To: UK Chief Justice, Baron John Thomas (& Justices assigned to hear the Brexit Appeal)

 

CC:

HM Queen Elizabeth

PM Theresa May, UK Parliament

Lab Jeremy Corbyn

SNP Nicola Sturgeon

Lib-Dem Tim Farron

UKIP

 

& as per addressees & general

 

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

 

November 25, 2016

 

Re: Brexit Judgement – FATALLY FLAWED - a GROSS travesty of Justice – Request to Intervene in Appeal but with assurance of protections from abusive costs-orders or any other adverse orders.

 

(Weblink for Brexit Judgement & Summary:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/ )

 

Nobles confronted King John with armed force to bring about (progressively) Magna Carta – I am confronting UK Judiciary with words in an attempt to give REAL effect to Magna Carta & its derived (infinitely-elastic, hence unconstitutional) Constitutional components.

Something tells me I am wasting my time!!!

 

-------

 

Note: Government is holistic –> Legislative (Parliament), Executive (Cabinet) & Judicative – the Crown is effectively a Non-Executive function.

 

--------

 

The Judgement handed down by you, as Chief Justice, & 2 other Justices can only be described as a gross travesty of justice – it is an outright injustice.

 

The purpose herein is not to detail in full the points that I will raise in an Appeal intervention, if protections against Justice abuses are guaranteed, but to simply demonstrate that the Brexit Judgement is fatally flawed – and to achieve that it is only necessary to highlight just one fatal flaw (however, in identifying one fatal flaw a number of other fatal flaws come to light).

 

But, it is also important to recognise that this gross injustice (Brexit judgement) is not in isolation - I have previously challenged you on many previous gross injustices some of which are appended below (and deal with unlawful rendition of Dewani to SA, cover-up of fabricated evidence in Lawrence murder trial & appeal, cove-up of defective science, etc., etc.)

 

The Judgement (by you & 2 other Justices) briefly explains (J. para 18ff) the non-transparent 'constitution' that UK has – a 'constitution' that is not entirely written - in other words a 'constitution' that is effectively an infinitely-elastic elastic-band.

 

The disingenuous arguments within the Judgement (& opinions of Justice Hale, one of those to hear appeal, as reported by media) clearly demonstrate the extent to which Justices in this Judgement have stretched the infinitely-elastic elastic-band, and into deep-space black-holes (which in real space terms are as fictional as are your arguments within the Judgement – it is ironic that your dishonesty, in suppressing the new science that I have revealed, that it is impacting upon socio-economies to the extent that it is breaking up the EU – will it break up UK?

 

It is also important to understand the manner in which holistic Government (Executive/Parliament/Justice) devolved from solitary Monarchy power – it came about by armed threat from a privileged few (lords, etc.) versus King John –> Magna Carta – but it did little for the peasants as it was intended to look after the rights of nobles – holistic Government Power, over time, became vested on the basis that there would be a transparent, accessible Justice system by which checks&balances on that Government power would be determinable & enforceable through the use of reasoned words that conveyed understandable & sensible meaning, as opposed to continued use of armed force, or of disingenuous duplicity through an inaccessible closed-shop (hence, by induction, corrupt) 'justice' system.

 

Your disgraceful, flawed Judgement proves beyond a shadow of doubt that you (& Justices) have disregarded/corrupted this balancing process, and for long.

 

One fatal flaw (of many) by you & Justices can be found in the Summary, Para 2 (& Judgement Para 5): 'It is accepted by all sides that this legal question is properly before the court and justiciable: ….....'

 

The 'question' being that set out in Summary para 1 (J. para 4) immediately preceding – vis: whether '….the Government is entitled to give Notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown's prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament.'

(Apologies for any typing errors)

 

The (correction: A) fatal flaw resides within the seemingly innocent, but toxic, assumption that it, 'the question', is 'accepted by all sides' –> 'all sides' specifically refers to the parties before the Court (over which you & 2 other Justices presided) of which the Claimants were Gina Miller and Deir Tozetti dos Santos, and Defendant: SecState for Exiting EU, and Interested Parties: Graham Pigney & others, AB, KK, PR & children, and Intervener: George Birnie & others – i.e. to argue 'accepted by all sides' is a total deception.

 

And 'all' represented, directly, by 24 Legals – TWENTY FOUR Legals – one can estimate at least a multiple of 5 others behind each of those direct Legals => 120 Legals, and ALL gang-banging society.

 

It is abundantly clear that the 'question' is NOT justiciable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

'… prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament …' is an incorrect joinder – because prerogative explicitly excludes reference to other powers (in this instance, Parliament) it is (from wordweb) 'a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right)' - and similarly defined elsewheres.

 

BUT, Parliament is Sovereign.

 

Residual prerogative powers remain because Parliament has not removed them; alternatively stated if prerogative powers have obstructed Parliament in seeking debate (e.g. herein, on Brexit Article 50) then Parliament need only table a motion → there was no need for a Court application.

 

But what is TOTALLY BIZARRE is that private persons were allowed to bring a matter to Court effectively complaining that Parliament was not complaining on its own behalf about the 'prerogative' powers of Government Executive against which Parliament, if it so chose to do, could table a motion compelling debate over 'prerogative' powers being effected, herein re Article 50 (A50)

 

OR

 

To put it more simply – not one Parliamentarian brought an application to Court (or even joined in the Brexit Court Application, from which your grossly flawed Judgement derives) complaining that they, as Parliamentarians, were not being consulted over Brexit and/or over triggering of EU Article 50 → ????????????

 

Why did Parliamentarians not join as Claimants? – quite simply because they did not see the need to as they have the power, as Sovereign Power, to do that already, simply by tabling motions in Parliament.

 

There was no need for the Court application in the first instance

 

The entire Court matter was totally bizarre – and you & 2 other Justices played along with this deception!!!!!

 

It can only be construed that this was a massive fraud scam by Legals to which 3 Justices aided&abetted.

 

So, the 'question' itself is flawed in its construction & in its incorrect understanding of (infinitely-elastic) Constitutional Powers (insofar as Parliament/Executive/Justice) - but, this is not the real issue (or one of)

 

The real issue (one of) – is the fact that a few people can apply to Court for an order to overturn/obstruct a Referendum decision (which is a Peoples' will as expressed, consequent to Parliamentary Referendum (Brexit) Act, and hence the outcome is a Parliament, and hence Executive, obligation, which can only be voided if such an Act or outcome contravened UDHR provisions) – yet this case before Court was not properly aired before hearing, i.e. there was no public announcement, no papers published on Court website, no Heads-of-Argument, no anything, totally NOTHING – and no means by which people could submit their arguments for or against AND without fear of abusive costs-orders - yet a few people sought to obstruct the Peoples' will & Parliament's will (whether passive or active).

 

Alternatively stated: The Brexit Act was a will of Parliament to seek the will of the People to which Parliament undertook to respect & act upon, and hence Executive are compelled to act upon, subject to any further interventions as Parliament so chooses.

 

The issue of extortionate costs-orders derived historically from self-interests of Legals and has evolved to today's fraudulent scams that is common in Courts globally – which silences People from attaining holistic Government, i.e. the vast majority are purposefully excluded by unlawful threats of costs/adverse-orders.

 

You & justices FAILED to think-through the implications of your Judgement order, vis:– Executive is wrongly compelled by the Judgement to engage with a Parliament that has not bothered (formally) to engage with Executive over Brexit A50.

 

Moreover: what difference (in possible outcome) can come about between:

1. Parliament willingly tabling & processing a motion

AND

2. Government compelled by your order in communicating with Parliament????????????????????????????????

 

What difference? -> NONE!!!! - hence the Court Application was unnecessary (other than for Legals to gang-bang)

 

 

The issue of nationality of any of the parties is not entered into, but what is raised is the fact that Miller is a Fund Manager (according to media reports) and founder of SCM Private, i.e. Miller is entrenched in the murky world of finance which is riddled with fraud & corruption, especially by International Auditors which act as 'think-tanks' & information centre/conduit for fraud scams (all of which is unlawfully protected by UK Justice system), so it raises concerns that Miller is simply a stooge for those Financial Powers that are defrauding the People as a whole, and intent on protecting the fraudulent finance industry that has made London the World's Finance Capital (or more correctly: the World's leading fraudulent money-machine) – i.e. it is not unreasonable to construe that Miller, acting as a stooge for the Industry, seeks to protect the fraudulent mechanisms that brought about the dissatisfactions (felt but not understood by the People) that resulted in Brexit decision (& now Trumped)

 

Again: Government's prerogative powers, any powers, are determined by Parliament. Parliament has not opposed the Government's intent to trigger Article 50. If Parliamentarians demand preliminary debate/oversight or other protections then Parliament can do so.

The Judgement, against the Government (Executive) also wrongly imposes an implied obligation upon a 3rd Party that is not party to the Judgement, in this case Parliament. No Judge can make an order against a party that is not party to the matter in question (and in this instance the A50 issue is not justiciable).

 

This brings clarity to the situation – that Miller should have brought her case to Government (Parliament) calling for Parliament to table a motion to compel Government (Executive) and Parliament to debate the triggering of A50 in Parliament (the triggering date having been arbitrarily set by PM Theresa May); and to achieve that Miller need only to issue a letter of demand to Parliament (c/o The Speaker would seem appropriate, or via her MP)

 

BUT, also, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has failed to table a motion for debate.

 

It was NOT for the Courts to get involved in reasonable Sovereign Powers decisions (passive or active) being exercised in their normal course

 

It is abundantly clear that the 'question' is NOT justiciable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

BUT, FURTHER CONTRAST:

It is common knowledge that the Brexit Referendum was intended as a FINAL decision, a decision that would be given 'immediate' effect to, a decision that would be respected & acted upon 'promptly'. The fact that the Referendum Act omitted text such that Government would be empowered to trigger Article 50 is not an issue that required 24 (120?) Legals, 3 Judges & Court Staff to gang-bang society.

 

Yet, you & 2 other Justices, allowed 24 (likely 120+) Legals to gang-bang society by bringing a matter to Court with the intention of disrupting a Peoples' decision & gave false credibility to the matter by convoluted & deceptive legalese arguments in a lengthy Judgement.

 

You allowed all this deception – instead of simply stating that the intent of the Referendum Act was clear despite a glaring omission (that the Referendum Act failed to state that the outcome would be Acted upon) and that the Executive were empowered to exercise powers to give effect to the Referendum – and that if Parliamentarians felt need for debate on A50 trigger & process then Parliament already has the existing processing Powers by which to so do - the fact that public pressure would compel Government to consult with Parliament (because Parliament had failed to do so by legislation) was a safe-guard totally ignored by the Court, and a real safe-guard that has proved effective in the past over bombing missions etc..

 

In Summary – a deceptively 'complex' case was purposefully allowed and sensible reasoning was thwarted – all to enable a gang of dishonest Legals to bang society.

 

You & Justices were totally wrong to meddle in an affair that was fully outside of Justice determination.

 

There are a host of other issues that need to be raised concerning the grossly flawed Judgement, which issues go to the root of long-standing Justice abuses that are part responsible for the circumstances that gave rise to the general dissatisfactions that led to the call & outcome of the Brexit Referendum.

 

Consequently

… I request that you confirm that I may be permitted to join in appeal against your disgraceful Judgement without fear of Justice abuse or of any/extortionate costs-orders, or any other adverse orders (i.e. with assurance from you)

 

It is abundantly clear that the 'question' is NOT justiciable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

… and, thereafter, I would appreciate if you would tender your resignation as Chief Justice, with immediate effect.

 

 

(I recommend you read 'To Bear Any Burden' by Al Santoli ISBN 0-525-24327-5 – a compilation of essays by people, from all spheres & levels, caught up in the Vietnam War & Aftermath – it gives clear insight as to how GROSSLY defective 'science' transfers into MASSIVELY DESTRUCTIVE political philosophy & policy such that nation/s are destroyed -> because defective 'science' & dishonest 'scientists' cannot be challenged because Courts are closed-shop, hence corrupt)

 

Sincerely

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

 

[I have previously challenged you on many previous gross injustices: e.g.

 

  • Rendition of Shrien Dewani to South Africa – having a mentally impaired person, unfit for trial, despatched to SA for a cocktail of drugs & mind-bending, and then paraded in a Cape Town Court – and this whilst you knew that a Constitutional Court matter was live, that President Zuma had filed a Notice of opposition, hence the SA Authorities had no Authority by which to take Custody of Dewani.

    • Corollary: You actively aided&abetted the undermining of South Africa's Constitutional framework & Justice system.

  • The fabricated evidence & defective science (forensics) in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial & appeal.

  • Cover-up of new science that renders DNA questionable

  • Cover up of new science that disproves much physics & economics 'theories' & is causal of so much socio-economic chaos which is causal of Brexit Referendum & Trump outcomes – because Governments (Executive, Legislative, Judicative) are allowing/colluding with corporate Organised Crime → Economic WMDs → Economy Terrorism

  • Cover-up of Twin Towers implosions, BP deepwater Horizon sabotage, etc., etc.

  • Unlawful protections against Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Donald Gordon & others (corpOrgCrime criminals) for global frauds

  • Unlawful protections against global frauds perpetrated by International Auditors: Price Waterhouse Coopers, Grant Thornton, Ernst & Young, Deloittes, KPMG

  • …. etc., etc., etc. ….

 

The jailing of Thomas Mair for the murder of Jo Cox MP covers-up the complicities of Parliamentary leaders who refused to address the massive frauds (veneered with false respectability by bogus science/mathematics) that is causing so much socio-economic chaos – one could also argue that Jo Cox was responsible for Mair's anger because I kept Jo Cox informed as with all other Parliamentarians. BUT, Jo Cox was a new/junior MP, so responsibility falls squarely on those senior Parliamentarians (MPs & Lords) & certainly on the leaders. Whilst one cannot condone, one must abhor, what Mair did, the reality remains that your dishonesty in maintaining defective science (by operating a closed-shop corrupt Justice system) is part/largely responsible for disparitised people to become angry/irrational.

 

The recent sex abuse allegations by soccer players (on BBC News: Victoria Live) belies the wider & general abuses within youth movements such as scouts etc. - youths have no protection because you operate closed-shop Courts (and also because BBC & Victoria, and media in general, lie to the World on general issues such as those above) – this occurs in Ireland as well where I as a parent have been harassed for raising general abuses within Ireland youth scouting & soccer, and this because Ireland operates similar Westminster-style corrupt closed-shop courts.

 

This week PM May stated that funding for science R&D has been expanded, yet PM May does not pay for work already presented & consumed by Government – one cannot challenge PM May's (& Cameron's & Blair's) dishonesty & theft of IP because you operate a corrupt closed-shop (in)justice system.

 

Last night (Nov 24) TCD & DIAS hosted a lecture on climate change by Tim Palmer (Oxford, RS) – TCD (Provost Prendergast RIA) & DIAS (Director Luke Drury RIA) both introduced – Palmer gave a summary of the usual 'pollution' story but totally ignored natural phenomena (esp. synchronous rotation & orbit) and simply fobbed them of when challenged in Q&A – i.e. Palmer lied to the audience, just as he & other scientists have been lying to the World.

 

Scientists can get away with lying because they know that the Judiciary will support them – by maintaining a corrupt closed-shop (in)Justice system – it is why so many people distrust scientists, but not yet recognising that they should be distrusting Judiciaries – and it is why a 'democratic' revolution (Brexit & Trump) has come about – because Justice systems are closed-shop, 'justice' is readily manipulated thus preventing people from bringing dishonest scientists to Court

 

– all of which, & other issues, is why I call for protections re Brexit Judgement Appeal] ------