As Parliament derives its power from the Crown, to change in any way any sections of the constitutional rules in the Act is to undermine the legitimacy of the Crown, Parliament and the rule of law itself. The Act of Settlement stands wholly as it is, or the whole constitutional structure of the British state falls.
Therefore under Constitutional Law rules the Act of Settlement is still in force and negates all awards of citizenship to all foreigners since 1701.
This status (of the Constitutional laws as still being in force) was clarified by Betty Boothroyd in 1993 as I mentioned earlier.
The fact that the the legal, moral, political, and social principles underpinning the decision (ratio decidendi) in the case of Metric Martyrs case were stated by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, means that under Common Law rules, as well as Constitutional Rules, then the Judges should apply both Common Law and Constitutional law and strike down the basis of all citizenship status of foreigners in Britain.
It seems to me that the Courts can have no choice in this matter, for them to refuse to rule that the Citizenship status of immigrants is unlawful means they are in breach of the rule of law itself.
Constitutional Law is also above that of ordinary Parliamentary Acts and therefore the Constitutional Rule takes primacy and precedence over any acts of Parliament such as any Nationality Acts. This is hereby, confirmation that the ideology of Multi-Culturalism is also illegal both in theory and practice. As Multi-Culturalism is predicated upon the introduction of immigrants into Britain and a granting of citizenship then its operation and enforcement on threat it must be noted of arrest, forfeit and imprisonment has no legal basis in law.
As the Act of Settlement prohibits them from having British Citizenship
then the Race Relations Acts are Ultra Vires.
In summary I formally request by return;
And within 14 days
The above requested replies to take full regard of the provisions of the Act of Settlement and to demonstrate Coventry City Council's compliance with the same.
In anticipation of your reply,
Mr D. E. Clarke
I am in receipt of your reply dated 5th Jan 06.
Whilst noting your disagreement with my assertion that Mr Lakha and Mr Bains' hold their positions illegally under the provisions of the Act of Settlement, I see that you provide no valid argument, reason or example of legal instrument to substantiate your view or alter mine. You may have your opinion on the interpretation of the Act but it remains just that, an opinion and an opinion is not the law. The 1701 Act of Settlement however is the law, regardless of your opinion of it.
As for your assertion that "the Act of Settlement does not invalidate subsequent parliamentary law relating to immigration & nationality"....this too is wrong. Constitutional law cannot be repealed or changed. No act of parliament can override a constitutional law.
Your reference to the Human Rights Act and the implication that it allows judges to "re-interpret" statutes to make them compatible as far as possible with the European Convention on Human Rights is just an attempt at diversion from the above fact. I assume that you are relying for justification of this on the following section of the H.R.A. concerning the 'Interpretation of Legislation'.
3. - (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
This is yet another example of the iniquity of selective quotation
of EU diktat in furtherance of political ends. As the ECJ, EU Commission
et al are unelected and unaccountable bodies that defy scrutiny or challenge,
how can it be possible that their undemocratic emissions are held to
take primacy over the laws and constitution of the world's founding
parliamentary democracy? As a covert means to subvert the sovereignty
of nations it is difficult to envisage or design a better vehicle for
(2) This section-
Whilst this illegal imposition notionally gave judges the power (on paper) to re-interpret the law it certainly does not give them the right to do so in practice.
And further, the EU Constitution states that EU law should be implemented
"insofar as it is compatible with the existing constitutions
of the member nations." Some of the articles of Human Rights
are indeed in direct contravention of the Act of Settlement. eg religious
'discrimination' or could that be taken to read 'preference' against
Catholicism, but this was tested by the Guardian newspaper in a challenge
in court and failed thereby establishing yet again that Constitutional
Law takes precedence.
Nothing in your reply satisfies me of the surety of your affirmation of the legality of Mr Lakha's tenure of the office of Lord Mayor of Coventry, nor does it change the law of this land. Your inference that there is "a strong argument that the provisions of the1701 Act are incompatible with the provisions of the Human Rights Act" is merely bluff regardless of any issuance by the courts of bogus and inconsequential devices such as Declarations of Incompatibility.
You advise that I submit my contentions to the Attorney and Solicitor General and copies of our correspondences will most assuredly be delivered to them. However I have no need of their advice, as I am certain of my position. You however appear not to be so sure. May I respectfully suggest therefore that is you who is in need of further advice and instruction before responding to this letter. Mere opinion and reliance on irrelevancies will no longer suffice and will be construed as further obfuscation and delay in the resolution of this most urgent matter.
The text below comes from the Civil Liberty website, it's by Kevin Scott BA Hons, the Founder and Director.
" This will come as a surprise to many of our friends based overseas but Great Britain is now one of the most repressive regimes in the world. We operate under the tyranny of political correctness which is just a floppy term for the repressive implementation of one single, dare we say, rather twisted, view of human society, which doesn't allow for dissent or opposition. The regime creates the framework within which they declare views are either acceptable and tolerated or unacceptable and repressed.
It is a framework which defies common sense and is one which even declares that in a court of law, the truth shall be no defence. "