Reply from Provost Marshall and Albert's reply to Aaron Fuller

  • 0 Replies
  • 466 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4119
  • +75/-0
Here is the reply to my letter to the Provost Marshall and my reply to them Aaron Fuller           
Director of Judicial Engagement policy  15, Parliament Road
Ministry of Defence Thame
Main Building, Horseguards Avenue South Oxfordshire
London OX9 3TE
SW1A 2HB 21st May 2018
Ref Prosecutions of soldiers
Dear Aaron
Thank you for your letter which I read as saying to the soldiers screw you we have changed the law.
Let us look at that. You have received advice from government lawyers who will put whatever argument government tell them too. And they are saying the later statutes override English common law. English common law is that law which has been in use for so long with the approval of those who use the law; it has become the custom and practice of England and as such is beyond the reach of even a lawfully constituted Parliament. We have not had one of those since the 1911 Parliament Act which overawed the House of Lords which you will find is an act of treason contrary to sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act. So as Parliament today is constituted as it is by a clear act of treason against the constitutional arrangements of Parliament, it constitutes an unlawful assembly. Also according to the common law of Kings the Royal Prerogative was given to the King to be used by him and only him and only for our good. The prerogative was usurped by Asquith in 1911 this imagined the death of the king which constituted treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. The use of the Royal Prerogative by Ministers therefore is a treasonable act. At no time in our history have the people ever voted for these changes.
Statue law must comply with the spirit of English Common and Constitutional Law. As members of the Military what Parliament does might not though it should concern you, but each and every one of you has taken an oath of loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II. Every thing you do every breath you take is in her Majesty’s service. When a civilian authority requests the assistance of the military to quell civil unrest, it is the common law which requires you to respond to that request, if you simply say no we don’t want to go, it is the common law which will form the basis of your prosecution. So being loyal subjects of her Majesty’s you respond to the request and attempt to put down the civil unrest in aid of the civil authority. Now in a complete rejection of the common law you are prepared to try for murder a soldier when he shoots and kills some one in circumstances the common law describes as justifiable homicide or accidental death. Yet the same unlawfully constituted Parliament which puts patriotic servants of the Queen on trial, for doing the job they were asked to do in support of upholding her Majesty’s law. This is the same Parliament that approved the letters granting the constitutionally illegal letters of immunity from prosecution for people who set out to murder indiscriminately her Majesty’s loyal subjects. Necessitating the deployment of our soldiers to N.I. in the first place. Letters designed to placate a terrorist organization noted for murder and torture. The law covering dispensation’s is quite simple that Great Queen Elizabeth I forgave the Earl of Essex a personnel treason against her, but took his head when his treason was against her subjects. I would refer you to the ruling of Vaughn CJ in the case Thomas vs Sorrel 1674 Charles II, which lays out when the Crown can dispense with a penalty for a crime and when the Crown can not dispense with a penalty for a crime. The Blair letters of immunity are illegal as is Mrs May’s confirmation of them. The rule is laid out on page 19 of my Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution I will enclose as a gift a copy of my book. I hope you find it an interesting exposition on English law it was written for children to read so is an easy read. It has been catalogued by Cambridge University Library.
Our first and most important duty is to Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors, her Majesty’s most important duty to her subjects is to keep them from harm. This includes those acting on her behalf to protect her subjects in her name.
If you are bringing prosecutions against soldiers acting on her Majesty’s behalf you must also bring a prosecution against her Majesty for vicarious liability for sending them on this dangerous in several senses duty. However we do not prosecute our Kings rather we execute their wicked and evil councillors, who badly advised her Majesty. So if you are going to prosecute these soldiers in defiance of the common law, then you are duty bound to prosecute the government Ministers who sent them there for vicarious liability. As any one with more than half a brain would know from the outset that people would be shot and killed. As for the rules of engagement they are nonsense to tell a soldier he cannot shoot until he has been shot at is stupid since the shot at him can kill him leaving him unable to fire back. It places our soldiers at unnecessary risk and gives aid to the enemy. And giving and comfort to the enemy constitutes an act of treason. The enemy in question if British nationals or from Eire residing in N.I. are making war on her Majesty’s subjects within the realm a clear act of treason. Treason we all have a duty to deal with. There is no time limit for prosecutions for treason committed within the realm.
The prosecution of our soldiers is illegal what you should be doing is picking up members of the various sects of the IRA and putting them on trial for treason. Failure to do that constitutes the major crime of Misprision of Treason at common law.
Respectfully submitted
Albert Burgess
Cc The Provost Marshal
The Judge Advocate General
The Attorney General


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


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk