show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Acts of Treason Committed by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Tony Blair

  • 0 Replies
  • 755 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4009
  • +75/-0
Letter from Albert Burgess
Acts of Treason Committed by
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Tony Blair
Initial report to the police of allegations and evidence of treason sent to Humberside Police.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg
These two men want to abolish the House of Lords in favour of an elected upper house are violating the tripartite long established way in which England has been governed. This tripartite arrangement is made up of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, which in turn is made up of hereditary peers and referred to in the Constitution as 'the Lords spiritual and the Lords temporal, and the House of commons, made up of representatives of the public. The House of Commons originates legislation, the House of Lords scrutinises the legislation to make sure that it benefits the country and the Sovereign has the final authority to refuse assent if he believe it is not in the best interests of the country. The only reason for trying to subvert this long established and workable system of governance is that it prevents an illegal power-grab of a person or group. This is exactly what Cameron and Clegg are trying to do.
No individual member of this tripartite can force its will on any other member. Mark Harper, Clegg's deputy at the Cabinet Office, insisted that the Government intends to sweep away centuries of history by replacing it with an elected chamber. This is in direct contravention of the Constitution! The Government do not have the power to do that. Neither the Sovereign, or the House of Lords or the House of Commons own England, they merely hold in trust for the people of England. Sovereignty, as such, is held by the Monarchy. This was established by George III when he won his 20 year battle with the House of Commons as to who was sovereign, the King or Parliament – the King won. The Prime Minister of the time, William Pitt the Elder, said that it was better to be ruled by one despot than by many. The great Sir Matthew Hale wrote, in 1713, the 'Prerogatives of the King', which sets out exactly what the sovereign can and cannot do. Any attempt to change this arrangement would be considered treasonous.
Further references can be found here:
Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir William Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England. Professor Tawell-Langemead Professor of Constitution History in his book English Constitutional History 1896 that parliament in its present form was made in 1295 Professor F W Maitland LLD in his book The Constitutional History of England 1908.
Various Parliament Acts have been made all designed to limit the power of the House of Lords. All these Acts are illegal for the reasons given above.
There has been for quite a number of years a gradual power-grab by the House of Commons from the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the people of England. David Cameron is on record of stating that 'Parliament was sovereign' when clearly it isn't as shown by George III. This was a treasonous statement to make. Nick Clegg also made his treasonous statement when he said that he "will do everything in his power to keep the UK in the EU" and he is also on recording as saying that he will oppose any attempt to remove, already surrendered power, back from the EU to the UK.
The operative words as to the supremacy of the Sovereign is taken from the writings of Sir Matthew Hale's 'Prerogatives of the King 1713' quoting Elizabeth I 'The "three estates of the realm" assembled in parliament, viz. the lords spiritual, lords temporal, and commons, do recognize the queen...intirely invested."
Tony Blair
Some of the following comments are from Lord Studeley, who is a member of the Constitutional Monarchy Association and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries - a society comprising of only 2000 members world wide. this makes him one of the most respected historians in the world.
In 1999, Blair introduced a short bill called 'Stage 1' to abolish the hereditary peers, and to defer the decision as to what 'Stage 2' would be. This was an act of treason as described above. Never before had Lords reform been so so split up in such an overbearing and cavalier fashion. Blair consulted his Lord Chancelor, Lord Irving of Lairg to propose to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, Lord Cranbourne that 92 of the hereditary peers should be spared whilst the rest were sent down the river. Astonishingly Cranbourne accepted. This was a most underhand way for a Government to do this over the head of his part leader. Blair knew that he was on a hiding to nothing from William Hague. In Alistair Campbell's diary, he mentioned two germane quotes about Cranbourne's machinations:
1 Cranbourne speaking to Campbell - "I am committing high treason just talking to you"
2 Campbell describing Cranbourne - "I could tell the minute he walked in that he was enjoying the drama of it, the plotting, and the fact of consorting with an enemy, a subject he joked about frequently"
The elimination of the hereditary peers left the Monarchy exposed.
Not only have the above men committed treason with respect to wanting abolish the House of Lords, they have also allowed a foreign power (the EU) to interfere in the internal affairs of this country. When Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome to bring the UK into the EEC (EU) he committed treason. The law against this comes from the 'Act of Supremacy 1559'. The relevant portion, in its original language, pertaining to our illegal membership of the EU are below highlighted in red:
'And for the more sure observation of this act and the utter extinguishment of all foreign and usurped power and authority, may it please your highness that it may be further enacted by the authority aforesaid that, if any person or persons dwelling or inhabiting within this your realm or in any other your highness's realms or dominions . . . , shall by writing, printing, teaching, preaching, express words, deeds, or act, advisedly, maliciously, and directly affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority, preeminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate whatsoever...that then every such person and persons so doing and offending, their abettors, aiders, procurers, and counsellors, being thereof lawfully convicted and attainted according to the due order and course of the common laws of this realm [shall suffer specified penalties, culminating in punishment for high treason on the third offence] . . . .'
I am part of a group of ordinary patriotic citizens who have taken the trouble to look into the Constitution and its implications for ruling England in a lawful way. This was not a difficult process when a little diligence was used. From this it can be clearly seen that the Constitution has been violated by successive Governments, politicians and civil servants. Our forefathers formulated theses laws to protect England from despotic and tyrannical rulers. We have a police force who swore an oath to uphold these laws and protect England from those who break any law whether common or statute law.
It may be felt by many that it is impractical to bring to justice all those who are guilty of such a heinous crime and which may generate a feeling of safety in numbers for both the guilty and the police. We give full warning to those who ignore this evidence that they would be guilty of misprision of treason. If this be the case then this would be nothing more than giving the people of England a 'two-fingered' salute. This attitude would only reinforce our resolve to make sure ALL who have committed misprision of treason will eventually be brought to justice - no matter how many hundreds there may be. All it will take is for there to be just one police force or even just one policeman of integrity, who values his job and pension, to investigate our allegations. Should a senior police officer or politician order another police officer not to proceed with an investigation, then the officer should arrest the senior officer perverting the course of justice. Nobody is above the law.
Reply from Humberside Police
Thank you for your email dated 15th April 2012. I am sure that you appreciate officers will take and rely upon legal advice and, where that advice differs from your understanding of the law, officers are entitled to rely on the advice they receive from the Legal Services Unit.
Our Legal Services Unit advise that there is still no offence known to law that can be, or should be, investigated.
The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution. The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown and created a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament). The Bill of Rights also enshrined into English law (for at that time there was no United Kingdom) the prohibition on any impeachment for words or deed made in Parliament.
The recent prosecution of a number of MPs for fraud was in relation to their conduct outside the chamber of the Commons (or in the case of some Defendants, the Lords), and therefore parliamentary privilege did not apply (see for example R v. Morley and others [2010]). However, that can be contrasted to a number of cases where so-called super injunctions were breached by MPs naming the parties but because they enjoyed parliamentary privilege (the statements were made in the chamber) no action could be taken for what would otherwise be contempt of court.
The Bill of Rights also founds the common law principle that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, therefore any Parliament can repeal the acts of a former Parliament and no Act of Parliament can be ultra vires, as Parliament’s competence to legislate is absolute (though the Courts have drawn a practical distinction between legislative theory and legislative practice, for example it would be practically impossible to repeal an Act giving independence to a former colony, but theoretically possible).
Because of this principle Acts of previous Parliaments that have been repealed no longer have any legal effect and that includes all previous Acts relating to treason that have been repealed or amended. The supremacy of Parliament also allows for Parliament to legislate to give effect to treaties relating to international or supranational bodies, such as the European Union and whatever ones personal political viewpoint there is no offence at criminal law (whether treason or otherwise) committed by such an enactment.
As you are aware the enforcement of any law would be through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament or the actions of the government in entering into international treaty obligations. Indeed one of the very issues you refer to, the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union (or the European Economic Community as it then was), was considered by the Court in the case of Blackburn v. The Attorney General [1971]. In that case the Court was asked to make a declaration that in signing the Treaty of Rome the Government would surrender the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and that in doing so it would be acting in contravention of the law.
The Court held that the treaty was a matter for the exercise of the sovereign power of the Crown (exercising the Royal Prerogative) but that it was not binding unless and until ratified by an Act of Parliament, and once there was an Act of Parliament the treaty became the ordinary law of the United Kingdom to the extent that Parliament decreed. In that Judgment Lord Justice Salmon also stated that the Courts have no power over, and are not concerned with political decisions.
As for Acts of Parliament, the Courts have also decided that there is no power to declare them ultra vires or to overturn them (there is no power to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional as there is in some other jurisdictions: the best that can be achieved is to make a declaration of incompatibility as is possible with the Human Rights Act, but the Court cannot overturn a Act), see for example Pitkin v. British Railways Board [1974] or Manuel and Others v. Attorney General [1982].
I must therefore conclude on the basis of legal advice that there is no offence known to law identified in your email or its attachments, or any of your earlier emails and that the views expressed, while doubtless passionately held, are political views and therefore not the concern of the police or the Courts. I am therefore unable to progress these matters any further.
I am grateful for the evident love for and loyalty to your country that you show, however in light of the above we cannot lawfully act on any of the information which you have provided.
Yours sincerely
Rebuttal to Humberside’s legal argument.
The rebuttal is show in red with Humberside’s original argument in black.
Please forgive this lengthy rebuttal but there is too much at stake to skimp on the detail.
I understand fully that you will seek legal advice on a subject in which normal police training give limited knowledge. Those who have given you this advice would seem to be woefully ignorant of Constitutional Law. Having received this dubious advice it is your clear duty to check and satisfy yourself that the decision you reach is the best possible one for the subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution. The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown and created a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament). The Bill of Rights also enshrined into English law (for at that time there was no United Kingdom) the prohibition on any impeachment for words or deed made in Parliament.
The statement that the English constitution is not fixed and is subject to alteration is not exactly accurate. There are some parts of the constitution, which are with us forever no-matter how inconvenient for government it may be. For example Magna Carta 1215 is not subject to change by parliament because it is not parliamentary law, it is a binding contract between the King and his subjects and can only be amended or repealed when the King meets with his subjects and agree to any changes. Like all contracts it is legally enforceable in any of the ordinary courts in the land.
The Declaration of Rights 1688/9 is likewise a contract between the King and the subjects and it is not within the reach of parliament to alter or repeal. The 1689 Bill of Rights is a parliamentary bill but, unlike every other bill passed by parliament, it is not subject to amendment or repeal by parliament. The reasons are two fold (1) the Bill of Rights incorporates the Declaration of Rights which is beyond the reach of parliament by virtue of the fact it is a contract between the King and the subject, and (2) the people who passed the Declaration into law were sent to Westminster not as Members of Parliament, but as the people’s representatives of the people at a convention. Having accepted the Declaration, William Prince of Orange was offered the Crown. Having accepted it and now being King of England he called a parliament but instead of holding an election he appointed the representatives of the people as his parliament. They passed the Declaration into law as the Bill of Rights 1689, with two codicils, any amendments have to be made before 23 September 1689 or they are void and not lawful. This bill was for all time. The 1689 Bill of Rights cannot be repealed nor can it be amended. The Bill of Rights, was created by those who represented the opinion of the people, as to how the English wished to be governed. The will of the people is supreme over the Sovereign and parliament.
Habeas Corpus can be traced back to the legal codes of Alfred the Great and as such it has been the law of England from times of greatest antiquity and has become the custom and practice of England and is itself beyond the reach of parliament, because of its very antiquity. So parliament cannot do anything it feels like.
The recent prosecution of a number of MPs for fraud was in relation to their conduct outside the chamber of the Commons (or in the case of some Defendants, the Lords), and therefore parliamentary privilege did not apply (see for example R v. Morley and others [2010]). However, that can be contrasted to a number of cases where so-called super injunctions were breached by MPs naming the parties but because they enjoyed parliamentary privilege (the statements were made in the chamber) no action could be taken for what would otherwise be contempt of court.
The MP expenses scandal in defrauding the tax-payer took place within the walls of the Palace of Westminster and not outside as is claimed. This is because they submitted their fraudulent claims within the Palace and then attempted to claim parliamentary privilege to avoid justice. Members of Parliament are fully subject to the criminal law within the Palace of Westminster and this includes the Chamber of the Commons. It is inconceivable that if, during a debate, a member stabbed to death another member that he should be able to claim parliamentary privilege. He would be subject to arrest and trial in Her Majesty’s ordinary courts. Members of Parliament, in the normal course of their work, are entitled to claim parliamentary privilege anywhere within the Palace of Westminster. If this were not the case it would severely restrict their ability to do the job we pay them to do. The normal course of their work is to carry out their duties in conformity with the criminal law. To use the dispatch box to conspire to commit Sedition or Treason is not in the ‘normal’ course of their work and it is contrary to the criminal law. Lord Brown Wilkinson observed in Pepper v Hart: “It is for the courts to decide if a privilege exists”. Politicians have no privilege which allows them to commit Sedition or Treason in the Palace of Westminster. The rule of law requires that the law applies to every subject alike, if we make exceptions and grant immunities from the criminal law we do not have the rule of law.
Parliament claim to rule by the powers of Henry VIII. These powers were illegal when King Henry VIII, an arrogant bully, used them. Parliament evidence this claim, to Henry VIII's powers, by the blue eyed baby rule. This stated that they could pass a law that all blue eyed baby boys born in June are to be killed. That would be the law and the babies would be killed.
Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice of the Kings Bench 1628 ruled that “Parliament may sometimes pass a law which is against common right and reason, or is repugnant, or impossible to perform. The Common Law will intercede and strike it down” It would clearly be against common right and reason to kill baby boys simply because they have blue eyes and were born in June. It would be so repugnant to all reasonable men and people of England that it would be impossible to perform. The people would never allow it even if it meant a civil war fought to save the children. The Common Law would be enforced to strike it down and by use of extreme violence if necessary. Would a police officer be prepared to collect for extermination these children? Assuming the answer to be 'No' a policeman's own conscience would draw a line beyond which he believed parliament have no authority to go.
Because of this principle Acts of previous Parliaments that have been repealed no longer have any legal effect and that includes all previous Acts relating to treason that have been repealed or amended. The supremacy of Parliament also allows for Parliament to legislate to give effect to treaties relating to international or supranational bodies, such as the European Union and whatever ones personal political viewpoint there is no offence at criminal law (whether treason or otherwise) committed by such an enactment.
As for Acts of Parliament, the Courts have also decided that there is no power to declare them ultra vires or to overturn them (there is no power to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional as there is in some other jurisdictions: the best that can be achieved is to make a declaration of incompatibility as is possible with the Human Rights Act, but the Court cannot overturn a Act), see for example Pitkin v. British Railways Board [1974] or Manuel and Others v. Attorney General [1982].
Most of the Treason Acts have not been repealed. The only important Treason Act to be repealed was the 1795 Treason Act by Tony Blair’s Government. This was an illegal action and ultra vires. It was an act of treason on the part of Tony Blair and his government. The 1795 Treason Act made it an offence of treason to restrain the Queen. To repeal this act places the Queen at grave risk of restraint which is itself an act of High Treason. Why would Tony Blair want to restrain the Queen? Since Treason is a criminal offence and since politicians are subject to the criminal law, in or out of parliament, serving an arrest warrant on Anthony Lynton Blair for High Treason against Her Majesty by removing the protection surrounding her would seem to be the lawful thing to do.
As you are aware the enforcement of any law would be through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament or the actions of the government in entering into international treaty obligations. Indeed one of the very issues you refer to, the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union (or the European Economic Community as it then was), was considered by the Court in the case of Blackburn v. The Attorney General [1971]. In that case the Court was asked to make a declaration that in signing the Treaty of Rome the Government would surrender the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and that in doing so it would be acting in contravention of the law.
The Court held that the treaty was a matter for the exercise of the sovereign power of the Crown (exercising the Royal Prerogative) but that it was not binding unless and until ratified by an Act of Parliament, and once there was an Act of Parliament the treaty became the ordinary law of the United Kingdom to the extent that Parliament decreed. In that Judgement Lord Justice Salmon also stated that the Courts have no power over, and are not concerned with political decisions.
Blackburn v. The Attorney General 1971 was a legal challenge against the government. We do know that governments cannot be challenged in the courts. However individual Ministers can be challenged. If allegations against such Ministers are laid before the police then the police service has a clear duty to uphold the criminal law and to place those who transgress it before the courts. In the words of their police oath; ‘… without favour, fear, malice, or ill will’. As the holder of the office of constable they are not permitted to grant a dispensation from a criminal enquiry because the crime occurred on the floor of either Houses of Parliament.
Chief Justice Vaughn, of the Common Pleas, in Sorrel v Thomas 1674 on the dispensing power of the King applies. The King cannot grant a dispensation from the penalty for a Common Law offence. He can grant a dispensation for a statute offence, but not for all statute offences. If a third party is involved, who would have a right to sue for damages, the King cannot give a dispensation from the penalty. What the King cannot do, parliament, who operate in the Kings name, also cannot do.
The job of parliament is clear they are there to assist the Sovereign who is the Supreme Governor of England in the government of the Kingdom. Parliamentary privilege is to assist parliament to operate within the law of the constitution, and only in the best interests of the Kingdom and the subject. Not their own inflated egos.
Stephen J. was the acknowledged 19th century master of the principles of the criminal law; he used unambiguous language when he said. “I know of no proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be withdrawn from the ordinary course of criminal justice”. To conspire to commit treason at the despatch box is still under the ordinary rule of law a major crime against the state and is a suitable matter to be heard in the ordinary courts of this Her Majesty’s United Kingdom.
Patterson J. in Stockdale v Hansard said that he noted the absence of any argument that parliament could vest with impunity a breach of the law by any one. Lord Brown Wilkinson explained “so far as the courts are concerned the courts will not allow any challenge to be made to what is said and done within the walls of parliament in the performance of its legislative functions and protection of its established privileges”. It is not a legislative function of the House of Commons to destroy the House of Lords! To do so is for the House of Commons to interfere with the cognisance of the House of Lords to conduct its own business without interference from the House of Commons; this is an act of Treason against the constitutional arrangements of parliament, contrary to Common or Higher Law. Neither is it the normal function of parliament to sign any treaty which transfers powers into the hands of a foreign power such as the EU. This was specifically made illegal and an Act of High Treason by the 1351 Act of Praemunire, the 1351 Act of Provisors, the 1392 Act of Praemunire, the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1689 Bill of Rights. The acts of Praemunire and Provisors were repealed in 1948 and 1967. These acts were brought in because King Edward III considered that to dispose of any English asset to a foreign owner or for his subjects to be drawn out of his Kingdom, or for foreign laws to be imposed in his Kingdom was an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England. These were actions of High Treason against the King. The politicians who were responsible for selling off our assets to foreigners have fallen foul of those very Acts. Is the Honour and Dignity of Queen Elizabeth II any less than the Honour and Dignity of King Edward III?
Finally the above is not the opinion of a group of solicitors but legal pronouncements and precedents based on Constitution Law and set by wise and learned judges over several hundred years. These judgements have kept this country safe from tyrannical leaders and attempts by foreign governments to dominate us. It would be extremely prudent of you to consider that to ignore this advice will make you and your force liable to an accusation of misprision of treason and, since you discussed it with your legal advisers, compounding treason. This can be avoided if you give my allegations a crime number and carry out an investigation or if you feel it is outside your area of competency, pass on to the MET.
Respectfully Submitted.
Letter of reply from Humberside Police Legal Services unit.
ALLEGATIONS OF TREASON, ETC
Thank you for your letter dated 16 May 2012, I am sorry that you feel I dismissed what you considered to be a rebuttal but I saw little point in restating the matters that had already communicated to you by Sergeant PARSONS in his emails.
Your email (which I think was 17 April, though in your email dated 15 May 2012 you referred to it as 7 April) was largely a reiteration of arguments previously made and there was nothing in anything you said that would alter the advice I gave or the response you received.
In my role I am required to advise the Chief Constable (and officers under his direction and control) and I cannot disclose the nature of that advice to any other person due to legal professional privilege.
However, you have asked for legal reasons why your original allegations of treason should not be investigated. I can only repeat what has previously been communicated to you, namely that you have identified no offences known to law.
Undoubtedly you believe, passionately, that the constitution and the law mean that the actions of various politicians and others you have outlined constitute treason and other offences but your interpretation of the constitution and the law is not shared by Humberside Police.
Specifically you believe that certain statutes cannot be repealed whereas it is clearly recognised by the Courts in the United Kingdom that any statute can be repealed and that repeal can be both express and implied (that is to say by the subsequent enactment of a statute that is wholly incompatible with and directly contradicts an earlier statute).
You are perfectly emitted to disagree with that interpretation but as rt is the Courts interpretation of the law. and as any criminal prosecution for any offence under statute or the common law must be brought before those courts, Humberside Police must follow that interpretation On that basis there s no offence known to law for allegedly contravening a statute that has been repealed or by enacting any statute as such enactment represents the law as rt is not as some may wish it to be
Regarding the various comments of politicians and others referred to in your correspondence and from others in a similar vein, I fully accept that you believe these to be treasonable, but the law does not The fact that some of those making the comments may have taken oaths of allegiance to the Crown or to others does not make their actions contrary to the law Nor does it undermine the Coronation Oath as the Oath is to govern according to the laws and customs of the various territories named.
That Oath does not mean that those laws and customs are immutable and incapable of change; it means to govern in accordance with the law and customs of the named territories as that law and those customs are and as they change from time to time (for example Pakistan is named but that country is now a republic).
You may not agree with that interpretation and that is your right in a free country, but the converse is also true and others are free to disagree with your interpretation of the law. Hence my comment about agreeing to disagree.
In summary, while2 you are undoubtedly passionate about the actions of some politicians and others and you see those actions as treasonable, the view of Humberside Police is that those actions are not treason within the meaning of the criminal law, and as officers of the Crown police officers will concern themselves with the legal definition of treason and not a political or personal definition. however passionately held
Therefore as previously stated and repeated above in Humberside Polices understanding and interpretation of the law your complaints do not reveal to any offences known to law and cannot therefore be recorded as offences
I am sorry that this is not the answer you have been pressing for but it is the final determination of the matter on the facts, opinions and complaints you have given
and therefore regrettably I am unable to expend any further time in correspondence on these matters.
Albert Burgess’s reply to Humberside Police Legal Services Unit.
Jack Lewis has sent me a copy of your letter to him to comment on. I understand fully your reasoning about not being able to identify any offences Known to law. By that I take it law as it stands today. I hope you will understand that my letter must of necessity be lengthy but England is worth the effort. However the law stands as it does today because politicians have repealed or so they think crimes like Sedition at Common Law in a sly and underhand way slipping it in to the Coroners and Justices Bill, when it is a major offence against the state. You are fully aware that English Law is quite specific over the fact that an individual cannot give consent to another to cause them harm. I believe this was last tested in court in the case of the two sadomasochistic homosexuals one of whom tied up his partner and then whipped him with chains causing actual bodily harm. His defence which his partner agreed with was that he had his partner’s permission. As a result he admitted the offence, he was subsequently convicted.
The English Constitution developed over a number of years and as a result of despotic rule, the people built in checks and balances into the way Parliament is constructed and how Parliament works. It is these checks and balances which the actions of Blair Clegg and Cameron have and are planning to remove with the 1999 House of Lords Act and the proposed closure of the House of Lords in favour of an elected senate.
I would hope you will agree with me that English Law is firmly grounded in common sense, it is plain and simple to understand in spite of the fact lawyers tend to exaggerate the difficulties after all you do need to make a living.
So let us start with common sense, our forefathers designed Parliament with checks and balances it is not necessary for me to repeat those checks and balances here. These checks and balances are built in to the English Constitution; any attempt to subvert those arraignments constitutes the Common Law Offence of Sedition. Constitutional and Common Law are higher laws which govern the way in which we are governed and just as you could not give me permission to break your legs with a club hammer, so the Constitution refuses permission to the King to break it. Because the Constitution and Common Law place restrictions on the King as to what he may or may not do, so does it place restrictions on what Parliament which operates in the Kings name can also not do.
I would like you to cast your mind back to 886 when King Alfred showed the Witan the book of laws he had written by selecting the best laws and customs from all the old Kingdoms which had joined to make his Kingdom. The Witan said this was good law and the book was promulgated across Alfred’s Kingdom as the first ever book of Constitutional law, Athelstan Alfred’s Grandson unified the whole of what we now call England under one King but kept his grandfathers laws, laws still in use by Edward the Confessor when he died. After the invasion of Duke William of Normandy when he assumed the Crown the first thing he did was to keep the laws of Edward the Confessor, Alfred’s law. His son William Rufus tried to rule outside the law and was shot through the heart with an arrow on a hunting trip, we are told this was an accident, His Brother Henry I also tried ruling us outside the law and was pulled up by the Barons he subsequently reissued his fathers laws as the Charter of Liberties 1100, a reissue of Alfred’s Laws. In 1213 King John surrendered England to the Pope a Constitutional impossibility and two years later was forced at Runnymede to sign Magna Carta 1215 a reissue of the Charter of Liberties of Henry I. In 1216 Henry III age nine became King and the Earl of Pembroke was appointed his guardian, as soon as he was old enough to rule in his own right he placed the Earl and six other Barons and two Bishops who had assisted his father to surrender England to the Pope on trial for high treason and he wrote to the Pope stating in all things ecclesiastical he answered directly to God and not the Pope and the thousand marks a year paid by his father and until he became of age would no longer be paid.
In 1366 King Edward III received a demand from the Pope for the unpaid monies threatening to take action against Edward if it was not paid, Edward spoke with the Bishops and the Barons and they spoke with the Commons who the following day first the Bishops then the Barons and finally the Commons told Edward that King John did not own England he only holds it in trust for those who follow on John broke the law and his agreement with the Pope did not count and the monies were not to be paid. I hope you can understand the Constitutional importance of this ruling. It makes the surrender by Heath of Parliaments authority to govern England to the EEC in whole or in part an act of High Treason. Queen Elizabeth II had no authority to assent to the 1972 EEC Act, and by default her Parliament had no authority to even consider the matter. Likewise John Major had no right to make Queen Elizabeth II a vassal Queen to Brussels another Constitutional impossibility. (The Queen is now a citizen of Europe)
In 1628 King Charles I was given the Petition of Right a demand we be ruled by our laws, Alfred’s Laws in 1641 the Grand remonstrance again demanding we be ruled according to our laws was presented to King Charles who took no notice so in 1649 we took his head. The Bill of Rights 1689 which incorporates the Declaration of Rights was the final demand that we be ruled according to our ancient laws and customs Alfred’s Laws. This is still fully in force today.
These major laws which guarantee our rights and freedoms are not up for discussion Parliament has for the 414 years since the formation of Parliament in 1275 until 1689 been the champion of the rights of the Common Man and the main champion in Parliament were the Hereditary Peers, when ever the Commons put forward a bill detrimental to the good of the Common Man it was the Lords who rejected it. What we have today is a situation where the Government are trying to remove the Upper House so that they will be the sole arbiters of what happens to the Common Man and it isn’t good. I have a letter from a Dr Egan who works for Andrew Dismore MP which states that there is an interesting discussion as to whether by passing a bill Parliament could do away with the rule of law. This is what the Commons are discussing, Why I ask? What do they hope to gain we know they think they can steal our money with impunity? We know they have legalised homosexuality which is freely practiced by MP’s and which has broken down a major moral barrier making the country morally poorer, now we have groups like stonewall advocating the legalising of paedophilia. When I was a young boy you rarely heard of rape because the penalty for rape was 15 years hard labour, Parliament removed the death penalty for murder and every other crimes penalty was down graded so a rapist is unlikely to receive more than 5 years in one of Her Majesty’s hotels complete with film shows Gym and games room. But and it is a big But the number of young women and children being raped and murdered has gone through the roof.
We understand fully that no Parliament may bind another just as we know that our forefathers set up Parliament with checks and balances, we know that any statute can be repealed either directly or by implied repeal. But we are not talking statute we are talking about things like Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Right 1689 which are not statute but are binding contracts between the Sovereign and the Subject, Habeas Corpus which we can trace back to the ancient book of law the Dome promulgated as the first ever book of Constitutional Law by Alfred the Great and as such it has been the law since times of greatest antiquity with the approval of those who use the law and as such has become the Custom and Practice of England and as such is beyond the reach of Parliament. The interpretation you say the Courts put upon the law is the law but that interpretation you are using today was not present 100 years ago, it has been pushed upon us by a House of Commons in a power Grab. In 1911 Asquith said his Parliament Act was the first stage in the removal of the second chamber. Asquith was one man and a Fabian he does not now and did not then have authority to overturn 1000 years of Constitutional legal history, any more than Blair had to remove the Hereditary Peers from the Lords. Just as Clegg and Cameron do not have the right to Close the Lords or change its essence from that put there by our forefathers after the lessons of history.
Chief Justice Stonor of the Kings Bench in 1345 Ruled “Law is that which is right” and his Colleague Chief Justice Beresford of the Common Pleas Ruled “There is no such thing as a bad law, for if it is bad it is not law” and Hilary J said we will not and we cannot change the ancient usages. Neither Stonor Beresford or Hilary have as yet been over ruled, and as there is no such thing as obsolescence of a law in England those two Chief Justices rulings still apply, as does the ruling by Hilary J. We are here talking about the ancient usages of the Constitution. Of this Kingdom.
Besides at the end of the day it matters not one jot what Parliament or the trial judge say the law as you know is what the jury say it is. As a serving police officer I found a woman slumped in a door way at 2.30 am she told me she had set fire to her husband because he had beaten her and kicked her and he wouldn’t do that again. Apart from me who in my evidence when asked why I had not arrested her replied this is neither the time nor the place to teach you the law, but it is not necessarily an offence to set fire to your husband. If you genuinely believe your life is at risk and if you believe the only way to preserve your own life is to set fire to your husband that is not necessarily an offence which is precisely why we have juries to sort that one out. 14 police officers gave evidence against her the fire brigade and Met police forensic people gave evidence against her and she admitted it you could say an open and shut case, the jury did not agree and acquitted her, and in her case nullified the law on arson with intent to endanger life. Fortunately for him the smoke alarms worked, still not a good idea to beat and kick your wife.
What Blair Clegg and Cameron have done and are doing is just plain wrong and seriously wrong because it places every one of Her Majesty’s subjects at risk, remember Dr Egan? Suppose the unrestrained Commons decided rape was no longer a criminal offence, and your 14 year old daughter or your wife was gang raped by a group of MP‘s out for the night. She would be damaged for life her chances of ever trusting another man would vanish; she might even lose her trust in you. And you could do nothing about it the police legal department would tell you the politicians removed the law on rape so tough go away and cry to yourself we don’t want to know. But Law is that which is right! And there is no such thing as a bad law for if it is bad it is not Law!
Who would you believe then the men who raped your daughter or wife, or Stonor and Beresford? You are a lawyer you will argue black is white and wrong is right depending on the client you have. This is precisely what you are doing. But sooner or later if you are a real Englishman you will ask yourself is this right by doing what I am doing am I for short term gain for my client risking long term even terminal harm to the country of my birth and to which I owe a duty of allegiance even at the risk of my life in the long term interests of my children and their children. Ask yourself the question.
Parliament do not have authority to repeal any law designed to protect this ancient Kingdom to do so places the Kingdom at serious risk and is in its own right an act of High Treason against the State. It is true we cannot arrest and prosecute Parliament, but we can arrest and prosecute individual Ministers for their crimes even when those crimes are committed at the despatch box. Every door in this Kingdom is open for us to prosecute Treason against the State, the safety of every living soul in the Kingdom requires it.
The offences you say are not known to law are subverting the Constitutional arraignments of Parliament the Major Crime of Sedition at Common Law and at this level of Sedition an Act of High Treason against the Constitution and People of this Kingdom the very crime Lord Strafford and King Charles I lost their heads for and which required James II to flee to France. These are crimes known to law. And they are the crimes committed by Blair and which are being committed by Clegg and Cameron at this very moment.
Respectfully submitted
Jack Lewis’ own reply to Humberside Legal Services Unit.
Thank you for your letter dated 18 May 2012. I realise that you are unlikely to reply to this letter so permit me to have the last word. It would seem from your 'interpretation' of the law that it is now no longer possible for anyone to commit sedition or treason, with the exception of plotting to murder the Queen or any other member of the Royal family. Your 'interpretation' has effectively removed the last vestige of protection for the people of this country from despotic and tyrannical rulers.
You are using this 'interpretation' to advise the Chief Constable that is not incumbent upon him to investigate my allegations. Therefore I give you notice that I shall be reporting you and the Chief Constable for misprision of treason to an authority that does not share your 'interpretation' of the law. Since you have argued away 'treason' this should not trouble you too much. However should you be wrong in your assessment of the law there will be only two ways in which you can escape arrest.
1 Reconsider your position and advise the Chief Constable to record my allegation and investigate them or to pass them on to a more appropriate authority.
2 Rely on the protection of corrupt Government officers and their violation of the Constitution of this country.
One is morally acceptable and the other isn't. I leave you to decide which is which.


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



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL