Letter to Mr Bercow re expenses and Parliamentary Privilege

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter to Mr Bercow re expenses and Parliamentary Privilege
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:19:21 PM »
The Speaker                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Albert Burgess

The House of Commons

The Palace of Westminster





Ref Parliamentary privilege


Mr Bercow

I would have thought that having been appointed as speaker of the House of Commons, I would have thought it was incumbent of you to learn the law on parliamentary privilege.


Something you have obviously failed to do. Parliamentary privilege is given to both houses to allow Parliament to govern Her Majesty’s Kingdom on a day to day basis without being dragged through Her Majesty’s Courts. Our forefathers gave Parliament a set of privileges to allow you to do that without having to worry about members being dragged through the courts at someone’s whim over a speech in the house.


I understand the Commons has passed a bill which prevents members being named when they are caught with their hand in the public till as they steal our money by over claiming their expenses. I think I should point out here that when you are elected as a member of parliament your working life is no longer yours you take money from the taxpayer and your professional life belongs to the tax payer. If an employee of a private company embezzles money from that company his employer is entitled to be informed about that. Your employer is the ordinary man and woman of the United Kingdom. Like the employer in the private company the men and women of this Kingdom who employ you are fully entitled to know when you steal from us. You are also required to live your life to higher standards than the ordinary man and woman so as not to bring parliament into disrepute.


I would remind you, you are not able to grant yourselves any new privileges this especially applies to a privilege which allows parliamentarians to cover up their criminal activities. This bill is contrary to Parliamentary law and your duty to your employer the British public, and is an effort to pervert the course of justice at common law. In case this has escaped your notice this is a serious criminal offence. Following the ruling in Stockdale vs Hansard 1837 by Patterson J giving the opinion of the other eight Judges in the case the Commons is in no way a court of law and the common man must be able to sue the Commons in any of the ordinary courts in the land for wrongs done to him by the Commons. This blatant attempt to cover up the crimes of members of the commons is a wrong done to all Her Majesty’s subjects. I fully understand that they can be named once prosecutions have commenced this is outside parliaments remit. But members of both houses are expected indeed required to have a higher degree of ethics than the voter. This is because they hold an office of public trust, and as a result the public are entitled to know when there is any allegation of a breach of that public trust. A trust we see increasingly betrayed by members of the commons, my own MP John Howell told me now he is an MP he does what he wants not what those who elected him want. I would remind you and would ask you to tell the house in my name they are all elected to represent the views of those who elected them, they are the servants of the people not the peoples masters.


Mr Bercow it is your job a job you are well paid to perform to prevent these breaches of privilege and to enforce Parliamentary law this you have failed to do. You would be wise to instruct the members of the Commons that this bill is void and of no effect. I would further remind you sovereignty does not lie with the Commons as the elected house but full Sovereignty lies squarely with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the lawfully anointed Queen of England from which all her titles supremacies and. superiorities flow. There is not one word in the 1689 Bill of Rights to substantiate the claim advanced by MPs that it transferred sovereignty from the sovereign to the elected chamber. The use of the Prerogative by ministers is also illegal, the Prerogative was given to England's Kings for their personnel use and it is not to be transferred or loaned to anyone else. The automatic assent is also contrary to common and constitutional law. There is I would refer you to the vote taken in Parliament on the 8th March 1784 where the Commons withdrew their claim to sovereignty as the elected house and Full Sovereignty was returned to King George III by parliamentary vote. For the Commons or anyone sitting there to claim sovereignty lies with them renders individuals or the commons collectively to being charged with high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. Frankly with such a collection of self-serving thieving shower as we have in the Commons I would welcome your prosecution for treason.

Respectfully submitted for your very careful consideration.





Albert Burgess

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk