20190926-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To RT Hon Boris Johnson MP Re Unconstitutional 24-9-2019 UKSC Decision

Page 1
1
2
3 Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP 26-9-2019
4 Parliamentary. House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
5 boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk
6
7 Boris,
8 in my view the 11 judges had it wrong and obviously it will in the end be your decision
9 what you will do or not. However, you might just consider what I am writing about.
10 .
11 You may be aware that the Commonwealth of Australia has COMPULSORY voting, and yet I
12 took on all State and Federal Governments and succeeded in both appeals on 19 July 2006,
13 (representing myself) unchallenged on constitutional grounds. Which may underline that if one
14 does once homework one can succeed regardless of the odds stacked against you.
15 .
16 It is not for me to get involved in the BREXIT issue as I have no particular view about it. MY
17 real concern is that at least in my view all lawyers including the judges failed to be aware what is
18 constitutionally relevant and applicable. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold it is my obligation
19 to make others aware of my views. If I held you acted against the (unwritten) constitution of the
20 UK I certainly would have expressed this. However, in my view the British Parliament has itself
21 legislated that the Monarch can prorogue the Parliament as the Monarch pleases, even without
22 that a Prime Minister is involved in that.
23
24 While the Supreme Court related to the separation of powers it seems to fail to make clear that
25 the branches are all headed by the Monarch. Also as the court acknowledged the Monarch is
26 advised by the Privy Council as such regardless of whatever advice you may have given the
27 Court essentially overruled the advise of the Privy council, this even so it in my view has no
28 justiciable cause to do so.
29 What appears to me is that the UKSC is in a grab of judicial powers and violate the legal
30 principles of the Westminster system the UK Parliament itself has implemented.
31
32 I admit that as to the Brexit issue I have only limited information about it. However, if the
33 parliament legislated that you require an extension rather then a NO DEAL but the EU refuses an
34 extension then no matter what the British Parliament legislate it cannot overrule the EU.
35
36 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
37 considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
38 Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
39 (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
40 IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
41 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
42 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
43 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
44 Act 1900 (UK) is.
26-9-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1
2 Obviously what needs to be addressed, well in my uninformed views, that what will be the
3 rule where the UK leaves the EU as to the EU overriding decisions prior to the Brexit? Will
4 the British Parliament nevertheless legislate that the EU past rulings remain applicable
5 unless and until the British Parliament decides otherwise?
6 An example, as I assume, of legal issues confronting the UK!
7 QUOTE
8 PART I
9 PRELIMINARY
10 Citation.
11 1. This Constitution may be cited as the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
12
13 Amendment of Constitution.
14 5.
15 (1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be
16 amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.
17 (2) A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by
18 Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not
19 less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in
20 Article 39 (1) (a).
21 16/84.
22 Act 17/94 wef 1.10.94 vide S 367/94
23 PART III
24 PROTECTION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
25 REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
26 No surrender of sovereignty by merger or in any other manner, nor relinquishment
27 of control over the Police Force or the Armed Forces unless supported by not less
28 than two-thirds of total votes cast by electors at a referendum.
29
30 No amendment to this Part unless supported by not less than two-thirds of total votes
31 cast by electors at a referendum.
32 8. --(1) A Bill for making an amendment to this Part shall not be passed by Parliament
33 unless it has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the
34 total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act.
35 END QUOTE
36 QUOTE
37 Part VA;
38
39 "existing law" means any law having effect as part of the law of Singapore immediately
40 before the commencement of this Constitution;
41 END QUOTE
42 QUOTE
43
44 "law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other enactment
45 or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore and the common law in so far

Page 3
1 as it is in operation in Singapore and any custom or usage having the force of law in
2 Singapore;
3 END QUOTE
4 Legislation therefore includes all laws inhered from the United Kingdom, including the magna
5 Carta, the Bill of Rights and other legislation. More over, it includes also that the legal provision
6 that the British Parliament can always amend its own laws remains applicable. Therefore the
7 United kingdom by signing the European Union treaty and so its acceptance of its Constitution,
8 in effect has ensured that the right of the British parliament to compliment the Constitution of
9 Singapore was never extinguished.
10 Again:
11 "law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other enactment
12 or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore
13 the right of any parliament to amend its own legislation, including a constitution can only be
14 limited by the provisions of the Constitution, but the right to provide complimentary legislation,
15 such as the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
16 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is clearly not avoided, as any legislation applicable to
17 British law automatically applies to all British law, with the exeption that constiotutional law
18 cannot be interfered with by implied amendments.
19 The purpose of the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
20 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is not to undermine the THE REPUBLIC AND THE
21 CONSTITUTION but rather is complimentary to the provisions of the Constitution.
22 QUOTE
23 Equality.
24 12. --(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 It is clear that the British Parliament at the time provided for Singapore to continue with
28 British Laws unless otherwise legislate by the Singaporean Parliament.
29
30 Hence, the British Parliament likewise could provide for the BREXIT post period as such.
31
32 Again, I have very limited knowledge of legalities concerning the UK and the EU but obviously
33 it is critical that any legislation deals with that before hand.
34
35 What ought to be understood also is that Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application
36 of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and
37 Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF
38 APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from:
39 [2003] EWCA Civ 168 limited the EU legislation overriding UK legislative provisions only to
40 ordinary laws and not constitutional laws. It means that with the UK not having a WRITTEN
41 constitution the British Parliament may have to rely upon legislation that enacted constitution as
42 of other countries/colonies which would not be subject to EU laws and so can be regarded as
43 constitutional laws for the UK, even if it is only parts of such constitutions.
44
45 You obviously will let me know if you desire to get a more detailed set out from me about
46 why I view that the UK Supreme Court was in error and lacked any justiciable cause to
47 adjudicate.
48
Page 4
1 QUOTE 20190926-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Kim Lane Scheppele Re

2 unconstitutional 24-9-2019 UKSC decision
3 Kim Lane Scheppele 26-9-2019
4 Kim Lane Scheppele <kimlane@Princeton.EDU>
5 Cc: lawcourt-l@legal.umass.edu <lawcourt-l@legal.umass.edu>, conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu
6 <conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu> , Douglas Edlin <dedlin@ColoradoCollege.edu>, David
7 Bernstein <dbernste@gmu.edu>
8
9 Re - [2019] UKSC 41 On appeals from: [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB) and [2019] CSIH 49,
10
11 Kim,
12 I thank you for your writings about the decision of the UKSC and have read the full
13 judgment.
14
15 In my view all 11 judges were wrong as it was not a not justiciable matter for the UK Supreme
16 Court. In my view the UKSC (United Kingdom Supreme Court had no judicial powers to
17 override the United Kingdom legislation which gave the Crown the powers to prorogue the
18 Parliament as it desired (Irrespective of any advice of the Prime Minister). After all where the
19 Parliament itself legislated about rights of prerogative powers to be applied then the Court has no
20 justiciable power to deny this right. This I view it in error did. It appears to me that no matter the
21 lawyers involved on which ever side they were none seemed to grasp this as neither did any of
22 the judges do so.
23 .
24 In my view where the Court had no not justiciable powers then its decision and so any
25 findings/orders are null and void and Prime Minister Boris Johnson is entitled to continue as he
26 were and the Parliament is not convened lawfully.
27
28 QUOTE [2019] UKSC 41 On appeals from: [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB) and [2019] CSIH 49
29 Unless there is some Parliamentary rule to the contrary of which we are unaware, the
30 Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker can take immediate steps to
31 enable each House to meet as soon as possible to decide upon a way forward. That
32 would, of course, be a proceeding in Parliament which could not be called in question
33 in this or any other court.
34 END QUOTE [2019] UKSC 41 On appeals from: [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB) and [2019] CSIH 49
35
36 In my view it is utterly scandalous that the Court somehow is not aware of what the British
37 Parliament legislated in the past that the Crown has the prerogative powers to prorogue the
38 Parliament as it desires. It is therefore totally irrelevant what Prime Minister Boris Johnson may
39 or may not have convened to the Monarch. Neither did the Prime Minister need approval or to
40 give any explanation to the Parliament. Once the parliament has legislated to give the
41 unquestionable power to the Crown then the Court cannot justify its unconstitutional
42 interference. Hence, in my view Prime minister Boris Johnson can disregard the courts decisions
43 and any orders it made and continue that the Parliament was prorogued.
44
45 Obviously, I will in coming days detail why the Court erred in holding it had a justiciable and it
46 simply had nothing to do with the Prime Minister to use political or other motives.
47
48 In various ways the Court seemed to rely upon hypotheticals and not upon clear facts.
49
50 The following I view was wrong for the court to assume.
Page 5
2 The court then has to decide whether the Prime Minister’s explanation for
3 advising that Parliament should be prorogued is a reasonable justification for a
4 prorogation having those effects.
6
7 Where the court specifically lack any justiciable cause then it is immaterial what the
8 court might desire to have viewed as responsibility.
10 Nevertheless, it is the court’s responsibility to determine whether the Prime
11 Minster has remained within the legal limits of the power. If not, the final
12 question will be whether the consequences are sufficiently serious to call for the
13 court’s intervention.
15
16 This appears to me to be incorrect to some extend. Even if the House pass a no-confidence
17 motion it still is not the end for a particular government.
19 The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has
20 no democratic legitimacy other than that.
22
23 The Prime ministers motives or otherwise (lawfully or not) plays no part in determining the
24 legality of the Prorogation of the Parliament.
26 Government must be accorded a great deal of latitude in making decisions of
27 this nature. We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing
28 what he did.
30
31 This appears to be a total absurd conclusion.
33 61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put
34 before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her
35 Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September
36 until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence,
37 upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was
38 unlawful.
40
41 The following in my view is totally irrelevant.
43 68.The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the
44 presenceof Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a
45 “proceeding in Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament.
46 Quite the contrary: it is something which is imposed upon them from outside.
47 It is not something upon which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote.
48 The Commissioners are not acting in their capacity as members of the House of
49 Lords but in their capacity as Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s
50 bidding. They have no freedom of speech. This is not the core or essential

Page 6
1 business of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it brings that core or essential

2 business of Parliament to an end.
4
5 There can be no question that the UK Parliament legislated itself that the Monarch can at its
6 desire to prorogue the Parliament, if judges do not understand/comprehend this then this I view
7 is a very serious issue.
8
9 In my view the Parliament sittings would be unconstitutional as it was prorogued and any
10 purported decision it makes is NULL AND VOID.
11
12 Obviously, the UK Supreme Court may now have to withdraw its orders as being outside its
13 judicial powers.
14
15 Let it be clear, I am well aware that the Government of the Day is accountable to the Parliament,
16 however where the Parliament itself legislated for enabling the Monarch to prorogue the
17 Parliament as the Monarch may desire, this even without any advice of the Prime Minister
18 concerned, then I view the UK Supreme Court failing to have this critical issue in its
19 consideration by this misguided itself.
20
21 I do admire your various writings and hence held it appropriate to write to you before I write to
22 the UKSC itself and likely Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Albeit I would appreciate if you were
23 to provide me with their relevant email addresses.
24
25 Perhaps your students may in time become aware that indeed the UKSC had no justiciable
26 cause and hence anyone can ignore the courts decision, albeit it is always better to have a
27 court in support when doing so.
28 The Court itself has the inherited power to set aside its own judgment/orders if it
29 discover that indeed it had no justiciable case before it.
30
31 Never mind my self professed Crummy English, after all if I can yet again prove that lawyers got
32 it all wrong then what is the use of it that they might have Rhodes Scholar or other university
33 degrees?
34
35 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
36 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
37 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

38 (Our name is our motto!)
39 QUOTE 20190926-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Kim Lane Scheppele Re
40 unconstitutional 24-9-2019 UKSC decision
41
42 In my view a court decision beyond the courts judicial powers is no decision at all and
43 anyone is entitled to disregard it.
44
45 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
46 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
47 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

48 (Our name is our motto!)

20190926-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To RT Hon Boris Johnson MP Re Unconstitutional 24-9-2019 UKSC Decision

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20190926-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To RT Hon Boris Johnson MP Re Unconstitutional 24-9-2019 UKSC Decision

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Page 1

26-9-2019 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE 20190926-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Kim Lane Scheppele Re

26-9-2019 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 business of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it brings that core or essential

37 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

47 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Você também pode gostar