Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
serpentine

Robin Tilbrook article 50 legal case rejected

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, serpentine said:

At the first hurdle a single judge with possibly biased views threw Robin Tilbrooks case out as having no merit.

 

It will be all over the msm headlines tomorrow!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYu2PLw8MOo

 

 

All is not lost, but because of the crucial subject of Brexit, I would imagine most judges in this case have been bought off.

 

Today, Tapnewswire

 

Update: I will try and get more information on his reasons.

 

The Hon. Mr Justice Martin Benedict Spencer, has said NO to a Judicial Review. This is an Establishment delaying tactic. This was a single Judge ruling and he was only appointed in 2017. He was formerly a Medical Malpractice lawyer.

 

As you can see below we are appealing his decision on Friday. No this is NOT normal, I can see what they are doing. Delaying Tactic!when a 40 year veteran QC says we are out and a retired High Court Judge says its highly arguable and then a single Judge says – no to a Judicial review that STINKS

 

“The court then sends the papers to a judge for a decision on paper. If permission is refused, you can “renew” the decision to be heard in open court. The other parties may or may not attend. Our experience is that permission is often refused on paper but granted upon renewal in open court. Sometimes the judge will order that the matter be referred to open court anyway.”

 

Stanley Brodie QC says the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019

SEB_May_2017.2e16d0ba.fill-600x440.jpg

 

 

 

Stanley Brodie QC has written an article where he details that the UK, has legally left the EU as of the 29th of March 2019 and he explains that not only is that clear in law, but also that the way the law was presented to Parliament was illegally modified.

 

Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires .That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.

 

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

The proviso could not be used to reopen, or continue, never ending debate. Nor can it be used as a general power to extend time.

 

The Article 50 period is set at 2 years unless, as provided for in Article 50 “the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend [it]”.

So the version put out by the civil servants was false. The differences in meaning between the two versions were considerable.

So the civil servants responsible for briefing parliament to enable an informed debate to take place, themselves were misleading it. The alteration of the text of Article 50, and of the proviso to paragraph 3, must have been deliberate.

 

This is a truly alarming state of affairs; it should be exposed sooner rather than later.

 

CONCLUSIONS

Stating the outcome shortly, it would seem to be as follows:
(i) The application by the Prime Minister for an extension of time until June 30th under the proviso to Article 50, made on or about the 14th March 2019, was legally valid, but was rejected by the EU.

(ii) This was followed by the Agreement proposed by the EU. It did not comply with the terms of the proviso; nor was Article 50 referred to or relied on by the EU. It was not effective to stop the Article 50 process running up to and including the 29th March at 11 p.m. Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires .That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.

 

http://tapnewswire.com/2019/06/tilbrook-writ-delayed-by-single-recently-appointed-judge/

 

 

Edited by Golden Retriever
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent discussion of the case.

 

https://youtu.be/6ya1Ss1X1Oo

 

The gist of events is there but the host perhaps needs to do more introduction and recapitulation to get the best from his guest.

 

The complete msm blackout is of course atrocious and worthy of some response.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, serpentine said:

Recent discussion of the case.

 

https://youtu.be/6ya1Ss1X1Oo

 

The gist of events is there but the host perhaps needs to do more introduction and recapitulation to get the best from his guest.

 

The complete msm blackout is of course atrocious and worthy of some response.

This certainly needs more exposure, its the last chance saloon.

Robin has put everything on the line for the sovereignty of the peoples of this nation, I think the nation needs to acknowledge what he is doing, whether they agree or disagree, this is about upholding the Law of the land and democracy, and about people in positions of public power fulfilling their duties in accordance with the law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if a Judge is empowered to be the tribunal and court and has an opinion , then do not get pissy when it is not what you wanna hear

 

its a bit remainer aint it

 

heres the judicial opinion regarding Brexit in March --- oh well, i dont like that so i will appeal

 

ahhh the irony

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only true if there is no bias in the system and/or the msm.

Judges are chosen by civil servants and this particular judge has apparently expressed his bias through social media.

Then make a carefully examination of the Gina Miller case and the delay in inititating article 50.

Ping pong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zArk said:

if a Judge is empowered to be the tribunal and court and has an opinion , then do not get pissy when it is not what you wanna hear

 

its a bit remainer aint it

 

heres the judicial opinion regarding Brexit in March --- oh well, i dont like that so i will appeal

 

ahhh the irony

 

What has opinion got to do with law and duty of care?

If Teresa May handed the lawfully biding document in 2017 to the EU with a time stamp expiring on 29 march 2019, once we arrive at that date, the law dictates we have left the union.

She set physically the motion into practice, then naturally, law follows as dictated within the document.

To deny the document is to deny the process of Law, which by definition makes the actions unlawful by the Upholders of law in this nation.

 

There appears to be treason within the annuls of power within the UK establishment.

Back in the middle ages, people would have hung for such offences against the nation, but nowadays, the days of screens and propaganda, it seems treason is perfectly acceptable by the masses..And some call this 'evolution'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilimmu said:

What has opinion got to do with law and duty of care?

 

Thats all it is, an opinion, but its one which both parties have agreed to abide by

 

1 hour ago, ilimmu said:

law follows as dictated within the document.

 

well that can be the law of the case however i dunno about the paperwork and how the law has been created for the case or how the facts have been written for the case

the judge,  as the court, has looked at it and with experience said the case has no merit

 

the plaintiff agrees to being subject to the court, that was done at the beginning. the court has spoken that the case has no merit. the end

 

i think there should be law lessons in school , forget PSHE (that crap to keep one thinking as a subject), i mean lessons to prepare people for the world, dealing with the world and dealing with ones own court.

 

1 hour ago, ilimmu said:

Back in the middle ages, people would have hung for such offences against the nation

 

yes actioned by those within the system. the common folk had no business with internal affairs.

 

i think Robin Tilbrook is stepping into anothers jurisdiction as a guest. hes being treated with respect and should take the decision honourably

the system doesnt want to bring any case against the ongoing Brexit procedure, it is a public spectacle but internally conducted

Edited by zArk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, zArk said:

 

Thats all it is, an opinion, but its one which both parties have agreed to abide by

 

 

well that can be the law of the case however i dunno about the paperwork and how the law has been created for the case or how the facts have been written for the case

the judge,  as the court, has looked at it and with experience said the case has no merit

 

the plaintiff agrees to being subject to the court, that was done at the beginning. the court has spoken that the case has no merit. the end

 

i think there should be law lessons in school , forget PSHE (that crap to keep one thinking as a subject), i mean lessons to prepare people for the world, dealing with the world and dealing with ones own court.

 

 

yes actioned by those within the system. the common folk had no business with internal affairs.

 

i think Robin Tilbrook is stepping into anothers jurisdiction as a guest. hes being treated with respect and should take the decision honourably

the system doesnt want to bring any case against the ongoing Brexit procedure, it is a public spectacle but internally conducted

I fully agree about law being taught in schools.

 

According to the video, the judges are not allowing the materiel to be heard in anyway, using the 'without merit' to shift it over to tribunal, if it fails there its done for.

Without it ever being heard in court, not even a vocal summary of the case has been allowed from an official stance. When one considers that we are talking about the highest jurisdiction, its a travesty of British justice that a few people can subvert the course of law at the highest echelons of society, as agreed by the Cambridge professor of British and European law who say there is merit and it needs to be heard in open court debate.

 

 

I doubt the landed gentry would storm the castles to enforce the law onto the unlawful monarchs, it was the pitch fork crews who although quite illiterate, would know the laws much better than today's reasonably educated people.

 

 

The law MUST be up held zArk, especially by the who are in charge of administering the law.

If the law is not ABSOLUTE, then what is it?

 

when you said:-

"

i think Robin Tilbrook is stepping into anothers jurisdiction as a guest. hes being treated with respect and should take the decision honourably

the system doesnt want to bring any case against the ongoing Brexit procedure, it is a public spectacle but internally conducted"

 

As a guest? This is Britain, this British law, which has been in force for nearly a thousand years and been upheld by many a honourable man, who have dedicated their entire lives to keeping the law absolute. Its not a big club, its the law, the upholders of the law are a big cliche and are clearly not fit for purpose if they use laws created for asylum seekers who are abusing the appeal system, to circumvent Laws that they have literally set into motion and have decided that they will ignore them, because it didnt go how they wanted.

Just think about it for a min..imagine ignoring any law and it just goes away?

Its a mockery of due process.

If there is no merit in such an important case, hear it and set a precedent (how long will it take..2 hours in total?), dont just ignore it when folks of high legal status such as a law professors at Cambridge, says it should be heard in court.(and he is a remainer, but knows the significance of the weight of the case, thus he has acted with a duty of care, unlike the judges who it seems will not allow the case content to be administered into court record)

 

 

Does nobody find it just a little strange that Corbyn, is not using this as a rod to beat the Tories with?

Treason May forced the lords to sign article 50 and put 29th march 2019 as an exit date..Then she personally handed the legal instrument into the EU commission, setting the action in motion..Gross negligence on her part and the Tory party advisers, yet do we hear ANYTHING from labour regarding this? NOT a SAUSAGE from the opposition.

Thus I conclude..

 

Islington_Punch_and_Judy.JPG

Red & Blue

Corbyn & May

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilimmu said:

The law MUST be up held zArk, especially by the who are in charge of administering the law. 

 

the law, the only law a court knows is that which is presented to it.

 

however going for a judicial review is slightly different. maybe ....

 

the question of 'parliamentry sovereignty' is overshadowing this issue. ????

 

the judge has spotted at least 1 issue which can destroy the case

maybe its the wording of the case?

maybe its that the case is easily defended ?

maybe its that the case may never come to a conclusion ?

 

n.b whenever 'the law' is written or said it is assumed to mean 'common law' however a judicial review is to make sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed within administration, statutory law.

 

Statutory Law is written by the system, maintained by the system and governed by the system. it aint nowt to do with the people

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zArk said:

 

the law, the only law a court knows is that which is presented to it.

 

however going for a judicial review is slightly different. maybe ....

 

the question of 'parliamentry sovereignty' is overshadowing this issue. ????

 

the judge has spotted at least 1 issue which can destroy the case

maybe its the wording of the case?

maybe its that the case is easily defended ?

maybe its that the case may never come to a conclusion ?

 

n.b whenever 'the law' is written or said it is assumed to mean 'common law' however a judicial review is to make sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed within administration, statutory law.

 

Statutory Law is written by the system, maintained by the system and governed by the system. it aint nowt to do with the people

 

 

Then why not hear the case to set a precedent?

And put the issue to bed once and for all?

Why the media blackout if there is nothing to fear for them?

 

I've yet to meet a single person in real life who has heard of Robin Tilbrook.

If the case IS entirely without substance, why are the political media not mocking Robin as they do all other eccentrics?

Their silence is deafening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ilimmu said:

Does nobody find it just a little strange that Corbyn, is not using this as a rod to beat the Tories with?

 

 

What is perhaps more strange is that Nigel Farage, The Brexit Party, Leave.EU etc have not got behind this legal case and have kept very quiet.

 

Considering how much media exposure 'Mr Brexit' (ie Nigel Farage) enjoys, and how much he goes on about 'shaking up politics' and making threats about what will happen if the UK doesn't leave the EU on 31st October, you'd have thought he'd be fully behind Mr Tilbrook and urging people to support him and this case.

 

I'd never expect Corbyn or Labour to talk about this case, as they want to keep us in the EU anyway, so as far as they're concerned the less said the better.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

 

"This act is so "specific" in it's wording in LAW (it does not imply, it is specific).

 

There is NOTHING complex about this at all.

 

1. It only confers power by parliament to issue the notice (not withdraw or extend it).

 

2. Once notice is given the clocks ticking (two years max OUT, OUT)

 

3. It specifically repeals (in spite of) the European Communities Act 1972.

 

4. "any other enactment" The last limb of this simple Law says "no other law," which means no statutory instrument, no motion, no other law! can alter this act. The act has full force of "Constitutional Law" as it was elevated and caused by three things

 

1. A Common Law ruling in the Gina Miller case

 

2. Common Law ruling in the Metric Martyrs Case

 

3. The 2nd Referendum. Thats it. No if's No But's. Your BEING CONNED like in the 1970's by the same establishment, same play book, Different actors! Look at the ruling from this Judge. Not a single mention of "European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. This simple 137 word law. Not a single ref. It mentions all of the other acts except this "crucial one". This is deliberate! Why? We are OUT!"

 

 

 

Edited by Golden Retriever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ilimmu said:

Then why not hear the case to set a precedent?

 

i think the Judicial Review is to check that the officers have followed the rules and regs during the procedure which produced a result

the review is not to check the result or to change the result, it is to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed

 

maybe its a point of soverenity, parliament is sovereign and therefore is able to do what it wishes, the PM is the chief officer. ??

 

on the point of the media silence, i think that since no political party wishes to 'get in on the act' the media is silent, as it doesnt recognise the claim

 

Judicial Reviews work best when a political party is supporting the claim or making the claim. its from within.

 

for instance the Hunting ban Judicial Review was instigated and claimed by Labour Peers, torys, military eggs and top fellas

 

no offence to whats-his-name but he aint in the big club and he aint invited to use their tools (Judicial Review)

Edited by zArk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zArk said:

i think the Judicial Review is to check that the officers have followed the rules and regs during the procedure which produced a result

the review is not to check the result or to change the result, it is to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed

 

maybe its a point of soverenity, parliament is sovereign and therefore is able to do what it wishes, the PM is the chief officer. ??

 

on the point of the media silence, i think that since no political party wishes to 'get in on the act' the media is silent, as it doesnt recognise the claim

 

Judicial Reviews work best when a political party is supporting the claim or making the claim. its from within.

 

for instance the Hunting ban Judicial Review was instigated and claimed by Labour Peers, torys, military eggs and top fellas

 

no offence to whats-his-name but he aint in the big club and he aint invited to use their tools (Judicial Review)

I understand what you are saying and it is true on the face of it, but its only happening because we dont spread important information with one and other.

Imagine if this went UK viral?

It would totally expose the MSM to the blinkered masses if they chose to still ignore something that was red hot online.

the system is bought and paid for, its clear to see that, but the 'Scousers' who fought the UK govt and police won in the end, so its not impossible, but a real struggle as it was for the brave folks of the Hillsborough conspiracy.

(anything worth having is worth fighting for)

 

So I have been sharing the video too, just doing my bit for the country.

Edited by ilimmu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ilimmu said:

the system is bought and paid for, its clear to see that, but the 'Scousers' who fought the UK govt and police won in the end, so its not impossible, but a real struggle as it was for the brave folks of the Hillsborough conspiracy.

(anything worth having is worth fighting for)

 

while a Judicial Review was being sought by the families, it was Andy Burnham who forced the Judicial Review to progress

 

The families on their own were not sufficient , it always requires someone inside the system.

you just look at how quick things moved when a politician got involved compared to just the families

 

 

Edited by zArk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

while a Judicial Review was being sought by the families, it was Andy Burnham who forced the Judicial Review to progress

 

The families on their own were not sufficient , it always requires someone inside the system.

you just look at how quick things moved when a politician got involved compared to just the families

 

 

 

I wouldn't give the Blairite Andy Burnham too much credit.

 

Tens of thousands of ordinary people didn't want to hear his rhetoric.

Andy Burnham's speech, interrupted by shouts of "justice for the 96"

 

 

 

 

Edited by Golden Retriever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

...

 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not giving him credit, but using it as an example of how

 

families try, common folk --- get nowhere for 20 years

a politician, an inside person --- the speed it happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

while a Judicial Review was being sought by the families, it was Andy Burnham who forced the Judicial Review to progress

 

The families on their own were not sufficient , it always requires someone inside the system.

you just look at how quick things moved when a politician got involved compared to just the families

 

 

But it was the families who kept on going, never gave up.

It always starts with public power, unless its a part of the agenda. imho.

But I do agree, that you need political weight behind  a motion for success.

(and when ALL the politicians are conspiring together to ensure we dont leave, there is little chance of that..One huge conspiracy of silence)

 

If more of the public was speaking about this case (lack of a hearing is ridiculous in 2019), you would see career politicians getting behind it too, but spreading the word is neigh on impossible..

"you can post a link to a reader, but you can't make them read" :D

 

I also think this is going nowhere tbh..

Nobody gives a shite, its the last thing that they want to start thinking about. sad but true. (Im generalising)

Yet, if their 'facebook friends' were discussing it, they'd have such an opinion, that they would have to sit down to type it out..

 

Edited by ilimmu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×