show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

FAO Supreme Court Judges

  • 0 Replies
  • 120 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4010
  • +75/-0
FAO Supreme Court Judges
« on: September 18, 2019, 04:08:07 PM »
FAO Supreme Court Judges

The Royal prerogative goes back through history to Alfred the Great the first King of the English. Our forefathers laid down rules by which the King could rule us.

The rules regarding the Royal Prerogative are very straight forward they comprise two things (1) the Royal Prerogative lies exclusively in the hands of the King, and allows the King to do anything which benefits the Kingdom and his subjects. If the exercise of the Royal Prerogative harms even the lowliest of the Kings subjects the exercise of the prerogative is illegal. (2) The King cannot give or lend the prerogative to anyone or anything else.

Therefore the use of the Royal Prerogative by ministers is clearly is clearly illegal under English common law which lays down the rules our Kings must rule us in conformity with. The claim the 1689 Bill of Rights transferred authority from the Crown to Parliament in the form of the elected house, this is simply not true the restrictions mentioned are only repeating those things England's Kings which we can trace back to the restrictions Alfred the Great placed upon him self.

Further to this on the 8th March 1784 following a 20 year running fight between King George III and the elected house as to where total authority lay with the lawfully anointed King or the elected House after a speech by Pitt the younger in which he asked the question is it better to be ruled by 1 despot or by 350 despots who can never agree the King won the vote so by both the common law and by Parliamentary vote Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of England from where all her other titles privilege's and superiorities flow.
The court is being asked a question which assumes Queen Elizabeth II is a fool and has allowed herself to be conned by her Prime Minister. So far in her Reign she has done nothing to indicate that she is a foolish Queen quite the reverse in fact. You are being asked to believe that Queen Elizabeth II does not know her subjects  voted with a large margin to leave the European Union, and that Parliament have spent 3 years trying by foul  means to thwart our leaving and returning her Kingdom back to her exclusive rule.

The proroguing of Parliament is a Royal Prerogative and her Majesty has exercised that prerogative power has been exercised by her Majesty fully in support of her subjects vote to return her Kingdom to her exclusive rule.  For any of her subjects from the lowest as in Gina Miller to the highest in Parliament or the Courts to challenge Queen Elizabeth II absolute legal right to prorogue Parliament for the best reasons or just because she thinks she will is for Gina Miller politicians or Judges no matter how mighty they are is for them to place their will above her Majesty's will and that constitutes high treason by imagining her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II death as a fully sovereign Queen as dictated by the common law of Kingship and by Parliamentary vote on the 8th March 1784 which contravenes the 1351 Treason Act.

I respectfully submit that all the legal argument cannot change the fact Queen Elizabeth II as our supreme governor must be assumed to be mentally competent to make up her own mind if and when she exercises any of her Royal Prerogatives. With that in mind it matters not what the Prime Minister was thinking the exercise by Queen Elizabeth II of her absolute right to prorogue parliament cannot be challenged without committing high treason against her Majesty's person.

The sovereignty of Parliament is a myth put out by the likes of Dicey. Every one sitting in either house is there as advisors to the sovereign in our case Queen Elizabeth II. Parliament can only truly claim sovereignty when the lawfully anointed sovereign is present in their person and even then Parliament is only sovereign because of the actual presence of the King/Queens in the Palace of Westminster. I have not filled this with he said she said like the Barristers before you who are overcomplicating a simple fact. Queen Elizabeth II as our lawfully anointed Queen can prorogue Parliament as and when she feels like it.

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