Letter to Teresa May re Queen's speesh--Albert Burgess

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter to Teresa May re Queen's speesh--Albert Burgess
« on: June 20, 2017, 01:36:03 PM »
Rt Hon Theresa May MP  
10 Downing Street 
SW1A 2AA  
Ref:  Holding Political Office  
Dear Theresa,
I watch with dismay your being blamed over the tragedy of the Kensington block of flats which burnt down and some of your ministers plotting a coup to get rid of you.  But first I would like to talk to you about English constitutional law. Knowledge of which you seem to be sadly lacking. 
I am gravely concerned over the plan to open Parliament without the Queens speech.  Parliament as set up by our farseeing and thoughtful forefathers, is a tri-part agreement.  Since 1420 when the House of Commons blackmailed King Henry V into granting them the sole right to initiate all legislation, all legislation has come from the House of Commons.  Once passed in the Commons it goes to the House of Lords who, voting purely according to their collective conscience, decide either to accept the bill, to send it back for amendment or reject it completely.  If the House of Lords pass the bill it then goes before the lawfully anointed King who strictly in accordance with his own conscience will give the Assent or reject the bill out of hand.  If he rejects the bill passed by both Houses, he cannot be asked to give his reasons - though King Edward VII gave his reasons for rejecting what became the 1911 Parliament Act because it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. 
The laws concerning the King in Parliament are all Common Law.  The King calls a Parliament and the King must attend Parliament.  Without the King, it is not a Parliament but merely a debating chamber with no law making capability.  If the King is so ill that he cannot attend, he must stay in a castle or mansion house close enough to Parliament that if necessary the Kings bed with him in it can be carried to Parliament.  In the event that the King is taken ill at the other end of the Kingdom, Parliament must meet near to his sick bed.  So if you go ahead and do not have Queen Elizabeth II open Parliament and give Her speech, you are imagining Her Majesty’s death as a fully Sovereign Queen.  You will thus be guilty of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.  The penalty for treason by a woman was beheading or burning at the stake, though it is now just hanging. 
The House of Commons claim as the elected House, that sovereignty lies with them not the Queen.  For the following reasons this claim is high treason. 
(1) When we elected our first Kings, the people themselves decided that having elected a King then the King must be visibly higher in standing than his subjects and that he must have the final say on what happens in his Kingdom.  So the King decides.  No one else.  As a result, several Acts of Supremacy were passed by
Parliament confirming that position.  On the 8th March 1784 a vote was taken in Parliament as to where ultimate sovereignty lay, either with the elected House or with the lawfully anointed King.  The vote confirmed the longstanding legal position that ultimate sovereignty lay with the King and only the King. 
(2) The claim that Parliament rule by Henry VIII powers totally ignores these powers and were illegal even when Henry VIII, an arrogant bully, used them. 
(3) The Parliament Acts and the 1999 House of Lords Act are contrary to law as laid down in our common and constitutional law.  They constitute the overawing of the House of Lords by the House of Commons which itself constitutes an act of treason contrary to the 1848 Treason Felony Act.  That Act predates the illegal changes to the way Parliament functions.  
I have no desire to see you hang.  But when it is a toss up between you and Queen Elizabeth II, my loyalty is to my lawfully anointed Sovereign, not you.  So rest assured I would put the rope around your neck with not one thought of regret. 
Now that your position is being threatened by some of your ministers wishing to be seen as strong, sack them.  There are plenty of back benchers who will be yours for life for the sake of a ministerial job.  Strike first and strike hard. 
Now for the tragic fire for which blame is being heaped upon you led by that worthless waste of space, Corbyn.
The local authority planning department are solely responsible for this tragic event.  It was they, not you, who approved plastic cladding.  Plastic burns in excess of 2000 degrees centigrade and as it burns it gives off dense clouds of highly toxic gas.  It was the local authority’s responsibility to ensure the building’s fire prevention measures were was fully functional particularly including the fire main and I understand it was not working properly.  Fighting the fire at the higher levels was thus impossible. Jeremy Corbyn was on the committee which voted against retro-fitting of sprinkler systems in buildings older than 2007.  That committee bears a large proportion of the blame for the death toll. 
As to Brexit - I so hate that word - you must be strong at home and in Europe.  Do not allow your decision on a hard Brexit to be weakened.  Sack any of your people who argue with you.  As the current British Prime Minister you must prove as did Margaret Thatcher over the Falklands conflict, that you are our modern day Boadicea. The British people will love you for it.  If you fail, there is always the rope.
Respectfully submitted  
Albert Burgess 
PS If you want a crash course on the English Constitution, I will very gladly come to Downing Street to give it. 

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk