show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Albert Burgess requests to speak to Parliament

  • 0 Replies
  • 976 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3556
  • +75/-0
Albert Burgess requests to speak to Parliament
« on: November 29, 2014, 11:25:31 PM »
   House of Commons
London                                                                                                                                                                                         28-11-2014
 Your ref F14-530


Dear Abigail
 Thank you for supplying the list of books on Constitutional law held by the House of Commons library, At a rough guess some 140 books only 17 of which are pre 1912, every thing after that date is useless when determining what the English Constitution actually is.

Our forefathers set up Parliament using the common law authority of the King to seek advice from trusted advisors as to what he should do in the best interests of the Kingdom as a whole and the subject in particular. Looking at the list of books provided it is not surprising that Lucinda Mear and Oohna Gay have little or no understanding of the purpose or extent of the Royal Prerogative. Your collection of books on the History of the English Constitution is woefully inadequate, and it is essential to understand the history if we are to determine whether the actions of government are legal or illegal.

Parliament initially comprised the King and whatever Barons he could summon for advice. And Parliament met wherever the King in his person happened to be in the Kingdom. King Edward I invited the Knights and Burgess's to attend Parliament as he believed they would vote taxes more willingly if they had a say. It did not take the common man long to realise this gave him a weapon to obtain what he wanted and so almost from the start the common man went on a power grab. By 1420 the common man had been granted the right to initiate all legislation which then Passed to the House of Lords who were charged by the constitutional arrangements of Parliament with scrutinising legislation so that only that legislation which benefited the Kingdom and the subject was put before the King. The House of Lords could amend or reject outright a bill depending only upon their collective conscience. The Common Law of Parliament gave each house a cognisance to conduct their own business their way and this included who sat in either house, this in the case of the House of Commons was last exercised when the Sien Fein MP's were returned but refused to take the oath and the House refused them admission.

The actions of the Asquith government in bringing in the 1911 Parliament Act illegally and treasonable cut across the Common Law cognisance of the House of Lords to reject a bill. This treasonable act was exacerbated by the 1949 Parliament Act. As a direct result no Parliament since 1911 has been constitutionally legal. Every piece of legislation since then is void and of no effect.

At the same time Asquith's government seized the Royal Prerogative from King George V an act of treason by seizing the Prerogative into the hands of the Prime Minister Asquith imagined the death of the King as a fully Sovereign King. Contrary to the 1351 Treason Act

The 1999 House of Lords Act is equally void because it removed the Common Law right of the House of Lords to determine who sits in the Upper House.

So you can see why it is essential that those who purport to govern us understand the English Common and Constitutional law as it refers to Parliament and Kingship. A number of very eminent Judges have written extensively on the subject of the constitution and the Royal Prerogative Blackstone CJ 1768 Hale CJ 1713 Coke CJ 1628 all of whose works if presented to a Court will be accepted without question as being what the laws of England actually are. Yet whilst I have them all they do not seem to be held by the House of Commons Library. Though I note you have Dicey and Jennings both of whose works on the constitution are wrong in law as both were pandering to political thought at the time, thought does not now and never has equalled law.

I would appreciate the opportunity to come and give a talk to Parliament on the restrictions placed upon them by law they clearly are unaware of them claiming to rule by Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII was an arrogant bully who spent a large amount of his time acting illegally the case of one Mr Richard Rose who Henry ordered taken to Smithfield and boiled to death, illustrates the point. On the 9th May 1609 the House of Commons passed a resolution that any commoner had the right to petition the House and the House must accept it. I would ask that my request to speak to Parliament be treated as a petition under this resolution of the House Of Commons.
 Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess
 Cc John Bercow Speaker to the house of Commons.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2014, 11:32:12 PM by the leveller »


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