SUPREME COURT RULES JOHNSON & GANG ACTED ILLEGALLY

DOMINIC (EVIL GENIUS) CUMMINGS
BORIS (ARROGANT WOULD-BE DICTATOR) JOHNSON
 ACTED ILLEGALLY - SUPREME COURT RULING

"The Mother of Parliaments - closed by The Father of Lies"

LOCK THEM UP!

PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 

INCITEMENT to VIOLENCE is replaced by: The offences of encouraging or assisting crime under the Serious Crime Act 2007 are inchoate offences.^[3] In each case, the actus reus requirement is that the defendant carry out an act capable of "encouraging or assisting" the commission of another offence

UK Government Site

Contempt of court includes:

• disobeying or ignoring a court order
• refusing to answer the court’s questions if you’re called as a witness

My guess is that Dominic Cumming's "Cunning Plan" is to terrify the UK with the prospect of a crippling No-Deal, then at the last minute, comply with The Supreme Court and substitute a Boris-Leave-Deal. "Phew - what a relief. At last! We MUST do this deal!" A Very-Bad-deal will replace No-deal. Boris will be acclaimed as the Brexit winner. Cumming's will be lauded (again) as an evil-genius. Speculators including UK media bosses will make offshore tax-free billions as Sterling collapses another 20%. Between 5 and 7 million jobs or equivalent wages will be lost. It will take 10 years to renegotiate the UK's trade-deals on 70,000 items and services. The UK will break-up "The Disunited Kingdom". All profitable UK businesses will emigrate. Most talent will emigrate. The UK will be bankrupted and become irrelevant, globally. Thank you Boris, Nigel & gang. 

Contempt of court  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court.^[1][2] A similar attitude towards a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress.

There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order.^[3] Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions.^[4] In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain information can constitute contempt of the court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
England and Wales[edit]

Incitement was an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It was an inchoate offence.^[3] It consisted of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime.

It was abolished in England and Wales on 1 October 2008^[4] when Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 came into force, replacing it with three new statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime.^[5] The common law is now only relevant to offences committed before that date.^[6]

SHORTING STERLING:  The real motive of VIP Brexiters. Billions of Reward or Risk for the super-rich who finance Boris Johnson and his gang. LOCK THEM UP !

“It could be Cummings advising the PM to be extremely aggressive… It could be people who have invested billions in shorting the pound in expectation of a no-deal Brexit.”

Rachel Johnson, BBC World at One

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/26/cabinet-ethics-probe-into-johnsons-hedge-fund-backers/

The Prorogation Plan

Disclosures in a Channel Four documentary Tories at War on Sunday revealed that one of the hedge fund owners who contributed to Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign, Crispin Odey, appeared to be aware of a plan to ‘suspend’ Parliament in late July, the day before Johnson won the leadership contest. This was a month before the government’s plan to prorogue Parliament was leaked by the Observer. 

In 2016, Odey and his partner made £350m overnight by speculating on sterling and moving in gold when the shock EU referendum result caused the pound to tumble. He had donated over £800,000 to Leave campaigns during the Brexit referendum.

In early August this year, The Times revealed that Odey Asset Management had placed £299 million in short positions on some of Britain’s biggest firms around the date for a possible ‘no deal’ Brexit.

SUPREME COURT RULES JOHNSON & GANG ACTED ILLEGALLY

LOCK 'EM UP !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/10318089/bbc-news-channel-live

 DAILY TELEGRAPH: 11 am 24 Sept 2019:

 Supreme Court finds Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was 'unlawful, void and of no effect' - Brexit latest news.

• Supreme Court rules prorogation of Parliament was unlawful
• John Bercow: 'We must convene without delay'
• Boris Johnson says he will not resign over Supreme Court decision 
• Why PM’s ‘divide and rule’ approach to Ireland over Brexit is likely to fail 
• Sharp spike for pound as Lady Hale delivers Supreme Court verdict

THE GUARDIAN newspaper

Here’s another call for Boris Johnson’s resignation, from Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party. This is from its leader at Westminster, Liz Saville Roberts.

The supreme court has delivered a damming and unanimous verdict. Boris Johnson has broken the law for undermining the basic principles of democracy. The prime minister has shown himself to be no better than a tin-pot dictator, shutting down democracy to avoid scrutiny.

There is no question, the prime minister must resign immediately and a crash-out Brexit stopped once and for all.

In his short time in office Boris Johnson has proven himself to be a deeply dangerous and anti-democratic leader, with no respect for the rule of law. It would be a complete affront to civilised society if the prime minister did not resign after this historic ruling.

ROGUES GALLERY - JOHNSON'S CABINET WHO IMPOSED
THE CLOSURE OF PARLIAMENT.

Summary of judgment - Key extracts

Here is an extract from the summary of the judgment (pdf) 

LADY HALE President of the Supreme Court: 

Prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the constitution of the United Kingdom on 31 October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15 August. This explains why holding the Queen’s speech to open a new session of parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31 October. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the court should grant. The court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices.

It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the advocate general’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.