Discussion:
Prorogation was Unlawful
Add Reply
The Todal
2019-09-11 10:03:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.

But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Ian Jackson
2019-09-11 10:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice
will be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
They'll be again be screaming, "Enemies of The People!"
--
Ian
abelard
2019-09-11 10:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:08:29 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice
will be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
They'll be again be screaming, "Enemies of The People!"
standard 'legal' behaviour...

each one reverses the one below it...more fees..
and it makes them feel more important
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2019-09-11 10:13:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
what about the norfolk courts?
Post by The Todal
He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
seems very good advice
--
www.abelard.org
Pancho
2019-09-11 10:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
what about the norfolk courts?
Post by The Todal
He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
seems very good advice
+1

---
In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said they
were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the
"improper purpose of stymying Parliament".
---

Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter, and they
chose not too. It's not like Bojo is a tyrant, he appears to have the
weakest government of modern times.
abelard
2019-09-11 10:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:40:37 +0100, Pancho
Post by Pancho
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
what about the norfolk courts?
Post by The Todal
He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
seems very good advice
+1
---
In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said they
were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the
"improper purpose of stymying Parliament".
so now they try mind reading...

it's political, not legal
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter, and they
chose not too. It's not like Bojo is a tyrant, he appears to have the
weakest government of modern times.
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2019-09-11 12:54:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:40:37 +0100, Pancho
Post by Pancho
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
what about the norfolk courts?
Post by The Todal
He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
seems very good advice
+1
---
In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said they
were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the
"improper purpose of stymying Parliament".
so now they try mind reading...
it's political, not legal
Indeed, a clear case of judicial activism.
Jethro_uk
2019-09-11 10:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
Pancho
2019-09-11 11:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
The Todal
2019-09-11 11:09:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
No, they couldn't. It would not have been in accordance with our
constitution.
Pancho
2019-09-11 12:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
No, they couldn't. It would not have been in accordance with our
constitution.
Which part of our constitution would that be?
The Todal
2019-09-11 15:09:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
No, they couldn't. It would not have been in accordance with our
constitution.
Which part of our constitution would that be?
The big round bit.
Pancho
2019-09-11 18:30:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke
the prorogation.
No, they couldn't. It would not have been in accordance with our
constitution.
Which part of our constitution would that be?
The big round bit.
Ah! Just as I suspected.

Perhaps you would like to read this.

<http://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/08/28/threat-of-prorogation-what-can-the-commons-do/>
Pamela
2019-09-11 11:49:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
I bet the Queen wishes she never got asked by her Privy Council (president
Rees-Mogg) to prorogue Parliament. She should have said it's ridiculous.

She's ready to pop her clogs and Boris brings her a constitutional crisis
to add a bit of extra stress.

Poor woman.
Jethro_uk
2019-09-11 12:22:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
I bet the Queen wishes she never got asked by her Privy Council
(president Rees-Mogg) to prorogue Parliament. She should have said it's
ridiculous.
She had no choice.
Post by Pamela
She's ready to pop her clogs and Boris brings her a constitutional
crisis to add a bit of extra stress.
Poor woman.
And a doozy at that. If anyone wanted to stoke up republicanism, it's
hard to think of a better mechanism.

Turns out that holding the Monarch up as a bastion against dictators
(thus justifying their existence and expense) has been a costly crock
from day one.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-09-11 12:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
I bet the Queen wishes she never got asked by her Privy Council
(president Rees-Mogg) to prorogue Parliament. She should have said it's
ridiculous.
She had no choice.
Post by Pamela
She's ready to pop her clogs and Boris brings her a constitutional
crisis to add a bit of extra stress.
Poor woman.
And a doozy at that. If anyone wanted to stoke up republicanism, it's
hard to think of a better mechanism.
Turns out that holding the Monarch up as a bastion against dictators
(thus justifying their existence and expense) has been a costly crock
from day one.
It worked in Italy, I think; but they got rid of theirs anyway.
Pamela
2019-09-11 12:37:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
I bet the Queen wishes she never got asked by her Privy Council
(president Rees-Mogg) to prorogue Parliament. She should have said it's
ridiculous.
She had no choice.
Post by Pamela
She's ready to pop her clogs and Boris brings her a constitutional
crisis to add a bit of extra stress.
Poor woman.
And a doozy at that. If anyone wanted to stoke up republicanism, it's
hard to think of a better mechanism.
Turns out that holding the Monarch up as a bastion against dictators
(thus justifying their existence and expense) has been a costly crock
from day one.
Soe MPs have been saying Johnson should resign if it turns out he misled the
Queen.
dolf
2019-09-12 01:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
Surely, parliament had the opportunity to vote on the matter,
I think the underlying problem is they didn't.
I think they did. They had both the opportunity for a vote of no
confidence and they also voted to take control of parliamentary
business. They could have ordered BoJo to ask the Queen to revoke the
prorogation.
I bet the Queen wishes she never got asked by her Privy Council (president
Rees-Mogg) to prorogue Parliament. She should have said it's ridiculous.
She's ready to pop her clogs and Boris brings her a constitutional crisis
to add a bit of extra stress.
Poor woman.
WEDNESDAY 11 SEPTEMBER 2019

***@zen: 4, row: 5, col: 4, nous: 30 [Date: 2019.9.11, Time: 11:15
hrs, Super: #304 / #12 - Numbing Effect of the Conventional, Abstaining
from Desire; I-Ching: H6 - Contention, Conflict, Arguing, Lawsuit; Tetra:
25 - Contention, Ego: #257 / #30 - Government without Coercion, Be Chary of
War; I-Ching: H45 - Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together
(massing), Finished; Tetra: 59 - Massing]

Despite conveying within our last COURT SUBMISSION as an annexe dated 9
SEPTEMBER 2019 that we don't believe it would be necessary to labour the
COURT with any further FILING SUBMISSIONS.

We soon thereafter, in having observed the proroguing proceedings within
the BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS, whereby the Speaker invoked the notion of
#491 - PATER FAMILIAS when he said he was standing down on 31 October 2019
following discussion with his wife, thought it prudent to then convey (as
enclosed) some further informal philological research upon #364 - QUESTIONS
of #430 - LAW relating to #491 - PATER FAMILIAS and MANUS within ROMAN LAW
as presupposed to being historically an intellectual construct of the LATIN
BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE but as here revealed actually having a dependancy
upon the TRINOMIAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREMISE.

Thus to specifically further address as a symbolic lesson drawing upon the
TOOLS of #491 - RULE {@82} and #873 - COMPASS {@205} pairing as the
probable ONTIC JURISPRUDENT origins of QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT
dated 29 OCTOBER 1900.

Firstly we note a deference towards #492 - *VOLUNTARY* *FREEWILL* {LIBERTÉ:
#41 on 17 SEPTEMBER 1900} as first principles associated to the @115 -
*DIGNITY* *ROYAL*:

#VIRTUE: #5 - CENTRE OF VALUE {#56 - VOLUNTEERISM};
#TOOLS: #45 - BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE PROTOTYPE;
#POSITION: #60 - 13 to 17 SEPTEMBER WITHIN THE PRE PLATONIC SCHEMA;
#TIME: #5 - ROYALTY, KINGSHIP, KINGLY AUTHORITY; REIGN (OF TIME: #0 TO Y2K)

By a DICTUM made of #2184 - FREEDOM from #1827 - OPPRESSION being then any
adverse impetus made against the INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTIS as
ADVICE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

Secondly, is the nature of compliance to the #45 - BINOMIAL LATIN
NOMENCLATURE PROTOTYPE AS BEING A CRITERION of #902 - RULE OF LAW (EGALITÉ
{#45 on 9 JULY 1900} conveyed by the LETTERS PATENT as passed on the NINTH
DAY OF JULY ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED, in the Sixty fourth year of Our
reign, intituled “AN ACT TO CONSTITUTE THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA,” it
is enacted that “IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE QUEEN,” with the ADVICE OF THE
PRIVY COUNCIL, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a day therein
appointed, not being later than ONE YEAR after this passing of this Act.

AS THEN THE EXPRESSION OF THE #390 - SOVEREIGN'S *RESERVE* (APODIDOMI v's
DIDOMI) RIGHT IN THEN DEPLOYING THE #45 - HETERO SQUARE SPIROGYRA ORDER
ARRAY BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE USAGE WITHIN THE GENERAL #391 - HOMOGENEOUS
PROTOTYPE:

#1 + #2 + #3 = @6 - FORM OF NATURE / @3 - NATURE SURMOUNTS NATURE: the
people of @1 - New South Wales, @2 - Victoria, @3 - South Australia, @4 -
Queensland, and @5 - Tasmania and also @6 - Western Australia, should be
united in a Federal Commonwealth of Australia

#8 + #9 + #4 = @21 - AUTONOMOUS NATURE {LIABILITY}: We do hereby reserve to
Ourselves Our heirs and successors, full power and authority from time to
time to revoke, alter, or amend these Our Letters Patent as to Us or them
shall seem meet.

#7 + #6 + #5 = @18 - FORM OF NATURE: And whereas by “The Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900,” it is amongst other things enacted, that
we may authorise the Governor General to appoint any person or persons,
jointly or severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part of Our
Commonwealth, and in that capacity to exercise, during the pleasure of the
Governor General such powers, and functions of the said Governor General as
he thinks fit to assign to such Deputy or Deputies, subject to any
limitations expressed or directions given by Us: Now We do hereby authorise
and empower Our said Governor General subject to such limitations and
directions as aforesaid, to appoint any person or persons, jointly or
severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part of Our said
Commonwealth of Australia, and in that capacity to exercise, during his
pleasure, such of his powers and functions, as he may deem it necessary or
expedient to assign to him or them: Provided always, that the appointment
of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the exercise by the Governor
General himself of any power or function.

That such #491 - PATER FAMILIAS action by the #390 - CROWN is entirely
discordant with the #123 - SENSIBILITIES of JINGOISTIC #315 - NATIONALISM
as the MENS REA attributed by *MANUS* in being a term used within ROMAN LAW
in the sense of the '*CONTROLLING* *AND* *PROTECTING* *HAND*' expressed
within family law {ie. #175 - MARRIAGE AND ITS HEGEMONY BY THE HEAD OF THE
FAMILY (PATER FAMILIAS)} as a concept of relationship based upon
*DOMINATION* which is then the unconstitutional impetus for ACTUS REUS by a
CULTURE OF THUGGERY in its demand for a SOCIAL COMPLIANCE and return to
those equivalent TRADITIONS OF ROME where there was a requirement under the
#491 - PATER FAMILIAS to ensure that "OBVIOUSLY DEFORMED" infants were put
to death. The survival of congenitally disabled adults, conspicuously
evidenced among the elite by the partially-lame {#TIME: WITH DIMMING (NO.
#68), AN IMPEDED WALK} Emperor Claudius, demonstrates that personal choice
was exercised in the matter.

G3962@{
   @1: Sup: 80 - LABOURING: CH'IN (#80); Ego: 80 - LABOURING: CH'IN (#80),
   @2: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#161 - I AM NOT A TELLER OF LIES {%9});
Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#81),
   @3: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#218); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU
(#138),
   @4: Sup: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#294); Ego: 19 - FOLLOWING: TS'UNG (#157
- I AM NOT ONE OF PRATING TONGUE {%17} / I HAVE NO STRONG DESIRE EXCEPT FOR
MY OWN PROPERTY {%41}),
   @5: Sup: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#299); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS,
DISTORTION: HSIEN (#167),
   Male: #299; Feme: #167
} // #491 <-- PATER FAMILIAS

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #489 % #41 = #38 - Consequences for Virtuous Discourse; I-Ching: H62
- Minor Superiority, Small Excess, Small Exceeding, Preponderance of the
small, Small surpassing; Tetra: 11 - Divergence;

THOTH MEASURE: #38 - Oh thou who makest mortals to flourish, and who makest
thine appearance at Sais; I curse not a god.

    #VIRTUE: Fullness (no. #38) means the prime of life, but
    #TOOLS: On the Verge (no. #78) means old age.
    #POSITION: With Kinship (no. #34), attachment between even distant
relatives.
    #TIME: With Severance (no. #70), offense to one’s own flesh and blood.
    #CANON: #220

ONTIC_OBLIGANS_220@{
   @1: Sup: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG (#38); Ego: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG (#38),
   @2: Sup: 35 - GATHERING: LIEN (#73); Ego: 78 - ON THE VERGE: CHIANG
(#116),
   @3: Sup: 69 - EXHAUSTION: CH'IUNG (#142); Ego: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#150
- I INDULGE NOT IN ANGER {%28}),
   @4: Sup: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#200 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF SACRED
PROPERTY {%8}); Ego: 70 - SEVERANCE: KE (#220 - I CURSE NOT A GOD {%38}),
   Male: #200; Feme: #220
} // #220

ONTIC CHECKSUM @150 + @200 + @220 = #570 as [#70, #400, #100] = ʻâthêq
(H6276): {UMBRA: #13 as #570 % #41 = #37} 1) handed forward, advanced,
enduring, durable, valuable, eminent, surpassing; / #570 as [#70, #400,
#100] = ʻâthaq (H6275): {UMBRA: #12 as #570 % #41 = #37} 1) to move,
proceed, advance, move on, become old, be removed; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to move;
1a2) to advance (in years), grow old and weak; 1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to move
forward, proceed, move on; 1b2) to remove; 1b3) to transcribe;

H8179@{
   @1: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU
(#57),
   @2: Sup: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO (#103); Ego: 70 - SEVERANCE: KE
(#127),
   @3: Sup: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#106); Ego: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG (#165),
   Male: #106; Feme: #165
} // #570

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #570 % #41 = #37 - Non-Deeming Action, Government Administration;
I-Ching: H40 - Release, Deliverance, Taking-Apart, Untangled; Tetra: 21 -
Release;

THOTH MEASURE: #37 - Oh Striker, who makest thine appearance in Heaven; I
am not one of loud voice.

    #VIRTUE: Purity (no. #37) means the Way of the ruler.
    #TOOLS: Compliance (no. #77) means the subject’s preservation.
    #POSITION: With Penetration (no. #14), a sharp advance.
    #TIME: With Dimming (no. #68), an impeded walk.
    #CANON: #196

ONTIC_OBLIGANS_196@{
   @1: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#37); Ego: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#37),
   @2: Sup: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#70); Ego: 77 - COMPLIANCE: HSUN (#114),
   @3: Sup: 47 - PATTERN: WEN (#117); Ego: 14 - PENETRATION: JUI (#128),
   @4: Sup: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#151); Ego: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#196 - I
AM NOT ONE OF LOUD VOICE {%37}),
   Male: #151; Feme: #196
} // #196

Accordingly, we note that the provision of suitable INSTRUMENTATION by such
LETTERS PATENT {#VIRTUE: PURITY (NO. #37) MEANS THE WAY OF THE RULER} as
the means to facilitate the FEDERATION {#POSITION: WITH PENETRATION (NO.
#14), A SHARP ADVANCE} of the SIX COLONIAL SETTLEMENTS as being heretofore
discrete BINOMIAL STASIS EMANATIONS {@1, @5, #65 - SOLDIER / #175 -
MARRIAGE} of the BRITISH EMPIRE in having a responsibility for their own
defence, then conveying both a TRINOMIAL ONTIC NOUMENON / BINOMIAL
NOMENCLATURE interplay in conformity with the usage of ROMAN NUMERALS as
construct of historical imperialism:

H6235@{
   @1: Sup: 70 - SEVERANCE: KE (#70); Ego: 70 - SEVERANCE: KE (#70),
   @2: Sup: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO (#116); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU
(#127),
   @3: Sup: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#119); Ego: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG (#165),
   Male: #119; Feme: #165
} // #570

#570 as [#70, #300, #200] = ʻeser (H6235): {UMBRA: #40 as #570 % #41 = #37}
1) ten; 1a) ten; 1b) with other numbers;

But resting entirely upon a PREROGATIVE OF BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AS THE BASIS
OF SYNTHETIC APRIORITY UNITY in compliance to KANT'S PROLEGOMENA (1783)
THIRD SECTION: ON THE PURE CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING, OR CATEGORIES
"[IDEA: @A76 / @B102] General logic (as has already been said several
times) abstracts from all content of cognition, and awaits representations
to be given to it from somewhere else, wherever it may be, so that,
proceeding analytically, it can first transform these representations into
concepts. By contrast, transcendental logic has a manifold of sensibility
lying before it a priori, which transcendental aesthetic offers to it in
order to provide material [IDEA: @A77] for the pure concepts of the
understanding, without which they would be without any content, hence
completely empty. Now space and time contain a manifold of pure a priori
intuition, but they nonetheless belong to the conditions of receptivity of
our mind under which alone representations of objects can be received, and
which must therefore ever affect the concept of objects. But the
spontaneity of our thought demands that the manifold first be gone through,
taken up, and conjoined in a specific manner, in order to make a cognition
out of it. I call this act synthesis.

By synthesis in its most general signification, however, I understand
[IDEA: @B103] the act of adding diverse representations to one another, and
of comprehending their manifoldness in a cognition. Such a synthesis is
pure if the manifold is given, not empirically, but a priori (as is the
manifold in space and time). This synthesis must be given before all
analysis of our representations, and no concepts can, as regards content,
arise through analysis. But the synthesis of a manifold (whether it be
given empirically or a priori) first produces a cognition, which can indeed
still be raw and confused to begin with and therefore requiring analysis;
but synthesis is nonetheless that which actually assembles the elements for
cognitions and unifies them into a specific content; it is therefore the
first [IDEA: @A78] thing to which we must attend if we want to judge the
first origin of our cognition.

Synthesis in general, as we will later see, is an effect of the imagination
alone, a blind but indispensable function of the soul without which we
would have no cognition at all, but of which we are hardly ever conscious.
But, to bring this synthesis to concepts is a function that pertains to the
understanding, and through which it for the first time furnishes us with
cognition in the strict sense.

The pure synthesis, considered generally, yields the pure concept of the
[IDEA: @B104] understanding. Under this synthesis I include that which
rests on a basis of synthetic a priori unity: thus, our counting (as is
especially noticeable with larger numbers) is a synthesis according to
concepts, since this synthesis occurs in accordance with a common basis of
unity (e.g., *THE* *DECADE*). Under this concept the unity in the synthesis
of the manifold is, then, rendered necessary.

Having explained that deferential perspective, I look forward to an APPEAL
HEARING at the LATROBE VALLEY COUNTY COURT commencing MONDAY 9 DECEMBER
2019.

Yours truthfully

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Liturgical%20Calendar%202004-2040.pdf>
--
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"



SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
Norman Wells
2019-09-11 10:23:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting.
Actually, I doubt it.

1) If there's an appeal pending, he is not duty bound to do anything.
2) This applies only in Scotland.
3) Parliament has already been prorogued.
4) Boris can't undo it. It has been prorogued by HM the Q.
Post by The Todal
I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Scottish judges anyway.
The Todal
2019-09-11 10:38:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and to allow Parliament to continue sitting.
Actually, I doubt it.
1)  If there's an appeal pending, he is not duty bound to do anything.
That isn't an accurate statement of the law. If a party wants the
court's order to be stayed pending an appeal, the party must ask the
judge and obtain such an order. Otherwise it takes effect immediately.

Jolyon Maugham QC, whose Good Law Project funded the legal challenge,
said: “Our understanding is that unless the supreme court grants an
order in the meantime, parliament is unsuspended with immediate effect."

He's a QC.

So one option would be for the government to ask the Supreme Court to
stay the decision pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's own
deliberations.
Post by Norman Wells
2)  This applies only in Scotland.
Not so.
Post by Norman Wells
3)  Parliament has already been prorogued.
It has.
Post by Norman Wells
4)  Boris can't undo it.  It has been prorogued by HM the Q.
He can, of course, ask HM the Q to issue an order cancelling the
prorogation. I daresay the constitutional lawyers will have to dust off
some old parchments to find out the correct wording.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
I suppose Dominic's advice will be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Scottish judges anyway.
Until Boris is courageous enough to sack Dominic Cummings, he will
always lack the gravitas expected of a British Prime Minister.
Pancho
2019-09-11 10:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Until Boris is courageous enough to sack Dominic Cummings, he will
always lack the gravitas expected of a British Prime Minister.
Bernard Ingham, Alastair Campbell.

Dominic seems to be following a trend.
Norman Wells
2019-09-11 10:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and to allow Parliament to continue sitting.
Actually, I doubt it.
1)  If there's an appeal pending, he is not duty bound to do anything.
That isn't an accurate statement of the law. If a party wants the
court's order to be stayed pending an appeal, the party must ask the
judge and obtain such an order. Otherwise it takes effect immediately.
Jolyon Maugham QC, whose Good Law Project funded the legal challenge,
said: “Our understanding is that unless the supreme court grants an
order in the meantime, parliament is unsuspended with immediate effect."
He's a QC.
And he's acting for one side. His view may therefore be just a tad partial.
Post by The Todal
So one option would be for the government to ask the Supreme Court to
stay the decision pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's own
deliberations.
Post by Norman Wells
2)  This applies only in Scotland.
Not so.
Post by Norman Wells
3)  Parliament has already been prorogued.
It has.
Post by Norman Wells
4)  Boris can't undo it.  It has been prorogued by HM the Q.
He can, of course, ask HM the Q to issue an order cancelling the
prorogation. I daresay the constitutional lawyers will have to dust off
some old parchments to find out the correct wording.
Has he been ordered to? Would HM the Q have to comply anyway? And is
it possible to do, ie is there a mechanism for unproroguing what she has
already prorogued, or is it a bit like trying to regain your virginity?
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
I suppose Dominic's advice will be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Scottish judges anyway.
Until Boris is courageous enough to sack Dominic Cummings, he will
always lack the gravitas expected of a British Prime Minister.
Would that get Parliament unprorogued? Or is it just a pointless and
irrelevant comment?
Jethro_uk
2019-09-11 12:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Would that get Parliament unprorogued? Or is it just a pointless and
irrelevant comment?
If prorogation is unlawful, it doesn't need to be undone. It never
happened.
Norman Wells
2019-09-11 13:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Norman Wells
Would that get Parliament unprorogued? Or is it just a pointless and
irrelevant comment?
If prorogation is unlawful, it doesn't need to be undone. It never
happened.
You can hide your head in the sand if you like, but it was done, it has
happened.

And I don't think a mere court (which are all hers incidentally) can
override a Royal proclamation from the Head of State. That would be a
bit uppity and presumptuous, or 'ultra vires' which is a nicer way of
putting it.
tim...
2019-09-11 10:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which time
the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
why

the equivalent English court ruled it lawful

which takes precedence here?

tim
The Todal
2019-09-11 11:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
why
the equivalent English court ruled it lawful
which takes precedence here?
The Scottish appeal judges take precedence over a first instance
decision in the English court. Especially as they will have read and
considered the decision of the English court.
James Hammerton
2019-09-11 20:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
why
the equivalent English court ruled it lawful
which takes precedence here?
The Scottish appeal judges take precedence over a first instance
decision in the English court. Especially as they will have read and
considered the decision of the English court.
Cite?

Regards,

James
Jethro_uk
2019-09-11 11:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
the equivalent English court ruled it lawful
It seems English and Scottish (Scots ?) law have very different
interpretations of the UK constitution. A constitution the Scottish
courts are working under, so it might be contradictory.
abelard
2019-09-11 11:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:13:20 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by tim...
the equivalent English court ruled it lawful
It seems English and Scottish (Scots ?) law have very different
interpretations of the UK constitution. A constitution the Scottish
courts are working under, so it might be contradictory.
next they'll appeal to the european courts!

it's all bollox and bread and circuses for the peasantry
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2019-09-11 12:56:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which time
the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
why
the equivalent English court ruled it lawful
which takes precedence here?
The SNP can sit but the English and Welsh MPs can't.
JNugent
2019-09-11 20:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Surely there's an appropriate word - "Scottish" - to be inserted between
"the" and "judges"?

What do the British courts say on the subject?
Ian Jackson
2019-09-12 06:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's
advice will be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Surely there's an appropriate word - "Scottish" - to be inserted
between "the" and "judges"?
What do the British courts say on the subject?
Several of those who DO know have explained that the English court is
(only) a HIGH Court, while the Scottish Court of Session has the status
of a Court Of Appeal. It made its judgement taking into account the
previous judgement of the High Court. However, the English Supreme Court
has superiority over the Court Of Session.
--
Ian
JNugent
2019-09-12 12:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's  going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which  time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
 But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and  to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's
advice will  be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Surely there's an appropriate word - "Scottish" - to be inserted
between "the" and "judges"?
What do the British courts say on the subject?
Several of those who DO know have explained that the English court is
(only) a HIGH Court, while the Scottish Court of Session has the status
of a Court Of Appeal. It made its judgement taking into account the
previous judgement of the High Court. However, the English Supreme Court
has superiority over the Court Of Session.
...and quite rightly too.

Farmer Giles
2019-09-11 21:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Who gives a toss about the political decisions of parish-pump courts?
Let's see what a British court has to say next week.
The Todal
2019-09-12 01:14:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's
advice will be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Who gives a toss about the political decisions of parish-pump courts?
Let's see what a British court has to say next week.
You're saying that Scotland isn't part of Britain?
Farmer Giles
2019-09-12 07:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL.
He's going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at
which time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately
and to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's
advice will be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
Who gives a toss about the political decisions of parish-pump courts?
Let's see what a British court has to say next week.
You're saying that Scotland isn't part of Britain?
Of course it is, just like Tolpuddle.

However, they have a separate legal system in Scotland, and they don't
make UK law - or is yet another example of the Scots having their cake
and eating it?

The highest court in the UK is the Supreme Court, and it is the decision
of that court that counts ultimately.
4mat
2019-09-12 04:24:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Poor old Boris, once again up against the ropes. The Scottish appeal
judges have ruled that his prorogation of Parliament was UNLAWFUL. He's
going to appeal this to the Supreme Court on 17th September, at which
time the other prorogation challenge cases will be heard.
But in theory, he's duty bound to cancel the prorogation immediately and
to allow Parliament to continue sitting. I suppose Dominic's advice will
be "fuck the judges, ignore them, Boris".
boris johnson = serial failure
Basil Jet
2019-09-12 05:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 4mat
boris johnson = serial failure
He's the bloody PM!
You might as well say Theresa May is a ...
I mean, you might as well say Cameron is a...
I mean, you might as well say Gordon Brown is a...
er, never mind.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Gang Of Four - 2019 - Happy Now
Loading...