show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Letter to Master Leslie

  • 0 Replies
  • 1550 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3574
  • +75/-0
Letter to Master Leslie
« on: March 28, 2014, 10:08:00 PM »
Master Leslie                                                                                     Albert Burgess

The Royal Courts of Justice                                                             

Strand                                                                                                 London                                                                                               

WC2A 2LL                                                                                        28-03-2014


Ref Statements made in your court.


My Lord

I am a retired Special Constable who since December 2006 has been researching the English Constitution. 


In your court you said there is a Queens Bench Division but not a Queens Bench, this is akin to saying we have an armoured division but it has no tanks. You referred to it as a superior court, its courts are though Queens Bench Courts and all matters of constitutional importance must be heard by the Queens Bench. 


You also said you took the judicial oath but neglected to say you also took an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. These two oaths bind you to the law and Her Majesty. 


But more worrying is your assertion that Parliament has sovereignty, even if it were a properly constituted Parliament it would not be sovereign. Sovereignty lies with Her Majesty as the anointed Sovereign. 


Parliament is not properly constituted in the way our forefathers designed it to be, with its built in safeguards, since 1420 the House of Commons was granted the right to originate legislation, at least since that date we can trace the power grab the commons has been on. In 1609 the Commons wrote to the Lords describing themselves as the Knights Burgess's and Barons of the High Court of Parliament. The Lords replied that they would never accept them as Barons of Parliament and without the Lords they were no court at all. A ruling by Patterson J giving the opinion of eight other judges in Stokedale vs. Hansard 1839 confirmed the opinion of the House of Lords that the Commons was in no way shape or form a court of law. Going so far as to state the common man must be able to sue the commons in any of the ordinary courts of the land for any wrongs done to him by the actions of the Commons.


In 1667 the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill. There is no valid constitutional claim for this, and a ten year argument followed and in 1677 the Lords gave way. 


As a direct result of this when Asquith put forward a budget in 1909 the Lords believing erroneously they could not amend it and so they rejected the budget. Asquith told them he was putting a bill forward to remove the right of the Lords to reject a bill, and if they did not pass the bill he would put 500 new Peers into the house who would vote for its closure. The words Blackmail and Duress spring to mind. The Lords again gave way and the bill was placed before King Edward VII who rejected it on the grounds it was unconstitutional, and removed a protection from his subjects and he ordered Asquith to go to the country. Which he did, he and his ministers went around the country lying about the reason the Lords had rejected the

budget and the Lords felt it beneath them to tell the public the truth, Asquith was re-elected and during the Kings Speech King Edward VII said the only reason he was putting the Parliament Act forward was because his ministers told him he had too. 


At this time Parliament ceased to be a properly constituted Parliament and as such constitutionally it became void. The 1949 Parliament Act and the 1999 House of Lords Act are also unconstitutional and void.


One of Asquith's ministers told King George V on his inheriting the Crown that he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them without the backing of a minister, this was for government to usurp the Royal Prerogative a clear act of treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act


Now let us deal with the Crown you are the Queens Remembrancer and as such you have a greater duty of loyalty than a lot of others. 


Up until the death of Queen Anne all our Kings and Queens attended Parliament indeed it was not a Parliament if they were not there hence the term the King/Queen in Parliament. 


After the death of Queen Anne. We inherited King George I who spoke no English so there was no point in him going to Parliament or cabinet meetings, government got used to the idea of managing without a King. King George II spent his reign complaining his ministers were Kings in his Kingdom. King George III had a twenty year battle with the Commons as to where sovereignty lay with him as the anointed King, or with the Commons as the elected House. After an impassioned speech by William Pit who asked where is the benefit in changing one despot for hundreds of despots? The King won the vote. Since then no other vote on Sovereignty has been taken, that being the case Queen Elizabeth II is the fully Sovereign Queen of England from which all her other titles, superiorities, and pre-eminences stem. Superiorities and Preminences you are required to support. 


The government claim the 1689 Bill of Rights transferred Sovereignty from the King to the Commons as the elected House. Any reading of this major constitutional document will not substantiate this claim, there is nothing in the 1689 Declaration or Bill of Rights which in any way reduces the authority of the King. It merely reiterates those things England's Kings have never been able to lawfully do.


Parliament claim to rule by Henry VIII powers, these powers were illegal when Henry VIII used them, when he ordered that Richard Rose the cook to the Bishop of Rochester who had been annoyed by the Bishop and poisoned the meal killing seventeen people was to be boiled alive at Smithfield Market. 


The Parliament Acts and House of Lords Acts, constitute a treason against the constitutional arrangements for Parliament, and Her Majesty's subjects. These are acts of treason contrary to sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act by the Commons over aweing the House of Lords. In fact they breached the Common Law Cognisance of the Lords to conduct their own business in their own way and that includes who sits in the Lords. 


You and I have both taken oaths to uphold the law, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you. 

Respectfully submitted 




Albert Burgess


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL