THIS IS YOUR ENGLISH LAW THEY WILL REMOVE IF YOU LET THEM.

  • 1 Replies
  • 1883 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4116
  • +75/-0
THIS IS YOUR ENGLISH LAW THEY WILL REMOVE IF YOU LET THEM.

 

EXTRACTS FROM:

Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution (Part 1)

By Albert Burgess (2011)

 

“A Constitution is the property of a nation, and not those who exercise government.”     Thomas Paine.

 

INTRODUCTION

Know your Constitution or lose your ancient freedoms.

I believe there is a need for a layman’s guide to the English Constitution because the Government’s guide to our Constitution:  ‘Inside Britain  --  A Guide to the UK Constitution’, is a work designed to mislead the ordinary man, woman and child in this country.   It allows them to enslave the subjects of her Majesty, to undermine our culture and way of life and to destroy a thousand years of history.

You must remember one thing:  England is ruled, not by the Queen nor by Parliament and not by the Queen in Parliament.   England is ruled by the law of the very good Constitution left to us by our forefathers.

Our Constitution (simply meaning ‘higher law’) is determined by the overriding will of the people and they can make a difference to mattes seemingly beyond their control.   It also shows that all good monarchs (and politicians) recognise the importance of respecting the collective wishes of laymen to maintaining power.   In other words, power truly is with the people  --  IF ONLY THEY WOULD IMPLEMENT IT.

 

THE ORIGINS OF OUR CONSTITUTION

 

ALFRED’S LAWS

Every work on the Constitution needs a starting point and I have chosen the reign of King Alfred (871 – 899).  Although he was an excellent war leader, it is in the field of law that we owe most to Alfred.   He visited all the old kingdoms and took the best laws and customs from each of them.   Custom is a practice that has been in use from times of greatest antiquity, with the approval of the people, and by its very nature custom cannot be repealed, as it is the rule of the land and its people.   Alfred recorded these laws and customs in a book he called ‘The Dome’ (meaning ‘punishment’) and it was issued throughout Alfred’s England as The King’s Law.  But I shall in future refer to them  ‘Alfred’s Law’.

 

WILLIAM I (Conqueror)

After Duke William of Normandy had conquered England in 1066, following the defeat of the English at the Battle of Hastings, he chose to maintain the Laws of Edward the Confessor (which were Alfred’s Laws) rather than to introduce laws from his native Country of Normandy.

However, his successor, William II (Rufus) believed he could rule by divine right and do as he wished.   He died in a hunting ‘accident’.  (Other Kings who did not listen to their subjects  --  Edward II and James II  --  were removed from office, while Charles I was executed at the end of the English Civil WaraHHHHH

.)

William II was succeeded by Henry I who also believed he could rule by divine right but in this he was quickly disillusioned by the Barons and forced to issue  --

The Charter of Liberties, a restatement of Alfred’s Law.

King John who was so unpopular both with the Barons and the people that at one stage he handed England over to Archbishop Pandolph, the Papal Legate, receiving it back again to rule as a vassal King to the Pope for payment of 1,000 marks a year.   Eventually, John was forced to meet the Barons and thousands of the freemen of England at Runnymede on the Thames in 1215.   Here, he was then made to sign the –

Magna Carta (also known as The Great charter), yet another restatement of Alfred’s Law.

The Magna Carta was made by all the Estates of England the Lords Spiritual the Lords Temporal and the freemen of England  --  and therefore it can only be undone by all the Estates of England meeting again.   Consequently, it is beyond the reach of Parliament.

When John’s son, Henry III, became of age to rule his country, he rejected the Pope’s claim that he was a vassal king to Rome and stopped the annual payment of 1,000 marks.

Edward III came to the throne in 1327.   In 1351 he passed  –

The Treason Act

Which codified and curtailed the common offence of treason.

Later, In 1366 King Edward III received a letter from the Pope demanding the 1,000 marks a year for every year that it had not been paid and threating ‘action’ if the monies were not received.   Edward spoke to the bishops and the Lords who spoke to the Commons.

First the bishops, then the Lords, and finally the Commons came to Edward and told him that England had not been King John’s to give away.   Under English law, John had only held England in trust for his successors and therefore the agreement between the Pope and King John was not valid.  John had broken the law. 

This major constitutional ruling ensures that England’s sovereigns were not and can never be, vassal Kings to anyone.   This is a most important constitutional ruling which applies as much today as it did then.

King Edward III also claimed the Kingdom of France.   Parliament made him sign an undertaing that, as King of France, Edward could have no say in how England was governed.

 

Before being deposed in 1399 King Richard II issued his --

Statute of Praemunir,

 breaches of which amounted to High Treason

 

Under King Henry VIII England and the Roman Church finally separately and in 1534 King Henry passed the --

 Act of Supremacy

which granted Henry VIII and all subsequent monarchs Royal Supremacy, which means that he was declared supreme head of the Church of England.

 

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the Pope attempted to have Elizabeth murdered;  Elizabeth was understandably far from amused at this and in 1559 reissued her father’s Act of Supremacy.   This Act contained an Oath, part of which states  --

“No Foreign Prince, Person, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm.”

The Tudors on the whole ruled according to the prerogatives given to them by law.  However, Elizabeth I was followed by her cousins, the Stuarts, who believed they ruled by ‘Divine Right’ and were answerable only to God.

Charles I was, because of this, presented in 1628 with --

The Petition of Rights

a restatement of Alfred’s Law.

Again, in 1641, the –

Grand Remonstrance

Was a request by Parliament for Charles to rule according to the law (yet another restatement of Alfred’s Law) but he refused.   This started the Civil War in England, in which the King was defeated.   Charles was put then on trial for treason against the people, found guilty and executed.

James II was told by Parliament that in attempting to Catholicise the country he was acting illegally.  Jams retaliated, dissolved Parliament and carried on as before until he was forced to flee to France.

The next Protestant in the line of succession was James’ daughter Mary, who was married to a cousin, William, Prince of Orange and they were conditionally offered the Throne of England, with William being asked to take on the Administration of the country.

At first William made errors in this administration and the politicians went and spoke to the Alderman and fifty of the Common council of the City of London about this.   William, hearing of this, issued instructions for writs to be sent to every borough in England. The boroughs were to send representatives to Westminster to tell the politicians and William how we, the English, wished to be ruled.

The representatives came to Westminster and met the Lords, the politicians, the Aldermen and Common Council of the City of London at a Convention.   It was not a parliament because only a King or Queen may call a parliament.   King |James was in France and had no desire to calla parliament.   After much discussion they produced  --

The Declaration of Rights

which was another restatement of Alfred’s Laws.   The Declaration was shown to William and Mary, who were told that if they wanted the crown, they had to accept the terms of the Declaration of Rights (these being the minimum rights and freedoms the people would tolerate).  They accepted the Throne of England but ruled jointly and King William III and Queen Mary II.

Now he was King, William called a parliament.   William did not have an election but, instead, said the people’s representatives would be his Parliament.   The first thing Parliament did was to pass –

The Declaration of Rights into the law as the Bill of Rights in 1689

It is a convention that no parliament can bind another, but how could this Parliament bind every successive Parliament for ever?   The answer is simple.   This Parliament was made up of the people’s representatives.    The will of the people is supreme over both Parliament and the Sovereign.

Until such time as the representatives of the people meet and change the 1689 Bill of Rights, this Bill remains the law.

 

 

 

 

EXTRACTS FROM:

Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution (Part 2)

By Albert Burgess (2011)

 

“A Constitution is the property of a nation, and not those who exercise government.”     Thomas Paine.

 

THE EROSION OF OUR CONSTITUTION

 

As stated in Part 1, the Estates of England comprise the Commons, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. ndividually none of these parts can make or repeal law.   Our forefathers foresaw that if any one part was able to claim supremacy in the system, we would suffer from oppressive government.   

Parliament works by the Commons originating legislation, which is then passed to th Lords for scrutiny.   It is the function of the Lords to refuse the legislation if they believe it to be oppressive, or in any other way not good legislation.   If the Lords approve the legislation, it then goes before the Sovereign who may refuse the Royal Assent if he or she considers the legislation not to be in the best interest of their Subjects.

Any attempt to subvert the make-up of Parliament is the major crime of sedition and at this level, sedition is High Treason.   Any attempt to damage the Sovereign’s powers or authority is High Treason.

 

THE SOVEREIGN

Even the early English kings were not dictators;  there was no actual parliament at that time but all used advisors.   For instance, King Alfred had the Witan (wise men) made up of the Ealdormen and Thanes and later the Norman French kings were advised by their Barons and Knights from the shires.   All our early kings and queens were in Parliament when it met and most (although not the Stuarts) were able to exert considerable influence on the actions of the Lords and Commons.   King William III and later, Queen Anne, attended Cabinet meetings and the House of Lords and as a result they both had a very clear idea of what was happening both with the government and in the Country.

However, the ‘German George’ I only German and consequently attended neither Cabinet meetings nor the House of Lords.   This allowed the politicians to govern in the King’s name, with the King having no say about what was being done in his name.  Thus began the slow erosion of the Sovereign’s power.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Asquith Government attempted to put through a Finance Bill.   The Lords rejected the Bill because it imposed too high a tax burden on the Subjects.   Asquith then threatened the Lords with filling the House with 500 new peers who would vote for the closure of the House of Lords.   Under duress, the Lords then gave their consent to the Parliament Act of 1911.   The Bill was presented to King Edward VII who refused Royal Assent on the grounds that it removed a protection give to English Subjects by the Constitution.   King Edward told Asquith he would have to ask the Country.

But shortly thereafter King Edward VII died and King George V came to the throne.   He was told by a Government minister that, as King, he retained all his prerogatives.   However, he could not use any of the Royal Prerogatives without the backing of a Government Minister.

Now, our Queen, Elizabeth II, must always do what her ministers say she must.

This ministerial advice had no basis in our Constitution and amounts to a clear act of Treason.   Furthermore, since it imagines the death of the King as a Sovereign King it is an act of High Treason under the terms of the Treason Act 1351.

 

THE LORDS

With this ministerial advice to the King and the passing of the Parliament Act of 1911, Asquith had neutered the power of the Lords to protect the Subject from bad law and removed the right of Sovereigns to refuse the Royal Assent to parliamentary bills.

Subsequent Acts have continued to restrict the authority of the House of Lords and finally, the plan to remove all but ninety two hereditary Peers was passed by Parliament in 1998.   

Currently, the Government plans to remove all hereditary Peers from the House of Lords.

But this is against the Constitution and constitutes an act of Sedition amounting to High Treason.   A Peer can only be removed by a bill after committing a serious crime and a separate bill is required for each Peer before he can be removed.  Baroness Ashton said in the House of Lords that a General Bill cannot be used to remove the hereditary Peers.

Why do we still need Hereditary Peers in our revising chamber?   On the whole, they were honest and honourable;  they were wealthy and so, like well-paid judges, were less likely to accept a bribe;  they also had lands to pass on to their families;  they were very protective of their reputations.

 

 

THE COMMONS

With the withdrawal of powers from the Sovereign and from the hereditary Peers, Parliament  --  the House of Commons  --  is left supreme.

But it should not be.

It was the Declaration and Bill of Rights that left the authority of kings as it had always been under the law, contracted to us by the Coronation Oath.   However, politicians have opportunistically awarded themselves unlimited powers in its place to the extent that we are now governed by an elected dictatorship. Where in the past some Kings felt they could rule by Divine Right, it now seems that the public are faced with a new doctrine of the ‘Divine Rights of Politicians’.  And they are not bound by the 1534 Act of Supremacy which, to reiterate what has been said above, contained the Oath, part of which states  --

 “No Foreign Prince, Person, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm.”

Edward Heath set up a conspiracy to subvert our ancient Constitution and hand over this Country to a foreign power, the European Economic Community (EEC), which has since become the European Union (EU).   This was the major crime of Sedition, which at this level is High Treason.   Every succeeding government has signed treaties with the EU, surrendering our rights to govern ourselves under laws passed by the Queen in Parliament.

But it is a fundamental part of our Constitution that Parliament may not surrender any of their rights to govern to a foreign power, unless we have been defeated in war.

Therefore, in doing so, every government since that of Edward Heath has also committed the major crime of High Treason

However, The Treason Act of 1695 pus a three year time limit on bringing trials for treason, but we can clearly see that this time limit is nonsensical in allowing someone who has committed treason to get away with it just because they are able to avoid arrest for three years.

When we all suffer a loss, should treason succeed?

 

CAN PARLIAMENT BE SUED?

In Stockdale vs Hansard 1837, Stockdale a book publisher, was libelled in the House of Commons and that libel was published in Hansard.   Chief Justice Denman found in favour of Stockdale and awarded him £600 damages. Judge Patterson, giving the opinion of the other eight judges in the case, ruled that:

“…The House of Lords is where the law lords and the King sit, and it is the highest court in the land.   But the House of Commons is in no way a court of law, and the common man must be able to sue the House of Commons in any courts in the land for wrongs done to him by the actions of the House of Commons.”

Now that the Law Lords have been removed from the House of Lords, the House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the land;  that role now falls to the Supreme Court.

But following the spirit of Judge Patterson’s ruling, it means, in my opinion, that the common man may now sue Parliament for wrongs done to him by the actions of Parliament as a whole.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

In England we have a very good and ancient Constitution, built by the trials and tribulations of our forefathers, who experienced, on a number of occasions, despotic rule, which their desire to live as freemen gave them the strength to overcome.   On each occasion they set in place protections to prevent despotic rule.   Today we have despotic rule by Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, who claim authority even over Her Majesty the Queen.   They have withdrawn their homage to Her Majesty and under the Common Law of England, are no Parliament but base traitors.   We must like our forefathers, find the strength to overcome this evil and, make no mistake, it is Evil.   They are destroying a legal system and Constitution built around the teachings of the Holy Bible.

 

Research:

The Legal Codes of Alfred

The Charter of Liberties of Henry I (1100)

The Magna Carta 1215

The Grand Remonstrance (1641)

The Bill of Rights (1689)

 

 

EXTRACTS FROM:

Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution (Part 3)

By Albert Burgess (2011)

 

 

 Naturalisation Denizisation

 

When some one comes to England and applies for British nationality and it is granted, they place themselves in a difficult position because under the law their first loyalty is to the country of their birth. If this country went to war with the country of their birth they should in law return to that country if they remain here they commit an act of treason against the country of their birth. If they return home and support their original country they commit an act of treason against us.

 

If they have children here those children take the nationality of the father so if the father originally came from India the child is Indian. If an English man lives in Russia and marries a Russian woman any child they have is English. If an English woman goes to Russia and marries a Russian man any children they have are Russian.

 

If a person comes here and is naturalised British they receive most though not all the rights of a natural born subject they can buy and sell inherit or leave property, what they may not do is sit in either House of Parliament, sit on the Privy Council. receive any order of Nobility or hold any office of public trust. ( in short they are never to be trusted ) The Sovereign is forbidden by the common law of Kingship from ever changing that law.

 

The object of that law is to keep England under the safe governorship of an English King and the indigenous people of England.

 

The oaths from the Act of Supremacy 1559 and the Bill of Rights 1689 both major constitutional law state.

 

No foreign prince, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any power, superiority, supremacy or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this land.

 

With this oath in mind it makes no sense to allow any naturalised subject to hold any public office, and most assuredly we must at all costs remove all Denizens from every office of public trust and do it now. We can start by not voting for anyone but a natural born subject at the next election and all other elections. Write to the chief Officer of your police force and ask him to arrest those natural born subjects who have placed denizens in offices of public trust for treason, write to your MP if he is a natural born subject demand he upholds the law, if he is a denizen order him gone in the name of the law.   

 

 

Albert Burgess

[email protected]   

www.englishconstitutiongroup.org

www.acasefortreason.co.uk

 

Edited by

Sonya Porter

[email protected]

 


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4116
  • +75/-0
Re: THIS IS YOUR ENGLISH LAW THEY WILL REMOVE IF YOU LET THEM.
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2016, 07:24:35 PM »
Our thanks to John T, a true English patriot, for this eye-opening document compiled and written by Albert Burgess. No UK citizen can afford not to study this very carefully -- following the example of King Alfred, the scholar king. (BTW, the content of this document is too important to quibble over writing style, as one reader has).
Page after page, we see here how the British people defended their country from traitorous kings and from foreign powers that tried to rule from outside.

It was all based on King Alfred's law and that law was based on the Bible. Anyone who thinks the biblical foundations can be permanently discarded can expect a major revelation -- an apocalyptic one (apokalypsis is the Greek word for revelation and is the name of the last chapter of the original Greek New Testament). You are seeing the beginning of such a revelation -- apocalypse -- unfolding before your very eyes. I had tried to show here http://laiglesforum.com/the-only-way-europe-can-be-saved/3698.htm how your failure to throw up a biblical roadblock to encroaching sharia law and Islamism is causing Europe's failure and will eventually cause you to be subjugated to your Islamic masters. Your Brexit "leaders" refuse to even mention the Islamic invasion, for fear of being branded Islamophobic. You will not win by taking this politically correct approach. But if you insist, you will eventually see your women enslaved by the new rulers of Britain -- how ironic in view of the sacred words "Britains never, never will be slaves." (please read
http://laiglesforum.com/are-you-prepared-to-see-your-daughters-and-wives-enslaved/3639.htm).

If the people today followed in the footsteps of their forebears, they would throw off the yoke of Brussels and also rise up against the traitors in their own government.

I want to thank those who responded with encouragement to my email of yesterday calling out weak Brexit leaders who refuse to mention mass immigration as one of the main rationales for separating yourselves from Brussels. Of course there are other reasons for Brexit that fit in with the wichy-washy libertarian mind set of some of these leaders, but in themselves, they will not suffice to persuade Brits to leave. THIS IS NOT RACISM, IT IS COMMON SENSE. WHERE HAS YOURS FLED TO, leaders?

It is very difficult indeed to persuade your countrymen to throw off tyranny when you deny them one of the main reasons for doing so.

I would not expect this effort to succeed under these circumstances and am not convinced that some of the "leaders" expect it to succeed either.

After all, some are drawing handsome salaries from the EU that they purport to oppose.

I hope to God I am proven wrong!

Don Hank




PS: My thanks to a reader who caught my typo, calling Marine LePen Marie (Jean-Marie is the father). BTW, if anyone is still in thrall to the pernicious myth that Marine is in any way racist, like her father (who has been purged from Front National), you desperately need to read this:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627083/French-Front-National-leader-Marine-Le-Pen-not-guilty-inciting-hatred.




: IMPORTANT: Don. Possibly of use for circulation.
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:02:54 +0000

 
http://acasefortreason.webs.com/Documents/Books/Laymans%20guide%20to%20the%20English%20Constitution.pdf








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


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk