This is a letter from a campaigner against the Treason that has been committed by various senior political figures, in Parliament, through their actions of signing the various Treaties with the EU, ceding legislative authority to that body.
‘We the People’ undoubtedly have the right to sue Parliament as a whole.
Dear Mr O’Donoghue,
Lord Mereworth spoke to me a few minutes ago and said he had been advised he could not sue Parliament and that of course is correct, or at least it used to be. Can I bring to your attention the case of Stockdale v Hansard 1837, Stockdale, a book publisher, was libelled in the House of Commons and that libel was published in Hansard which was sold outside the confines of Parliament. Lord Denman, the LCJ, awarded Stockdale damages of £600. Patterson J, giving the opinion of the other 8 Judges in the case, said “In the beginning, parliament met under one roof with the Lords one side and the Commons the other, and was the highest court in the land and could not be sued in any of the courts in the land. But for their own reasons the houses chose to sit under different roofs. The House of Lords is where the Law Lords and the King sits and is the highest court in the land. But the House of Commons is in no way a court of law, and the common man must be able to sue the House of Commons in any of the courts in the land, for wrongs done to him by the actions of the House of Commons.”
Sir, I most respectfully submit that Lord Mereworth has along with every Hereditary Peer removed from the House of Lords by the 1999 House of Lords Act, suffered a great wrong done to him at the hands of the House of Commons which originated the 1999 House of Lords Act and as such has every right to sue the House of Commons in any of the ordinary courts in the land in accordance with the cases stated in Stockdale v Hansard 1837.
Taking this ruling it seems to me that once the Law Lords were removed from the House of Lords and placed in the Supreme Court, the House of Lords no longer meets the definition of a court of law as defined by Patterson, giving the opinion of 8 other Judges, in any way shape or form and is now no more than a rubber stamp to be applied to legislation advanced by the House of Commons. Taking Patterson J ruling to its logical conclusion as the House of Lords no longer meets the requirements of being a court the ordinary man should now be able to sue the Parliament as a whole for wrongs done to him.
Parliament, as you are aware, was born of the Common Law of England and is governed in its actions by that same Common Law. The Common Law gave each House a competence to conduct its own business in its own way; that includes the right to determine who does or does not sit in the House. Neither House may by the Common Law interfere in this competence of the other House. The King may appoint a man to a Peerage but has no authority to overrule the Common Law competence of the House, should the House decide that Peer should not sit in the House. The King himself is a product of the Common Law and may by that law not override the Common Law of England, which is supreme law.
The Commons, with the 1999 House of Lords Act, has overridden the competence of the House of Lords to determine who does or does not sit in the House of Peers. This has subverted the constitutional arrangements for parliament; the major crime of Sedition at Common Law and at this level of sedition is an act of High Treason against the English Constitution.
The attached allegations of High Treason against the named past and present government ministers have been accepted and recorded by 4 county police forces and forwarded to the Metropolitan police for investigation on the grounds they are better placed geographically and economically to carry out an enquiry of this magnitude.
Sir, I respectfully submit the advice given to Lord Mereworth has not taken into account the ruling by Patterson J, and for that reason is flawed. Patterson J with this ruling defined the law as it applies to the House of Commons and as such Lord Mereworth does, I submit, have a case against the House of Commons, who have blatantly interfered with the competence of the upper House to determine themselves who does or does not sit in the House of Peers.