show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Allegiance. What is it, who is it owed too and why?

  • 0 Replies
  • 534 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4009
  • +75/-0
Allegiance. What is it, who is it owed too and why?
« on: March 04, 2018, 04:55:38 PM »
Cressida Dick                                                                                   Albert Burgess
Commissioner of the Metropolis                                                     
New Scotland Yard                                                                       
Victoria Embankment                                                                       
London                                                                                             
SW1A 2JL 
 
 
1 March 2018
 
 
 
Cressida,
 
Ref :  Constitutional Law and Allegiance
 
Allegiance.  What is it, who is it owed too and why? 
 
There are two types of allegiance due from an English/British natural born subject.  The first is to the King, the second is to the country.  The primary allegiance is to the King, the second allegiance is to the Kingdom.
 
Every natural born subject owes these allegiances from the second of taking the first breathe and it remains until the last breath.  It cannot be resigned and travels with you when out of the country.  At the age of twelve every person should swear an oath of allegiance (I took mine in school).  You have no right to renounce this allegiance and if you do, you commit treason against your King or the Kingdom you were born in.  If you emigrate to France for example and take French nationality, your first duty of loyalty is not to France but remains to England’s King and his Kingdom.  You cannot renounce this duty of loyalty.
 
Some of the King’s subjects are required to work on the King’s behalf.  People such as those in the Armed Forces, Judges, Politicians, Constables.  Each takes a physical oath to the King over and above the duty of loyalty they were born with.
 
There is a third type of allegiance.  That owed by visitors to the United Kingdom and it lasts as long as they benefit from the protection of the King’s law.  While here, they owe a temporary duty of allegiance to the King.  If a business man comes here from anywhere in the world outside the King’s control and he sets off a bomb, that is not an act of terrorism.  It is an act of treason because he is here under the protection of the King’s law so he owes the King a duty of allegiance  -  which he breached when he built the bomb and set it off, just as if a natural born subject sets off a bomb or attacks Her Majesty’s subjects.  Both he and the foreigner are making war on Her Majesty’s subjects within the realm.  It is not a terrorist act, it is an act of treason.  The Anti Terrorism Acts are meaningless and should not be used to water down acts of treason.  As a holder of the office of Constable, it is your job to apply the law using the appropriate law.  In this case the treason laws.
 
What follows was in answer to someone who has no idea about our law.  Please read it.
 
The 1351 Act of Praemunire was repealed as a statute in the 1967 Criminal Law Act.  But that does not remove Praemunire as a major crime and a type of treason.  King Edward III brought in Praemunire as a crime akin to treason because he believed it an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England.  It included, to have foreign law imposed in his Kingdom, to have his subjects drawn out of his Kingdom to be tried in foreign courts and for his Bishops to excommunicate his subjects by order of the Pope.  Now the question you must ask yourself is this.  Is the honour and dignity of Queen Elizabeth II any less than the honour and dignity of King Edward III ?  Of course it cannot be as they both hold the Office of the Crown and the Crown of England is eternal and unchangeable.  So if those things above were a Praemunire for King Edward III, they are a Praemunire for Queen Elizabeth II.  And a Praemunire is an act of treason directly against the Sovereign.
 
Let me try and explain why the King is sovereign.  Parliament claim, with the backing of Professor Dicey, that the 1689 Bill of Rights transferred ultimate sovereignty from the King to the elected house.  They state the Bill of Rights laid down things the King cannot do.  But there was nothing new about these restrictions on the powers of the King.  The restrictions contained in the Bill of Rights are also to be found in Magna Carta 1215, the Charter of Liberties 1100 and the laws of William I, the laws of Edward the Confessor and the Legal Codes of Alfred the Great who gave us our first English law.
 
On the 8th March 1784 after a debate which began in January 1784 after a 22 year running battle between King George III and the House of Commons as to where ultimate sovereignty lay, with the House of Commons as the elected house or with the lawfully anointed King, William Pitt asked, is it better to be ruled by one despot or by 350 despots who can never agree ?  By parliamentary vote, King George III won.  So by the common law of Kingship and by Parliamentary vote, ultimate sovereignty lies exclusively with Queen Elizabeth II.  Anyone who claims differently imagines the death of Queen Elizabeth II as a fully sovereign Queen and commits and major act of treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.  This includes police officers who follow the instructions of Government that contravene the Queen’s law as it is written.  There is no principle of obsolesce known to English law.  So a law given us by King Alfred which applies to a crime committed, is the law you should use.  All of Alfred’s law was statute law.  But because it has been in use from before time of memory, it has become the custom and practice of England and is thus beyond the reach of Parliament.
 
Naturalization
 
English Common and Constitutional Law grants to a naturalized subject most though not all the rights of a natural born subject.  The 1701 Act of Settlement is major constitutional law because it lays down the inheritance of the Crown.  English law does not get bigger than that.  And it states that a naturalised subject cannot receive any order of nobility, cannot sit in either House of Parliament, cannot sit on the Privy Council nor can they hold any office of Public Trust, military or civil.  The reason is that their first duty of loyalty is to the country of their birth.  If they are born in Britain, they are naturalized by their birth certificate.  By law, it takes 10 generations to remove the ‘foreign allegiance’ from them and they then become natural British born subjects.  As large scale immigration started in the 1960’s and ten generations equates to some 200 years, this applies to very few people.
 
The Cabinet Office states that the 1701 Act of Settlement restrictions on naturalized subjects were removed under the 1949 Act of Nationality.  This Act is ordinary administrative law, a normal statute.  A statute law cannot repeal impliedly or otherwise, a constitutional law.  I refer you to the ruling by Sir John Laws in the Metric Martyrs case.  Apart from this, even the King cannot change the ancient law that forbids holding an office of public trust.  I also refer you to “A Treatise On the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown”, Joseph Chitty 1820 page 15.  “The King cannot by himself make or unmake law”.  So even the King cannot alter the terms of the 1701 Act of Settlement, or Chitty 1820.  Moreover, Parliament cannot make any law on naturalization without including a disabling clause that prevents any naturalized subject from receiving any order of nobility, from sitting in either House of Parliament, sitting on the Privy Council or holding any office of public trust military or civil. 
 
“The Commentaries on the Laws of England” by Sir William Blackstone page 374 states that any and all repeals of any section of the Act of Settlement that attempt to repeal these restrictions placed on all naturalized subjects is unlawful and void.  Parliament claim to rule by Henry VIII powers.  But these powers were illegal even when used by Henry VIII, an arrogant bully.  Parliament claim they could make a law saying that all blue eyed baby boys born in June must be killed.  Would you as the holder of the office of constable, enforce such a law?  I would hope neither you nor any of your officers would enforce such a law.  But it is not enough just to not apply such a law.  Such a law would be a conspiracy by members of both Houses to commit infanticide, a major crime and your oath to Her Majesty demands that you arrest all politicians and peers who voted for it. 
 
If you would do that, why do you enforce laws which restrict our ancient right to free speech ?  If for example, I complain bitterly about Islamic rape gangs and I do this publicly you would rush round and arrest me for a hate crime.  But which is the bigger hate crime  -  for me to complain about it or for Muslims to set out to rape and prostitute young white English girls with impunity ?  I would remind you that sex with a girl under 13 carries a power of arrest.  In the case of sx with a girl from 14 to 16 you have a power of arrest for indecent assault.  To prostitute a girl under 21 carries a power of arrest.  To use anyone as a sex object or any other kind of slave carries a power of arrest. 
 
You have a clear duty to support Her Majesty in Her Coronation Oath to her subjects.  The offences I have outlined are far greater than my calling a Muslim names or putting a slice of bacon on a Mosque door handle.  As a police force nationally, you have failed abysmally to protect our children.  Your constant pursuit of Tommy Robinson and Britain First who are merely supporting Her Majesty in Her Coronation Oath is not only wrong it, constitutes a serious abuse of authority.  You, as a police force are complying with illegal government orders to protect Islam, an alien and evil satanic cult, over and above the rights of Her Majesty’s natural born subjects in their own country.
 
You are requested and required to uphold the terms of the 1701 Act of Settlement in full and to remove all naturalized subjects from all offices of public trust in your organisation, to stop persecuting all Her Majesty’s subjects who are exercising their ancient right of free speech and you can remove all naturalized subjects from both Houses of Parliament and every other office of public trust.
 
Respectfully submitted
 
Albert Burgess
Cc all Chief Constables


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