show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Please read this in full it concerns acts of treason and sedition

  • 0 Replies
  • 627 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4013
  • +75/-0
The Supreme Court Judges Albert Burgess
Parliament Square
London
SW1P 3BD
Ref the Royal Prerogative 14th March 2018

Please read this in full it concerns acts of treason and sedition
The Making of a Statute law
Our forefathers following the actions of the errant King John of Magna Carta fame on being admitted to Parliament in 1297 decided it was essential to build safe guards in the way Parliament worked, So it was decided Parliament would be a tripartite agreement the House of Commons originating Bills which were passed to the House of Lords as a Petition, the House of Lords being led entirely by their collective conscience would approve the Bill send the Bill back for amendment or reject it outright. Once the Bill received the assent of the House of Lords and it was passed too the King as an ordinance, who would reject the Bill ask for amendments to the Bill or accept it and strictly in accordance with his conscience grant or refuse the assent. If the King refuses the assent he cannot be asked to give his reasons or forced to explain his reasons. The King can ask for a law to be placed on the statute books and as long as both houses agree it becomes an ordinary statute.
One of our most important chief Justices Sir Edward Coke is Quoted above by Sir Mathew Hale who is acknowledged as our best ever Chief Justice in his history of the common law. Sir Mathew Hale was Lord Chief Justice of England under King Charles II
The Royal Assent
Our forefathers determined that the Kings they elected should be seen to be above the common man and the Peerage who get their noble status by the King. This would have been granted to someone who distinguished himself in battle or the work he did in public office in the service of the King or his Kingdom. They laid down rules the King was required to live by, the Royal Prerogative allows the King to do a great many things probably the most important prerogative is his authority to say NO to both Houses of Parliament when he rejects a Parliamentary Bill or as we have seen above an ordinance. In order to do that the King must personally see and read all ordinances put before him by Parliament, Henry VIII not wishing to be seen to be murdering his wife, which in fact he was! Appointed a committee of five Peers to sign her death warrant, this is what we call the automatic assent. Like many things Henry VIII did it was and still is contrary to our common and constitutional law. Hence illegal. When King George V came to the Throne of England he was told by a government minister that he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them without the approval of a Government Minister. This effectively transferred the prerogative from the King to his ministers, this, the King is forbidden by our laws governing our Kings from doing. To allow this diminishes the Crown for the same reason the King cannot sell or give away any Crown Estate property.
(A)The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognised in the United Kingdom as the sole prerogative of the Sovereign and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.
Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting on his or her own initiative. Since the 19th century, by convention, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet—who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision—has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised. The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.
Today the royal prerogative is available in the conduct of the government of the United Kingdom, inclincluding foreign affairs, defence, and national security. The monarchy has a significant constitutional presence in these and other matters, but limited power, because the exercise of the prerogative is in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials.
From (A) above is how the Royal Prerogative is administered since it was stolen from George V an act of high treason.
Sir William Blackstone Chief Justice of the Common Please states By the word prerogative we usually understand that special pre-eminance which the King hath over and above all other persons, and out of the ordinary course of the common law, in right of his Royal dignity.It sygnifies, in its etymology, from something that or demanded before or in preference to all others. And hence it follows that it must be singular and eccentrical; that it can only apply to those rights and capacitieswhich the King enjoys alone, in contradiction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects, for if once any one prerogative of the Crown could be held in common with the subject it would cease to be prerogative any longer. And therefore Finch (Chief Justice of the Common Pleas) lays it down as a maxim. That the prerogative is that law in case of the King, which is law in no other. This prevents the use of the Royal Prerogative by anyone but the Monarch, the use of the prerogative by ministers imagines the death of her Majesty as a fully Sovereign Queen of England from which all her other titles pre-eminences and superiorities flow.
You can see from the above the automatic prerogative given by a panel of five Peers selected cross party by the government of the day. That and any use of the prerogative by government ministers constitutes an act of high treason contrary to the 1351 treason Act.
The argument the 1689 Bill of Rights which incorporates the 1689 Declaration of Rights, transferred sovereignty from the King to the elected House, is simply not true, the restrictions on the actions of the King in the Declaration and Bill of Rights are only those restrictions placed on himself by King Alfred known as the Great and they are repeated in the 1100 Charter of Liberties, 1215 Magna Carta and the 1628 Petition of Right.
So as no Parliamentary Bills have received the personnel assent from the Monarch according to a report by the House of Commons library since 1854 not one has the authority of law being only parliamentary ordinances and falling short of being statues or Acts of Parliament. This means no laws including those laws given us by the EEC/EU have any pretence of being legally made laws in England.
This means anyone being sued for non payment of taxes or motoring offences quoting alleged statutes has the defence that the statute is only a Parliamentary ordinance as it does not have the personnel assent of the Sovereign so cannot be lawful acts of Parliament. Ever since the common man has been in Parliament he has used the tax voting power he had been given to grab more and more power. He got his first major victory when in 1420 the commons blackmailed Henry V into giving them the right to initiate all legislation. In 1609 they wrote to the House of Lords stating they were the Knights Burgesses and Barons of the High Court of Parliament, (with that letter they were attempting to con their way into the nobility and appoint them selves as Judges) the House of Lords replied correctly they will never accept them as Barons and without the House of Lords they are no court at all. In 1667 the House of Commons told the House of Lords they could not amend a money Bill a ten year argument between the houses ensued until 1677 the House of Lords in a moment of madness gave way to the foot stamping in the House of Commons. In 1909 Asquith a Fabian put forward a budget in which he was giving the working man a pension, the House of Lords believing they could not amend it rejected it because they knew the working man could not afford the extra tax he would have to pay on top of the tax he was already paying. Asquith told the House of Lords he was putting forward a bill to stop the House of Lords right to reject a Bill, The House of Lords said they would reject it. Asquith said he would put 500 new Peers into the House of Lords who would vote for its abolition. The House of Lords in another moment of madness gave way and the Parliament Act went before King Edward VII who refused the assent on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. He ordered Asquith to go to the Country, Asquith and his ministers lied their way around the country saying those bastards in the House of Lords living in their big mansions would not let the poor working man have a pension. The Peerage felt it was beneath them to travel the country saying look boys and girls this is actually why we rejected the budget. Asquith was returned and at the opening of Parliament when the King came to the Parliament Act in his speech he said the only reason I am doing this is because my ministers tell me I have too. But he could still have refused the assent I believe he would have refused it. Shortly after he fell ill and died. The constable in me would be very interested in the toxicology on his body. When George V came to the Throne he was told he could not use any of his prerogatives without the backing of a minister. He signed the 1911 Parliament Act and the House of Commons became what the common man in the commons had always wanted an elected dictatorship, The convention the House of Lords cannot amend a money bill has no basis in law. The Parliament Act is entirely contrary to our common and constitutional law and both are constitutionally illegal. The requirement for the Sovereign to get the backing of a minister constitutes a clear act of treason contrary to our common and constitutional law and the 1351 Treason Act and the 1848 Treason Felony Act. And this boys and girls is why we are in the mess we are currently in. As an aside it is treason to allow/encourage immigration to the extent it replaces the indigenous population and religion of this our Ancient Kingdom. A report on the Royal Prerogative published 17th August 2017 claims statute can repeal the Royal Prerogative this is arrant nonsense as without the sovereign personally using the Royal Prerogative to grant the assent the ordinance can never become a statute. I respectfully submit that when her Majesty’s subjects become aware of the House of Commons actions in diminishing the authority of her Majesty as the supreme Governor of England Oliver Cromwell’s removal of the MP’s and Peerage from Parliament will look like a walk in the Park. In the past the people have removed bad Kings the only one to survive was James II. I would remind you the people of this ancient Kingdom love their Queen and most think our politicians are corrupt.
You are the last Bastian short of the bullet to defend her Majesty’s authority and her subject’s freedom. The actions past and planned are entirely contrary to our common and constitutional law and constitute acts of treason against the English constitution and a personnel treason against her Majesty. As her Majesty’s Judges you took oaths of loyalty to her Majesty and to uphold the law. Do not accept what I have written research it for yourselves, and then issue bench warrants for the arrest of every government minister for treason and subverting the English common and constitutional law. There can be no more sitting on the fence you are either loyal subjects of her Majesty’s or traitors.
Respectfully submitted
Albert Burgess


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