Letter to Chief Justices of the Supreme Court

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter to Chief Justices of the Supreme Court
« on: January 27, 2017, 09:53:19 PM »
Chief Justices of the Supreme Court                                       Albert Burgess
Parliament Square
25 January 2017
Ref the Royal Prerogative
My Lords and Lady
I suppose having been brought up on Dicey’s Law of the Constitution I should expect that our entire legal profession should be unaware of what English Law actually has to say on the matter, Dicey and yes I have read him and Baghot both I have to say painful experiences yet both are loved by politicians and our legal profession.
Dicey on dealing with the Royal Prerogative attempts to compare our legal system with that of the French yet both have an entirely different starting point. Under our legal system we are innocent unless the King can prove us guilty in a court of law and to a jury of our peers, in the French system you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent a much inferior system of law. You were of course right to deny Mrs May the use of the prerogative but for the wrong reasons.
I feel a history lesson is needed so if you will bear with me I would be grateful.
In the beginning according to Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir John Fortesque KB acknowledged as the foremost political scientist of the 15th century he lays out clearly the limits of the authority of England's Kings. And what the people did to ensure good government.
The Royal Prerogative was given to the King to enable him to govern this Ancient Kingdom properly.
(1) Firstly they laid down strict rules over the use of the Royal Prerogative. The prerogative was given to the King for his own personnel use.
(2) The King was refused permission to allow anyone else to use the prerogative even as a very temporary loan. It remains with the King and only the King may use it.
(3) If the King is too sick to govern as in the case of King George III a Regent is appointed and a very limited part of the Royal Prerogative is passed to him to allow government to continue, but and it is a very big but the Regent cannot take us to war or if we are at war take us out of war that along with other major authority rests with the King and only with the King. The Regent only gets the minor parts of the Royal Prerogative assigned to him to allow the day to day management of the Kingdom.
Any attempt to remove the prerogative from the King is to imagine the death of the King in our case Queen as a fully sovereign Queen of England. Which if you have done your homework you will know constitutes an act of treason against her Majesty contrary to the 1351 Treason Act which is still fully on the statute books.
The House of Commons Library issued a paper on the Royal Prerogative in which they stated it is very difficult to put limits on the prerogative.  This is complete nonsense. The King may use the Royal Prerogative to do anything which benefit’s the Kingdom and his subjects, if however his use harms even the lowliest of his subjects the use of the prerogative is illegal  and void. So no one can remove the prerogative from the King because to attempt that is to commit treason, and the King cannot surrender the Royal Prerogative because to do so would diminish the Crown and that can never happen it is the height of illegality.
You should also be aware that every EEC/EU Treaty was signed using the prerogative which we all agree cannot be used by ministers to make or unmake treaties, your ruling has just voided rightly every EU Treaty ever made we are in effect as a result of your ruling given for the wrong reasons I accept now free of Europe. You will of course now issue bench warrants for the arrest of everyone who has been a party to signing any of these treaties going back to the survivors of Edward Heath's cabinet for treason.
I would recommend  if you have not already done so reading the works of Henry DeBracton C J 1230. Sir John Fortescue C J 1420, Sir Edward Coke CJ 1628. Sir Mathew Hale C J 1713, Blackstone C J 1768 and of course Chitty 1820 Barrister at law, or Professors Maitland and Taswell-Langmead both constitutional lawyers are worth looking at.
Respectfully submitted
Albert Burgess

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk