Ref 1701 Act of Settlement  

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Ref 1701 Act of Settlement  
« on: July 15, 2017, 06:37:05 PM »
Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP 
5-8 Sanctuary 
SW1P 3JS  
11th July 2017
Ref 1701 Act of Settlement
Dear Jeremy,
I posed the following question to the Cabinet Office. Why, how and who authorised the amendment which allowed naturalised subjects to be elevated to take any degree of nobility, to sit in either house of Parliament, to sit on the Privy Council or to hold any office of Public Trust Military or Civil? The Cabinet Office replied stating this was done by the 1949 Nationality Act.
I assume by their deathly silence they were unable to answer my next question which was how was this done? We know for example that the King on his own cannot make or unmake law, we also know from Blackstone that Parliament cannot make any law on naturalization without putting in a disabling clause preventing any naturalized subject from being granted any order of nobility, from sitting in either House of Parliament, from sitting on the Privy Council or from holding any office of public trust military or civil. The 1701 Act of Settlement is major constitutional law which cannot be amended by a statute law. Acts dealing with naturalization are not in any way shape or form constitutional law.  They are administrative law and therefore ordinary statute law.
Our forefathers were not stupid and neither am I.  These reasons for banning naturalized or denizened subjects from holding any office of government or of public trust such as the office of constable or a commission in Her Majesty’s armed forces is simply because the first duty of loyalty of naturalized subjects or denizens is to the country of their birth. If they are born in the United Kingdom their birth certificate serves as the document of naturalization but they take their father’s nationality.
Our forefathers considered it an act of stupidity to place denizens or naturalised people in positions of authority over Her Majesty’s natural born subjects.  This is because you would be importing a fifth column into positions of authority.  For the same reason they decided it takes ten generations of people born here and naturalised by their birth certificate before they can be accepted as natural born subjects.  Ten generations are a very long time.
You are Her Majesty’s principle law officer.  I require from you the answer to my question, “How was the 1701 Act of Settlement amended to allow the above and what action do you propose to take to remove from the nobility and both Houses of Parliament all naturalized subjects currently forming a fifth column in government and the Privy Council ?”  I would remind you of your two most paramount loyalties.  (1) your loyalty to Her Majesty and (2) your duty to the law.  As there is no principle of obsolescence known to the law of England, that means even laws not repealed, going back to the legal codes of King Alfred and which are still current law.  Our ancient laws show a clear pattern of not allowing foreigners naturalized or not,from having any say in how this ancient Kingdom is governed.  These old laws have long been the custom and practice of England.  And Custom is beyond the reach of the King or Parliament.
I am also very concerned about the House of Commons claim to be the sovereign power in this Kingdom. Sovereignty was granted to England’s Kings by the decision of those who elected our first Kings. Limits were placed on the authority of the King in the limits on the Royal Prerogative.  The House of Commons library claims the prerogative is difficult to define. This is total nonsense. The King can do anything which benefits the Kingdom and his subjects. If the King does anything which harms even the lowliest of his subjects, that is an illegal use of the Prerogative. The Prerogative is given to the King for his personnel use (only) and it cannot be lent or given away. In the event of a Regency as occurred with George III, the Regent gets only those parts of the Prerogative to allow the Kingdom to function.  But he cannot for example take us to war or, if we are at war, he cannot make peace. Government Ministers are using the Prerogative contrary to law.  This constitutes treason against Her Majesty and the constitutional arrangements of the Kingdom. Please explain how and why this is happening and your plans to stop the improper use of the Prerogative.
Sovereignty was granted to England’s Kings and only England’s Kings. It cannot be lent, given away or stolen. Queen Elizabeth II has no authority to surrender sovereignty to anyone or anything. The claim to sovereignty by the House of Commons is illegal and treason against the constitutional arrangements of this ancient Kingdom. It is also treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. Throughout our history, full sovereignty has been vested (only) in the King.  There are a number of Acts of Supremacy which reinforce this fact.  As late as the 8th March 1784 Parliament voted on where ultimate sovereignty lay. Parliament voted that ultimate sovereignty lay with the King; there has been no vote on the subject in Parliament since.  Any vote to transfer sovereignty from Queen Elizabeth II to the House of Commons would be a treason.  You as Her Majesty’s principle law officer would have to prosecute every Member of Parliament who voted against Her Majesty.
The 1911 Parliament Act overawed the House of Lords as did the 1949 Parliament Act and the 1999 House of Lords Act.  Each of these acts forced through by the House of Commons constituted a treason contrary to the 1848 Treason Felony Act. Each of these acts also contravened the ability of the House of Lords common law cognisance to conduct its own business in its own way in accordance with the constitutional arrangements for Parliament.  The 1999 Act interferes with the common law cognisance of the Lords to decide who does or does not sit in the House of Lords. I require all Parliament Acts declared void on the grounds that they were entirely contrary to law.  I am making the allegation against Anthony Lynton Blair one time Prime Minister and his principle law officers, of treason contrary to sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act over his removal from the House of Lords of the hereditary Peers. You are charged by the law as it is written and the high office you hold, with placing him before Her Majesty’s criminal court. Failure to do so renders you liable to arrest and prosecution for Misprision of Treason at Common Law.
Respectfully submitted
Albert Burgess  

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk