Ref. The Supreme Court

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Ref. The Supreme Court
« on: October 06, 2019, 12:31:47 PM »
Cressida Dick QPM                                                                          Albert Burgess
Commissioner of the Metropolis                                                       
New Scotland Yard                                                                         
Victoria Embankment                                                                     
SW1A 2JL                                                                                         01-10-2019
Ref the Supreme Court
It is of the utmost importance that her Majesty’s subjects should have the utmost confidence in the police and her Majesty’s courts. We have recently had the damming report from the Chief Inspector of Constabulary on the effectiveness of the police service in England and Wales. It seems to me that you need to take a course of action to restore public confidence in the police service. Such an opportunity currently presents itself over the recent case heard by the Supreme Court over the proroguing of Parliament.
Members of her Majesty’s Judiciary are not required to submit a registry of interests, rather when a case comes before them they undertake to announce any interest which could cause a conflict of interest with the case they are hearing.
The internet carries articles which I admit are not always a reliable source of information which claims that all eleven justices sitting to hear the case brought by Gina Miller and the advocate from Scotland on the legality of the proroguing of Parliament voted to remain in the EU. As the case was to obstruct the government in carrying out the instructions of her Majesty’s subjects to take us out of the EU, by implication without a deal, which was not mentioned by either side in their arguments prior to the referendum in 2016. The political stance taken by voting to remain within the European Union represents a clear conflict of interest which should have been declared prior to hearing the case, and which I submit were grounds on which they were duty bound to recuse them selves. They failed to do either.
There are reports that nine of the eleven Justices receive payments from the EU of between £140,000 and £175, 000 these payments should have been declared and the Justices receiving them should have recused themselves for a clear conflict of interest, these money’s are I understand payment for work undertaken largely in the courts in Europe. However the EU does not want her Majesty’s Kingdom to walk away and paying monies to Justices of the Supreme Court is a clear conflict of interest. I therefore request that you conduct an enquiry into the Justices of the Supreme Court for Misconduct in public office at common law by failing to declare both their politically held beliefs and monies they have received from the EU. It might be appropriate to examine all their finances.
All eleven Justices took it upon them selves with the protection of the courts around them to declare that the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP her Majesty’s first Lord of the Treasury lied when he made the request to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to ask her to prorogue Parliament. As all conversations between her Majesty and government ministers are classified secret, I submit they have no valid way of determining that Mr Johnson lied to her Majesty, and Mr Johnson did not tell them he had lied. Nor I submit did her Majesty. I submit they determined this not on the evidence but by being adversely influenced by their own political beliefs not forgetting EU monies they may have received.
They may well be able with impunity to state Mr Johnson lied but what they may not do is claim the proroguing of Parliament by her Majesty was illegal. I submit her Majesty in the sixty six years she has worn the Crown has not put a foot wrong, it is highly likely her Majesty knowing her subjects voted by a large majority to leave the EU and return her ancient Kingdom to her direct rule, and knowing four hundred and sixty MP’s are going for the most part against the wishes of those who elected them, and breaching promises they made to get elected it is highly likely her Majesty prorogued Parliament not just because she was asked too but because in her opinion it was the right thing to do in support of her loyal subjects.
By cancelling the proroguing of Parliament these eleven Justices have exceeded their authority, and placed their wishes above her Majesty’s wishes. This is to imaging her Majesty’s death as a fully Sovereign Queen and by so doing these Justices have committed high treason against the person and authority of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. You are requested and required by the law as it is written to take them into custody whilst you investigate these most serious allegations of Misconduct in Public Office contrary to common law and high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act
Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk