Mr. D. Clarke
89, Plantshill Crescent
tel. 02476 474166
mob. 07799 256129
email [email protected]
19th Dec 2005
Lord Mayor's Secretariat
The Council House
Requesting confirmation of the constitutional legality of
the current Lord Mayor of Coventry (Cllr. Ram Lakha)
and that of his predecessor (Cllr. Sucha Bains.)
I have recently been researching constitutional law after reading an article concerning the Act of Settlement 1701 and other Acts and believe that serious & fundamental questions arising therefrom now require formal answers. Following my initial contact with your office on the 6th Dec I called again on Friday the 16th and spoke to J. Barlow who advised me to put the request in writing.
It appears that under any reading of the Act of Settlement the offer, acceptance, and current tenure of the office of Lord Mayor by Cllr. Lakha is in fundamental conflict with the above mentioned Act and therefore illegal.
The Act of Settlement is a constitutional document governing the succession to the English Crown; it establishes among many other things that it is for Parliament to determine who should succeed to the throne, not the monarch. The Act was a major factor leading to the union of Scotland with England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in the Act of Union 1707, and by virtue of Article II of the Treaty of Union, which defined the succession to the British Crown, the Act of Settlement became, in effect, part of Scottish law. Therefore the whole basis of the British state as it is today is based on this Act.
The act itself states " That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him".
This provision as regards hereditaments within the Act of Settlement 1701 is of immense constitutional significance for it expressly prohibits all and any immigrants from having British Citizenship and naturalised British Citizenship status being awarded to them from 1701 onwards. In effect, this provision reveals that all immigrants to Britain who do not ethnically derive from the indigenous peoples Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland as defined by Jus Sanguinus at the time of the 1701 act, are from 1701 onwards, incapable in law of being awarded the hereditament of British citizenship. If this is the case then Mr. Lakha's position as a councillor and as Lord Mayor is illegal under constitutional law.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England affirms that an award of Naturalised Citizenship to immigrants by Parliament using the Crown's prerogative is an actual hereditament. This means that all Nationality and Naturalisation acts passed by Parliament since 1701 that have awarded the hereditament of British Citizenship to immigrants who have not derived from indigenous British stock are in fact unlawful and that such immigrants given the hereditament of British Citizenship since 1701 are not British Citizens. All the Nationality Acts passed since 1701 have in fact all been Ultra Vires as Parliament has never had the power to pass such laws awarding citizenship status to immigrants.
This was also re-affirmed in the case of Thoburn vs City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane:
62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ...
63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"
This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday, July 15 2002
We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis.
Nationality Acts unlawful
This case states that no law has been passed expressly repealing the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701, and nor could such a law be passed as to do so would destroy the constitutional foundation of the whole structure of British law, Parliament and the British state, and this means that the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 are still in force and that all Nationality Acts passed since 1701 are unlawful.
As you may be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said:
'There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights … the house is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
The Act of Settlement is also the Constitutional treaty that ensures the independence of the Judiciary through the provision that Judges and can only be dismissed by both Houses of Parliament reinforcing the status of the Act itself.
The Act of Settlement 1701 is the foundation of the British constitutional structure.
The Act is the basis of the right of succession of the Crown and therefore is the legal basis of the power of Parliament itself.
As Parliament derives its power from the Crown, to change in any way any sections of the constitutional rules in the Act is to undermine the legitimacy of the Crown, Parliament and the rule of law itself. The Act of Settlement stands wholly as it is, or the whole constitutional structure of the British state falls.
Therefore under Constitutional Law rules the Act of Settlement is still in force and negates all awards of citizenship to all foreigners since 1701.
This status (of the Constitutional laws as still being in force) was clarified by Betty Boothroyd in 1993 as I mentioned earlier.
The fact that the the legal, moral, political, and social principles underpinning the decision (ratio decidendi) in the case of Metric Martyrs case were stated by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, means that under Common Law rules, as well as Constitutional Rules, then the Judges should apply both Common Law and Constitutional law and strike down the basis of all citizenship status of foreigners in Britain.
It seems to me that the Courts can have no choice in this matter, for them to refuse to rule that the Citizenship status of immigrants is unlawful means they are in breach of the rule of law itself.
Constitutional Law is also above that of ordinary Parliamentary Acts and therefore the Constitutional Rule takes primacy and precedence over any acts of Parliament such as any Nationality Acts. This is hereby, confirmation that the ideology of Multi-Culturalism is also illegal both in theory and practice. As Multi-Culturalism is predicated upon the introduction of immigrants into Britain and a granting of citizenship then its operation and enforcement on threat it must be noted of arrest, forfeit and imprisonment has no legal basis in law.
As the Act of Settlement prohibits them from having British Citizenship then the Race Relations Acts are Ultra Vires.
From the foregoing I contend that the Race Relations Acts are also illegal in the United Kingdom for they are predicated upon the lawful right of such individuals in the UK who come under the act to be here legally. Such being the case does this not also infer that all alleged offences, prosecutions and penalties resulting from the illegal application of these 'Acts' and their derivatives are thereby voided?
The failure by Parliament since 1701 to abide by the clear rules of the Act of Settlement means that all laws passed since 1701 that conflict with the Act of Settlement are in fact unlawful.
In fact I would contend that the whole basis of the rule of law has been undermined by Parliament since 1701 and the law must be brought back into legality. Any attempt now by Parliament to annul provisions of the Act of Settlement or by courts to offer 'editorial' re-interpretations of or qualifying additions to it would undermine the very basis of the rule of law and the constitutional foundations of Parliament, the Crown and the British State.
In summary I formally request by return;
Your confirmation of receipt of this letter in writing to the above address.
And within 14 days
A written statement confirming the legality of Coventry City Council's acceptance of Mr. Ram Lakha's as a Local Election Candidate.
Confirmation of the legality of the acceptance by C.C.C. Mr Lakha as an elected councillor.
Confirmation of the legality of his appointment by C.C.C as Lord Mayor of the City of Coventry.
Confirmation of the legality of his continued tenure of the office of Lord Mayor having been hereby notified of the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the consequences and ramifications thereof.
The above requested replies to take full regard of the provisions of the Act of Settlement and to demonstrate Coventry City Council's compliance with the same.
In anticipation of your reply,
Mr D. E. Clarke
Mr. Davied E. Clarke
89, Plantshill Crescent
13th January 2006
I am in receipt of your reply dated 5th Jan 06.
Whilst noting your disagreement with my assertion that Mr Lakha and Mr Bains' hold their positions illegally under the provisions of the Act of Settlement, I see that you provide no valid argument, reason or example of legal instrument to substantiate your view or alter mine. You may have your opinion on the interpretation of the Act but it remains just that, an opinion and an opinion is not the law. The 1701 Act of Settlement however is the law, regardless of your opinion of it.
As for your assertion that "the Act of Settlement does not invalidate subsequent parliamentary law relating to immigration & nationality"....this too is wrong. Constitutional law cannot be repealed or changed. No act of parliament can override a constitutional law.
Your reference to the Human Rights Act and the implication that it allows judges to "re-interpret" statutes to make them compatible as far as possible with the European Convention on Human Rights is just an attempt at diversion from the above fact. I assume that you are relying for justification of this on the following section of the H.R.A. concerning the 'Interpretation of Legislation'.
3. - (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
This is yet another example of the iniquity of selective quotation of EU diktat in furtherance of political ends. As the ECJ, EU Commission et al are unelected and unaccountable bodies that defy scrutiny or challenge, how can it be possible that their undemocratic emissions are held to take primacy over the laws and constitution of the world's founding parliamentary democracy? As a covert means to subvert the sovereignty of nations it is difficult to envisage or design a better vehicle for such subversion.
If you would consult the rest of that "act" you will find the following a few lines below your selected quote;
(2) This section-
(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;
(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and
© does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.
Whilst this illegal imposition notionally gave judges the power (on paper) to re-interpret the law it certainly does not give them the right to do so in practice.
And further, the EU Constitution states that EU law should be implemented "insofar as it is compatible with the existing constitutions of the member nations." Some of the articles of Human Rights are indeed in direct contravention of the Act of Settlement. eg religious 'discrimination' or could that be taken to read 'preference' against Catholicism, but this was tested by the Guardian newspaper in a challenge in court and failed thereby establishing yet again that Constitutional Law takes precedence.
(n.b. This same newspaper's editor actually wrote to the then Attorney General Lord Williams of Mostyn seeking assurance that he would be given immunity from prosecution under the Treason Felony Act 1848 for an intended challenge to the overthrow of the British monarchy!)
Nothing in your reply satisfies me of the surety of your affirmation of the legality of Mr Lakha's tenure of the office of Lord Mayor of Coventry, nor does it change the law of this land. Your inference that there is "a strong argument that the provisions of the1701 Act are incompatible with the provisions of the Human Rights Act" is merely bluff regardless of any issuance by the courts of bogus and inconsequential devices such as Declarations of Incompatibility.
You advise that I submit my contentions to the Attorney and Solicitor General and copies of our correspondences will most assuredly be delivered to them. However I have no need of their advice, as I am certain of my position. You however appear not to be so sure. May I respectfully suggest therefore that is you who is in need of further advice and instruction before responding to this letter. Mere opinion and reliance on irrelevancies will no longer suffice and will be construed as further obfuscation and delay in the resolution of this most urgent matter.
Mr Davied E. Clarke