WELL DONE HEROIC LISBON TREATY LITIGATION

What a blow for traitors, Aardvark and its ilk.
[Rep]

Highland FP,

How does this become a blow for me?

I am delighted that Mr Wheeler, with proper lawyers and proper legal advice, using modern laws, succeeded in his application to seek judicial review. I thought he might have difficulty proving he had the right, since locus standi in JR cases is important and you have to prove that you are affected by the decision you seek to challenge.

What I object to is the morons, who are attracted to the Eurosceptic movement, who think that because they've read a couple of old law books they know the law and that they have stumbled across something that the 33,000 practising lawyers have missed.

I asked twizzel and others to prove that s5 Treason Act 1695 had been repealed, they couldn't because it hasn't. That is the law that says that treason has to be prosecuted within 3 years of the event complained of. twizzel and others also failed to demonstrate either mens rea or actus reus of the offence of treason and have wasted a lot of good people's time and effort.

Other idiots rabbit on about misprision of treason, even though misprision of all felonies was abolished in 1967.

The difference between Stuart Wheeler and the 'treason' crowd is he did what I advocated in several posts - he got money from various sources (150 x £1000), so that he could fund the case, he employed lawyers and got counsel's opinion and he used up to date laws to make his point. He also applied in the right courts and didn't go asking desk sergeants in police stations to do the Attorney General's job.

I am delighted as the success vindicates the position I would always recommend.

I think it is a bit of a joke that you call me a traitor, at least I got a medal, from the Queen, in the war against terrorism. Just because you don't understand where I am coming from doesn't make me a traitor, it makes you a little bit thick, IMHO. I don't think you really understand my posts, what with the big words and all that.
[Rep]

______________________________________

On a different tack, the BNP is questioning the motives for a Judicial Review. One of their philosophers has written:
"Why? Because our constitution prevents anyone from giving away our freedom.
And one generation making a decision that would enslave the next is certainly not
acceptable. In other words each and every one of the EU Treaties is by British Law
illegal. The problem is that the Courts no longer obey Laws that the establishment
find inconvenient." See: The British National Party News | LISBON TREATY LITIGATION

Clearly he has difficulty in perceiving the difference between properly consulting voters about a particular issue and the actions taken by Parliament in respect of those issues.


_____________________________________________
[Rep]

BNP philosophers???????? One of?????????????????

Where does it say in our 'constitution' that Parliament is not allowed to give away our freedom? We don't have a written constitution that defines the limits of what our Parliament can do. We have a body of constitutional laws, amended and varied over the centuries, and some unwritten conventions.

This typifies the point I was making. For BNP 'philosopher' read person with no formal qualifications in philosophy and quite possibly no qualifications in anything.

Someone who hasn't read any law books is pronouncing on our constitutional law.

The courts follow legal processes and pronounce on them as required. The judges , arguably, interpret laws as they see fit. A very good summation of the arguments can be found at: Law reform role of judges - declaratory theory

For a 'philosopher' to state, without authority, that 'the courts no longer obey laws that the establishment find inconvenient' is as unacceptable as binding people in perpetuity, which, since Parliament is sovereign, is not the constitutional position (Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

cassie, I would ask the 'philosopher' to cite a clear case of a judge not obeying the law because it was inconvenient to the establishment. The judiciary are very powerful and might interpret law as they see fit, but it is not unlawful for them to do so. The establishment loses a lot more often than people think and on more than one occasion Parliament or ministers have had to seek amending legislation that reverses a court's decision.
[Rep]

great news for mr Wheeler and for every one who wants a real democracy its a sham that hes had to go to the high Court to fight this diabolical plan of stoping us having that referendum.i quote (its not a constitution its a treaty) and then i quote once agen when brown could no longer play it down( its a constitutional treaty not a constitution)

well i dont know about you but with any thing with constitution in it is kind a dead give away, why dose he think people are that dumb.i know people are sheep like but that takes the p..s

i did not think mr wheeler would get the hearing but my Confidence in this is growing now but like mr wheeler says its going to be a uphill struggle so. i am going to take it as it comes and try not to get my hopes up to much becouse of the corruption in government and the Courts.
[Rep]

So, apart from sending him a little money, what can we do to help ?
[Rep]

Right now, nothing. This is being done professionally and correctly. Mr Wheeler's legal team, expensive experts in the appropriate field, are preparing the case for the hearing. By asking for £1000 per contributor Mr Wheeler has avoided one pitfall of class actions - running the accounts. I am impressed by the way he is acting. It is a lesson to us all.
[Rep]

I was thinking along the lines of running jumble sales or whatever the terminology is now. Or any other money gathering device to financially help him.
[Rep]

It is good news, I'm not getting my hopes up, but what an excellent day for democracy it could be if he wins the case.

I am happy to help in any way I can.
[Rep]

According to today's Western Morning News the Government has hired one of Britain's most expensive QCs to fight it's case against holding a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty! Jonathan Sumption QC will be lead Barrister the the Government as it fights the High Court action brought about by Stuart Wheeler!

So the Government is using our money to fight their case! A bit like your enemy having to pay for your weapons!
[Rep]