Ref Offences against the Crown and the state.

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Ref Offences against the Crown and the state.
« on: December 15, 2018, 05:34:03 PM »
Gail Granville D.I Albert Burgess
SC01 Homicide and Major Crime Command
Special Enquiry Team
Room 205 Third Floor
Jubilee House
230-232 Putney Bridge Road 14th December 2018
SW15 2PD
Ref Offences against the Crown and the state.
Dear Gail
I received your letter this morning dated 11th December. I fail to see how investigating fully allegations of treason against the Crown and the State can be considered a waste of police time, when allocating 900 police officers to troll the internet to detect what you no doubt consider anti Islamic hate speech is a proper use of police time, and our money. I realize that in today’s politically correct police force for her Majesty’s loyal subjects to complain about Islamic rape gangs and terrorists set on murdering her Majesty’s subjects you will consider hate speech. I on the other hand know that it is a legitimate exercise of our ancient right of free speech which neither the Queen, Parliament or some politically correct fool in a tall hat can remove. It really is way past the time our police received training in our common and constitutional law.
For example my allegation was against the Rt Hon Theresa May MP not against Parliament as a whole, a considerable number of members of Parliament including some of her Majesty’s Ministers disagree strongly with her actions. You cannot there fore state this was the action of Parliament as a whole. Whilst you cannot go against Parliament, you most assuredly can go against individual Ministers or MP’s.
Your claim the authority of the Crown is absolute is factually incorrect the highest law giving body in this Ancient Kingdom are the Estates of England who have the authority to fire or hire Kings which they did in January 1689 when the effectively fired King James II and in February 1689 when they hired William III and Mary II. English Kings have always been subject to the will of the people, and their actions have been subject to the will of the people. In 1213 King John illegally surrendered England to the Pope Innocent and his heirs. In 1215 King John was forced at Runnymede to agree to rule us according to our laws and customs by the Lords Spiritual the Lords Temporal and vast numbers of the freemen of England. An example that the Kings authority is not absolute. Johns father King Henry I thought he ruled by divine right the Barons told him he had to rule us according to our existing laws yet another example the Kings rule is not absolute as a result he issued the 1100 Charter of Liberties. In 1216 King John Died and King Henry III came to the Crown he was only nine years old and so he had a guardian appointed to rule in his name. On coming of age King Henry III wrote to Pope Gregory IX and told him he Henry answered directly to God for all things Ecclesiastical and for everything else to his subjects. A clear statement that his authority was not absolute and depended on the consent of his subjects to his actions. Pope Urban V wrote to King Edward III demanding the unpaid monies which had not been paid from the time King Henry III stopped paying the rent. King Edward knew nothing about this so he called a meeting of the Estates of England, who deliberated before telling King Edward III England did not belong to King John he only held it in trust for those who follow on. England was not his to give away so his surrender of England did not count. Yet another example that the Kings authority is not absolute but dependent on the will of the people. King Charles I offended his subjects by his choice of a French Catholic as a wife and by granting unlawful dispensations to Catholics following a bloody civil war the King was executed in 1649. By the Parliamentary forces another example that England’s kings do not rule us absolutely. Finally in January 1689 the Estates of England sacked King James II yet another example the Kings rule is not absolute. William III and Mary II were forced to accept the terms laid down in the 1689 Declaration of Rights or return to Holland Or we would look for a suitable King. Yet another example that English Kings do not have absolute authority but are subject to the will of the people.
Your claim that the powers of the Crown are exercised by a variety of bodies on behalf of the Reigning Monarch namely the House of Commons is also flawed the people granted authority to the King to rule. The Houses of Parliament are advisors to the King; the King is refused authority to delegate his authority to anyone or anything else. Minister’s use of the Royal Prerogative is contrary to the common law governing Kingship and it is contrary to English Constitutional law. Your assertion that referenda is not binding it wrong everything I have written above shows clearly the will of the people is actually supreme over the Sovereign who has no authority to surrender the Kingdom to foreign rule and what the King cannot do Parliament cannot do simply being advisors to the Crown with no independent authority to make law the automatic assent is constitutionally illegal, the actual signing of the Maastricht Treaty imagined the death of her Majesty as a fully Sovereign Queen of England by making her a citizen of a foreign power the EU.
Your assertion that the actions of the Lords and Commons cannot be considered treasonous is totally incorrect the signing of any and every treaty which cedes powers to govern us to a foreign power directly contravenes the 1689 Bill of Rights which incorporates the Declaration of Rights. And the Custom and Practice of England to refuse foreign interference in the governance of England. Queen Elizabeth II is first and foremost Queen of England all her other titles superiorities and supremacies flow from her being Queen of England. You clearly have no knowledge of the Common and Constitutional laws of England I think this letter demonstrates your lack of knowledge I require you to investigate my allegations particularly the Maastricht Treason. I would recommend you visit the library and book out a copy of Moriarty’s Police Law unlike Butterworth’s Police law it includes offences against the state it is an easy bedtime read and supplies a wealth of information every constable should know.
Respectfully Submitted
Albert Burgess

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk