This is Mike Clarke's video petition to the queen.
A petition to the Monarch is protected under Article V of the 1688 Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is here.
and Article V states:
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
This is also referred to in the first amendment of the US Constitition which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is in fact Article V that means that some court orders do not have a valid jurisdiction (such as court orders that prevent people complaining about crimes - one further one of which was referred to me this week, and those which purport to prevent people talking to MPs or appealing decisions.). In fact that is the basis upon which Wanda Maddocks should win her appeal on imprisonment once it goes in. (If it goes in, she is back in Turkey).
In any event a short summary of Mike Clarke's case is that it started with him complaining about the charges made by a solicitor for his mothers' issues and ended up with him being given a 3 month prison sentence in absentia. He is caring for his mother in Spain and cannot return to the UK. Contempt of Court is not a criminal issue and hence he cannot be extradited.
A petition to the Monarch is protected under Article V of the 1688 Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is here.
and Article V states:
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
This is also referred to in the first amendment of the US Constitition which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is in fact Article V that means that some court orders do not have a valid jurisdiction (such as court orders that prevent people complaining about crimes - one further one of which was referred to me this week, and those which purport to prevent people talking to MPs or appealing decisions.). In fact that is the basis upon which Wanda Maddocks should win her appeal on imprisonment once it goes in. (If it goes in, she is back in Turkey).
In any event a short summary of Mike Clarke's case is that it started with him complaining about the charges made by a solicitor for his mothers' issues and ended up with him being given a 3 month prison sentence in absentia. He is caring for his mother in Spain and cannot return to the UK. Contempt of Court is not a criminal issue and hence he cannot be extradited.
Comments