Ref. Sovereignty--Albert Burgess petitions the Speaker to address the House

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0

John Bercow                                                                                     Albert Burgess

Speaker to the House of Commons

The Palace of Westminster



                                                                                                          27TH June 2017

Ref Sovereignty


I am very concerned about some of the ideas flying around the House of Commons not least from My MP John Howell who told me now he is an MP he does what he wants not what the people who put him there want.

For some years now I have been studying the history and development of the English Common and Constitutional Law, I have a better collection of books on the subject than the House of Commons library, I know this because I asked them for a list of their books on constitutional law. My collection is far better than those held in your library.

I have a number of concerns the most important is the claim advanced by the house over which you sits claim that ultimate sovereignty lies with you as the elected house. This claim is not only wrong it constitutes a personnel treason against Her Majesty by imagining her death as a fully sovereign Queen of England from which all her other titles supremacies and superiorities flow, contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.

When Alfred the Great was elected King of the English the English surrendered their individual sovereignty as free men to him to administer on their behalf and only ever in their best interests, the vast majority have carried out the office of the Crown in the manner intended and this Kingdom has prospered. Those Kings who thought otherwise were removed as Charles I could testify if he had a head to testify with.

The House over which you preside does not have a good record of abiding to the laws of England. In 1420 when that great King and General Henry V asked that a tax be raised your house resorted to BLACKMAIL a criminal offence and demanded they be given the sole right to initiate all legislation or they would not vote the tax. In 1609 they wrote to the House of Peers claiming to be the Knights, Burgesses and Barons of the High Court of Parliament. The Lords correctly replied they would never accept them as Barons and without the Lords they were no court at all. In 1667 they demanded that the House of Lords could not amend a money bill there is no legal justification for this and once again it is illegal because it interferes with the common law cognisance of the House of Lords to conduct its own business its own way, a ten year argument ensued before in a moment of what can only be called madness the Lords gave way in 1677. Once again the common man in the Commons demanded his own way even though what he was demanding contravened the Common Law on which Parliament was built. In 1909 Asquith put forward a budget the House of Lords believing wrongly they could not amend it a convention being a gentleman?s agreement not law rejected it. Asquith then threatened to put five hundred new Peers into the house who would vote for its abolition if they did not agree they could no longer reject a bill. The upper House in yet another moment of madness agreed and when the bill was put before King Edward VII he rejected it on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects he ordered Asquith to go to the country so Asquith and his ministers lied there way around the country that was tantamount to perjury they were re-elected and during the Kings speech the King made it clear the proposed Parliament Act was something he did not approve of. Shortly after he fell ill and died. When King George V came to the Throne he was told by a government minister he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them without the backing of a minister. In one fell swoop Asquith had illegally neutered the House of Lords and usurped the Royal authority. The first constitutes a treason contrary to sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act the second a personnel treason again Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. Both these treason acts are fully in force. Any attempt to remove them will itself constitute acts of treason by removing the protections around the Sovereign and Constitution and placing them at grave risk. The use of the prerogative by ministers also constitutes a treason the Royal Prerogative being given to the King to be used on our behalf and only ever in our best interests. The King cannot by law give or loan the prerogative to anyone or anything not even to such an august body as the House of Commons.

I respectfully request as is my right under a resolution of the House of Commons on 9th May 1609 that any commoner can petition the house on any subject and the house must accept the petition it is my petition that I may be allowed to address the house from the bar of the house on the subject of English common and constitutional law. I fully understand that the only time this has happened the house sent the five petitioners to prison. I will deal with that if it happens.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk