functionally illiterate and barking on about things that are beyond your ken? Albert Burgess and David Noakes help keep the membership of UKIP at a reduced level (what sort of prat walks up to Douglas Hurd and calls him a traitor?).
There are some terrible constitutional machinations going on and people are obsessing about hanging former Government ministers, citing defunct laws that they haven't even fully read and posting semi-literate, unresearched ramblings all over the Internet in the strange belief that sane men and women are going to look at them and have a Damascene conversion.
David, IMHO, for that is all it is - you are dysfunctional. You are working hard chasing clouds. I know so many cultured and literate people who I have tried to carefully convert to Euroscepticism who would laugh at me if I presented my evidence in the way that you present yours. Informed people expect proof. I'm reading Hague's book on Wilberforce at the moment (incredible research backed by source material and references throughout) - you remind me of the pro-slavery MP who had not set foot on a slaving vessel, but stated that the slaves' quarters were cleaned daily with frankincense and lime juice. No proof, no authority, just plain old wishful thinking.
Can we once and for all accept that nobody committed treason per se and nobody committed sedition? Nobody is going to prison. Nobody is going to hang.
Why can't we fight the future and not the past - Haughs of Cromdale and all that?
More bad legal advice:
8.4 A leadership election shall be called in the event of the Party Leader's death, incapacity or resignation; on the passing of a vote of no confidence in the Party Leader by the NEC if this is endorsed by an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Party; and on the Party Leader's completion of his term of office.
Amidst all the talk of treason, here's some charges that were actually laid before magistrates:
NB: Notice Norris McWhirter was careful to specify Treason rather than High Treason, as he didn't approve of the death penalty...
Freenations
THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND
The following are the charges which Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter laid before the magistrates' court. in Hexham, Northumberland on 9th September 1993, under "Misprision of Treason".
The procedure of "misprision" is applicable to those who know of acts of either treason or terrorism and who, in the event that they did NOT report. them to the proper authorities, would themselves be guilty of those crimes.
All the "informations" laid before the magistrates were preceded by the following words:
"It being an offence at Common Law (see Halsbury 4th edition vol. 11 at 818) for a person who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report. the same as soon as he can to a justice of the peace we hereby lay the following information."
Case 1:
Whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 "within the realm or without ... to devise ... constraint of the person of our sovereign ... his heirs or successors."
On 7th February 1992 the Rt. Hon. Douglas Richard Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, King Charles Street, London SW1 and the Rt. Hon. The Hon. Francis Anthony Aylmer Maude at that date Financial Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury, Parliament Street, London SW1 did sign a Treaty of European Union at Maastricht in the Netherlands, according to Article 8 of which Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union (confirmed by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons: Hansard 1st February 1993) therefore "subject to the duties imposed thereby", subject to being arraigned in her own Courts and being taxed under Article 192 of the integrated Treaty and thereby effectively deposed as the sovereign and placed in a position of suzerainty under the power of the "European Union".
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon. the Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Case 2:
Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions "tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution" of the United Kingdom ... etc.. Hurd and Maude.... etc.. did sign a Treaty of European Union ... according to Article 8 of which "every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union" and according to Article 8a of which such citizens "shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory" of any member state and according to Article 8b of which such citizens shall have the right to vote and according to which "Declaration on nationality" in the Final Act "the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state concerned."
And that therefore the British people and Parliament will have no right to determine the numbers or identity of non-British nationals to whom other European Union member states can give residence rights and voting rights in the United Kingdom.
And whereas according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 "The Laws of England are the birthright of the People".
And whereas Sir Robert. Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch77, 89) has stated that
"And a matter of law the courts of England recognise Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence."
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon. The Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Case 3:
Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any "person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto ... shall be capable to be ... a Member of either House of Parliament"
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 "to destroy the constitution of the country" is an act of treason.
And whereas the term "municipal" has been defined by the European Court of Justice in 1972 as meaning "national":
"... the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law whatever their nature, can be involved."
and similarly defined by Lord Justice Cumming Bruce giving the majority verdict in McCarthy v Smith 1979 ICR 785,798:
"If the terms of the Treaty (of Rome) are adjudged in Luxembourg to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970, European Law will prevail over that municipal legislation"
Hurd and Maude...etc.. did sign a Treaty.... etc.. according to Article 8b of which "Every citizen of the Union residing in a member state of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides."
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Case 4:
Whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchy in which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign and Head of State and a democracy, whereby the people of that United Kingdom rule by delegating their authority for periods of up to 5 years to the Parliament and Government in London.
And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 "The laws of England are the birthright of the people"
And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that
"As a matter of law the courts of England recognise Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence."
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to "destroy the Constitution" is an act of treason.
.... Hurd and Maude...etc.. did sign a treaty...etc.. according to Article 8 of which the British people, without their consent have been made the citizens of the European Union with duties towards the same and according to Article 192 of the integrated treaty the British people can be taxed directly by that European Union without further process in the Westminster Parliament and according to Article 171 of which the British State can be forced to pay a monetary penalty to the European Union.
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Case 5:
Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II swore at Her Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects "according to their laws".
And whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 "within the realm or without...to devise...constraint of the person of our sovereign...his heirs or successors"
Hurd and Maude.... etc.. did sign a Treaty.... etc.. which extended the powers of the European Commission, the European Court. of Justice and the European Parliament in the new "European Union" to make and enforce in the United Kingdom laws which do not originate in the Westminster Parliament. And that this loss of democratic rights was without the express consent of the British people.
And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 "The Laws of England are the Birthright of the people"
And whereas Lord Justice Robert. Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89) has stated that
"As a matter of law the courts of England recognise Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence."
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Case 6:
Whereas it was established in 1932 that "No Parliament may bind its successors" (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation IKB 733)
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.
Hurd and Maude etc.. ...did sign a Treaty...according to which Article Q of which the Maastricht Treaty "is concluded for an unlimited period" and from which there is no right of nor mechanism for secession.
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
This is one of the more extraordinary aspects of the Maastricht Treaty since it provides a direct parallel with that other "Union", the American Union signed by the Southern, confederate states on the assumption that they could leave that Union whenever they wished. But they had omitted to ensure that both the right to and mechanism for withdrawal were included specifically in the Union declaration. As a result, the American President Abraham Lincoln (inaugural address 4th March 1861) justified war against the southern states by saying:
"No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union"
It was this issue and not the question of slavery (for which Lincoln had expressed accommodation in his inaugural address) which caused the American Civil War in which 600,000 died. The northern states were engaged not on a moral crusade but on an imperialist adventure, using the industrial and military might of the North to conquer the largely rural, raw material producing South.
Although the European Union as yet possesses no significant armed forces, this is the ultimate intention and an embryo Franco German force has already been set up. The possible exit from this "Union" of Britain, the second biggest paymaster, with the richest coal, oil and fishing reserves in Europe and with the world's largest investments in the American economy might one day tempt this new breed of Eurofascist to use the logic of Abraham Lincoln.
Last edited by SponPlague; 10-10-2007 at 12:40 PM.
Case 7:
Whereas it is established by a statute in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) confirmed in 1297 and last reviewed at the passing of the Statute Law Repeals Act 1967 that:
"No freeman may be...disseised...of his liberties or free customs...nor will we not pass upon him but by the law of the land."
This most durable pillar of the constitution is destroyed by a "Treaty of European Union"...etc....which disseises all free men of their liberties and free customs under the law of this land by subjugating their Government to the extension of the powers of the European Commission, Court. and parliament (in which latter the United Kingdom members form a minority of 87 of 567 voting members). Under Article 192 of the integrated treaty our free men are open to be taxed without further process of the United Kingdom Parliament and according to the "Declaration on nationality" in the Final Act of the treaty the number and identity of non British nationals given residence and voting rights in the United Kingdom will not be determined by the British Government. And further that the treaty extends majority voting in the Council of Ministers thus permitting other states to determine laws which govern British people. Under Article 8 of the Treaty free men are required to become citizens of the European Union "subject to the duties imposed thereby."
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 "to destroy the constitution" is an act of treason.
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Case 8: (IN SCOTLAND).
Whereas it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795:
"within the realm or without...to devise.... constraint of the person of our sovereign...his heirs or successors."
and
"to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom"
and whereas to destroy the constitution per R v Thistlewood 1820 is an act of treason.
Hurd and Maude etc.....did sign a treaty.... for an unlimited period and without right of or mechanism for secession. This treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby it is established per Article III of that Act the people of the United Kingdom be represented by the one and the same Parliament and none other and per Article XVIII that no alteration be made in laws which concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
Under the treaty, the rule of a Parliament other than that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is established whereunder, contrary to the Act of Union, subjects within Scotland become subject to laws made in an assembly in which their representatives form a minority seven fold more slender than in the parliament of the United Kingdom.
Therefore the said Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon. Francis Maude are guilty of treason.
Since the United Kingdom has no formal codified constitution in the manner of the USA or Germany, we rely on certain critical statutes and precedents in case law to formalise and hold fast for future generations the wisdom of the laws which have established and guaranteed our rights and liberties and the institutions of Parliament, Government and Courts.
It is one of the major safeguards for the people that past rights are enshrined in specific statutes and specific clauses. Imprecise words, confused sentences and contradictory clauses are a danger since they allow potential tyrants to exploit or bypass uncertainty in the law. It has therefore always been accepted as vital that any repeal of a statute or part. of a statute should be made specific in new legislation. This is not just to "tidy up" the law books but more important so that everyone - voters, Parliament, ministers and journalists should know precisely how their historic guarantees are being affected.
But in the text of the Maastricht Bill laid before Parliament there was no mention of any of the many contraventions of historical statutes by the terms of the Treaty. The only reference to another Act of Parliament was to that of the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act, the terms of which would have been contradicted had a specific Parliamentary approval not been obtained.
The British people were deliberately kept in the dark about the destruction of their constitution and how the Maastricht Treaty and the European Community Amendments Act effectively threw out many of the most important statutes in British Parliamentary history. The first strategy of the tyrant is secrecy. The second is to lose the detail in a mass of superficiality and generalisation. Both were evident in the passage of the Maastricht Treaty Bill.
Some statutes within the British system of an informal constitution could perhaps, at some stretch of the imagination, be regarded as less critical. But this could certainly not be said about the Union with Scotland Act, for in 1706 the Scottish people decided to share a Sovereign and a Parliament. Since the new Parliament of the UNITED Kingdom was to be in England (and the physical existence of the Scottish parliament dispensed with) the terms of the Act of Union were absolutely vital. The Act is the nearest we possess to an actual constitution. The Scots, effectively, gave up their Parliament only in return for the guarantee that the new (English dominated) Parliament would not curtail or in any way diminish their rights. If they did so (as has now happened under the Maastricht Treaty) then the Act of Union would be null and void and not only would the United Kingdom cease to exist but so would the authority of the Parliament at Westminster which was spawned by the Act of Union.
This is exactly what has happened and the British people, once the full enormity of the betrayal has dawned upon them, will exact a terrible revenge on those who purport to be their "democratic representatives"
I thought more appropriate:
7.22 The quorum for a meeting where a motion of no confidence in the Party Leader is to be proposed before the NEC shall be nine excluding the Party Leader. It shall require the affirmative vote of no less than nine members to pass. The Party Leader must be in attendance or if he or she is not in attendance he or she must have been given reasonable notice within which to attend. The Party Leader must be given the opportunity to address the meeting if he or she is present.
7.23 If the Party Leader shall be re-elected at an election following a vote of no confidence in him by the NEC, elections shall be held for all elected seats on the NEC no later than three months after the Party Leader's re-election, the NEC members remaining in office until their successors are elected.
Point 7.23 is also discouraging!
I presume it might be possible to get rid of the leader at the Business meeting at the conference. If the motion could be got past the NEC!
6.2 The Business Meeting will be open only to paid-up Party members. Its business will be to receive reports from the national officers; to elect members of the Discipline Committee (who will serve until the next Business Meeting) receive and vote on the Party's accounts and to determine the membership fee.
6.3 All motions at the Business Meeting may be passed by a simple majority of those voting. Procedures for submitting nominations and motions at the Business Meeting shall be determined by the NEC from time to time.
S, based on this, do you know if the judgment in the metric martyrs case still sound ie the British Parliament because it soveriegn can dispense with all EU Treaties at a stroke, because it is just a treaty, if it so desires?
The judgement was:
EU law can only override the will of Parliament because Parliament agrees to allow it do so through the European Communities Act. But there is nothing in this Act, the judge explained, which allows the EU or any of its institutions, including the European Court of Justice, to "qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom.
Not because the legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow it." The EU cannot overrule Parliament: "Being sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty."
If Parliament wishes to withdraw from the EU by repealing the European Communities Act, the judge confirmed, it is entirely free to do so. It is equally free to enact laws which contradict EU law, although these must state explicitly that this is the intention.
I don't know, sorry...
SP, I note the cases were laid before magistrates in 1993. If the 2 gentlemen are guilty of treason why are they not in prison?
It is all very well saying someone is guilty of treason, but that is libel unless they have been convicted by a court. You can accuse Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude of such behaviour, but they are not guilty until a court of law says so (also part of our law).
For instance, and I do love saying this, I could not have said that Ashley Mote was a fraudster, liar, cheat, thief, crook, gaolbird, convict, charlatan, hypocrite etc without risking a libel action from the pompous, racist homophobe until after his conviction on over 20 counts of fraud, theft etc. Once Ashley Mote was sent to prison I was free to state on this, and any other forum, and in any location I so wished, that Ashley Mote is a fraudster, liar, crook, cheat, thief, hypocrite. Thankfully the judge in the case described him as deceitful and his own counsel described him as a Walter Mitty character. I can call him a hypocrite for seeking to use EU laws to evade justice and seek immunity, but I can never accuse Ashley Mote, no matter what I might think, of being guilty of treason or of being a traitor.
I'm afraid that Hurd and Maude are not guilty of treason because no court has convicted them despite the allegations being made 14 years ago.
Bookmarks