Letter to Minister for the constitution

  • 0 Replies
  • 1312 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter to Minister for the constitution
« on: May 01, 2015, 07:20:36 PM »
Minister for the Constitution                                                            Albert Burgess

The Cabinet Office                                                                           15 Parliament Road

70 Whitehall                                                                                      Thame

London                                                                                               OX9 3TE

SW1A 2AS


Ref Sovereignty In reply to a letter from Sam Gyimah MP 12 September 2014


Dear Constitutional Minister

The Queen in Parliament is Sovereign, without Her Majesty being present both Houses together do not constitute a Parliament. The term Parliamentary Sovereignty means exactly that the Sovereign must be present in person, Indeed if the Sovereign is ill they must stay in a Palace, Castle or Manor House within easy reach of the sight Parliament is sitting at so that the Sovereign can be consulted or at worst carried to Parliament.


Sam stated that the Queen governs the people according to the statutes in Parliament Agreed on. This was for Sam Gyimah MP to issue a false Instrument contrary to the 1981 Counterfeiting and Forgery Act. Her Majesty swore to govern us according to our laws and customs. I have a copy of her oath and watched again her coronation and not once does she mention statutes in any way shape or form. 


In fact they changed the oath for her coronation. Now where does ultimate sovereignty lay, with Queen Elizabeth II as the lawfully anointed Sovereign. Or with the House of Commons as the elected House? 


I will answer this question for you, it is essential for a King of England to have more than his subjects so that he stands above them and obviously so. This was decided by our forefathers and is described by Chief Justice Fortescue in 1420. To remove anything from the King is to diminish the Crown and that can never be done or allowed.. Co-incidentally the same year the House of Commons set out on their power grab when in exchange for voting a tax they demanded and got the exclusive right to initiate all legislation. Their next move in this power grab was to write to the House of Lords in 1609 that they were the Knights, Burgess's and Barons of the High Court of Parliament. The Lords wrote back stating they would never accept them as Barons and without the Lords they were no court at all. In 1667 the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill, a ten year argument followed before the Lords in a moment of madness (no other explanation fits) gave way. So that in 1909 when Asquith put forward his budget the Lords believing they could not amend it rejected the budget, Asquith threatened to put 500 new peers into the Lords who would vote it out of existence unless they agreed to give up the ability to reject a bill. The Lords gave way again. When presented with the Parliament Act King Edward VII refused the assent saying it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects, he ordered Asquith to go to the country. Asquith and his ministers toured the country telling the people those bastard Lords would not let the working man have a pension. The Lords felt it beneath them to tell the people the reason they had rejected the pension was because the extra 3 pence in the £ tax to pay for it on top of all the other taxes was more than the working man could afford. Asquith was returned and during the Kings speech King Edward VII STATED THE ONLY REASON I AM DOING

THIS IS BECAUSE MY MINISTERS TELL ME I HAVE TO. Shortly after this the King fell ill and died. ( I would be very interested in the toxicology on Edward VII. 


                The Commons power grab for the Crown


Up until Queen Anne all our Kings and Queens attended Parliament and Privy Council/Cabinet meetings. After her Death we inherited King George I who spoke no English so instead of giving him English lessons and an interpreter it was decided he would not attend any of these things. He would be presented bills to sign without knowing what was in them. His Son George II did speak English but was told he could not attend Parliament or Cabinet meetings, he spent his reign complaining his ministers were Kings in his Kingdom. King George III far from being mad and loosing us America was a very good King who wrote ministers letters telling them to lay of America or we would loose it, they ignored him we lost America. He had a 22 year running battle with the House of Commons as to where ultimate Sovereignty lay with him as the lawfully anointed King or with the Commons as the elected house. On the 8th March 1784 a vote was taken and the King won the vote so by the common law of Kingship, by the Act of Supremacy 1559 and by Parliamentary vote Queen Elizabeth II  is the fully Sovereign Queen of England from which all her other titles superiorities and supremacies flow. 


                          The Royal Prerogative


The Royal Prerogative is given to the Kings of England to be used by them as they see fit but only in the best interests of the Kingdom and the Kings subjects. Any action taken by the King which benefits the Kingdom and his subjects is a proper use of the prerogative and is fully legal. 


Anything which is done by the King which harms the Kingdom or even his most lowly subject is illegal.


The Royal Prerogative is granted for the exclusive use of the King it is not his to dispose of nor can he appoint anyone else to use it in his name. The current practice of ministers exercising prerogative powers is illegal and is a usurpation of the Royal Prerogative and a personnel treason against Her Most Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and the Common Law of Kingship as well as the 1559 Act of Supremacy. 


The current stance of the House of Commons that they are sovereign is both legally untrue and by definition an act of high treason against Her most Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the lawfully anointed Queen and supreme governor of England. 


I require a clear public statement be made to this effect, along with a clear statement that Ministers will no longer exercise prerogative powers and that Her Majesty or HRH Prince Charles as her deputy will attend Parliament and Cabinet meetings on a regular basis and that it is clearly understood that if they are not in attendance Parliament is no more than a forum in which discussions may take place but no votes purporting to have any legislative significance. It must be further understood that as

every minister has committed an act of treason they are barred from ever holding any office of public trust. 


Furthermore all naturalised subjects are denizens and are by law barred from ever holding any office of public trust or order of nobility You are required to oversee the removal of all denizens from both Houses of Parliament and the Privy Council with immediate effect. The Kings of England are refused permission to altar the law on denizens so cannot give the assent to any bill altering that state of affairs. I would recommend Blackstone's Commentaries on the laws of England,  and Joseph Chitty on the Royal Prerogative both should be in you library of English Constitutional law. 

Respectfully submitted 




Albert Burgess
==========================================================
 
 
The Department of Constitutional Affairs                                                       Albert Burgess
                                                                                                                 15 Parliament Road
102 Petty France 
London                                                                                                       Thame
                                                                                                                  OX9TE
SW1H 9AJ

Ref Inside Britain (publication)
Sir,
Your department has sponsored and I have no doubt approved the above publication. I have read this cover to cover and the only thing I have learnt from it is the total lack of knowledge of the English constitution, being displayed by the authors of this publication and the department of government responsible for the constitution. I have gone through this Inside Britain and unlike the authors I have supplied references to the corrections I have pointed out.
 Inside Britain is in fact so inaccurate I am left with the opinion this can only be by direct intention with a view to deceiving Her Majesty's subjects as to just how our rights and freedoms were achieved by our forefathers, and the measures they put in place to ensure we can never loose them.
 It may well be convenient for government to believe the House of Commons is supreme, but the very idea constitutes a treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The appropriate penalty is death. Please do not tell me we don't have a death penalty the removal of the death penalty makes treason more likely and as such constitutes a treason in its own right because it exposes the Sovereign and the Constitution to grave risk. As such the Common Law has struck down the repeal of the death penalty.
 I would welcome the opportunity to come to you and discuss the English Constitution.

 Respectfully submitted

 Albert Burgess

 Cc Citizen Foundation


« Last Edit: May 21, 2015, 12:01:20 AM by the leveller »

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


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk