Letter to D.I.Trevor Normoyle

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter to D.I.Trevor Normoyle
« on: November 15, 2019, 04:32:49 PM »
D.I.Trevor Normoyle                                                                       Albert Burgess
Central Specialist Crime                                                                   
Special Enquiries Team                                                                 
Room 205 Third Floor                                                                     
Jubilee House                                                                                 
230-232 Putney Bridge Road                                                           14-11-2019
SW15 2PD
Ref CRN 1229576/19
Dear Trevor
Thank you for your letter dated 5-11-2019 I understand your point about a lack of evidence but the purpose of a detective is to detect. For example if I told you whilst out walking my dog on the canal bank I saw a body floating with a knife in its back I doubt you would ask for evidence before you investigated my allegation of murder. However I take your point. I will skip straight to the treason allegation forgoing the miss conduct in public office.
I exhibit as exhibit AB1 a copy of the 1351 Treason Act highlighted at a man doth compass or imagine the death of the King. There is a vast difference between a Queen who is sovereign as is our Queen Elizabeth II and a Queen who is not sovereign like her mother Queen Elizabeth who was only Queen by virtue of the fact she was married to King George VI who like Queen Elizabeth II was a lawfully anointed King. in accordance with the English common law arrangements for our King our lawfully anointed Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of England and the only authority over her is God. If Queen Elizabeth II uses her Royal Prerogative to prorogue Parliament for the best of reasons or simply because she felt the need, there is no authority below God on the planet who can reverse that without committing high treason against her Majesty's Royal person. For the justices of the Supreme Court to over turn the prorogation they have placed themselves above the lawfully anointed Queen of England, this is to imagine her Majesty's death as a fully sovereign Queen anointed according to the common law as it applies to England's Kings. This constitutes an act of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.
I exhibit as exhibit AB2 the flyleaf and page 190 of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England admissible in any of her Majesty's courts as a statement of the laws of England. The highlighted section gives her Majesty's position as a fully sovereign Queen of England.
I exhibit as exhibit AB3 a print of the 1559 Act of Supremacy a number of sections have been highlighted as of particular relevance to the position held by a lawfully anointed King/Queen of England.
I exhibit as exhibit AB4 a print out of the supreme courts ruling on the prorogation of Parliament by the Justices of the Supreme Court. On page one it points out that her Majesty at a meeting of the Privy Council on the 28th August  ordered the prorogation of Parliament, and this prorogation was to take effect between 9th and 12th of September. The court in exhibit AB4 talks about Parliamentary sovereignty this is a misnomer Parliament is only sovereign when the lawfully anointed sovereign is present in their person in Parliament. On the 8th March 1784 after a twenty year running fight between King George III and the House of Commons as to where ultimate sovereignty lays did it lay with the lawfully anointed King or the elected house, after a speech by Pitt the younger a vote was taken. King George III won the vote no vote has been taken since. So by the common law of Kingship and by Parliamentary vote Her Most Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the Supreme Governor of England over whom only God has authority. Subject only to those limitations placed on himself by King Alfred when he was elevated to the Crown of the English realm.
I exhibit as exhibit 7 and 8 two print outs from to old books on English History dealing with King George III fight with the House of Commons.   
The Justices of the supreme court used the 1611 Case of Proclamations, and Entick v Carrington to determine their right to over turn her Majesty's prorogation of Parliament.
I exhibit a print of the 1611 Case of Proclamations as exhibit AB 5, I submit this has no bearing at all on the right of Queen Elizabeth II as the lawfully anointed Queen of England from where all her other Titles Prerogatives and Superiorities flow. To use her prerogatives in the service of her subjects and prorogue Parliament as and when she likes. The case deals with King James I attempting to exceed the authority set on England's Kings by the common law by trying people himself.. It is therefore inappropriate to refer to this case as giving guidance on the Sovereigns right to prorogue Parliament for the best of reasons or simply because they are having a bad hair day.
 I exhibit as exhibit AB6. The case of Entick v Carrington which concerns what the courts later ruled to be a trespass and illegal search by Carrington acting on the instructions of Lord Halifax who sat on the Privy Council. Carrington and others entered property belonging to Entick they spent four hours in the property searching every room and removing a large number of papers. I fail to see that this case has any relevance whatsoever to the use of the prerogative by the lawfully anointed Queen to prorogue Parliament. Being as it was a trespass and theft of papers. Today we would call this aggravated burglary.   
The court using these two cases of dubious authority decided the power to prorogue Parliament cannot be unlimited. This contravenes the common law and custom and practice of England as it applies to our Kings going back to the legal codes of Alfred 1133 years ago. King Alfred the Great was the first supreme governor of the English
I exhibit as exhibit AB9 a print from Sir Mathew Hale CJ on the Prerogatives of the King the highlighted section lays out the Position of a lawfully anointed King of England CJ Hale is acknowledged as England's greatest ever Judge.
I exhibit as exhibit AB10 a print from the Prerogatives of the Crown by Joseph Chitty 1820 this is the book of reference used by Parliament and is found in the House of Commons library. I would refer you to the highlighted section.
As holders of the office of constable all constables took an oath before God and to the lawfully anointed sovereign to uphold the sovereigns law, without political correctness or convenience to get a quite life. But to uphold the Queens laws the way they are written not as we would like them to be. All her Majesty's Justices have a non molestation order place on them so a sitting Justice  cannot be arrested whilst he is sitting except for when the Justice is arrested for acts of treason.
You asked for evidence this is supplied by exhibits AB4/5/6. The law as it is written is laid out in all other exhibits.
Her Majesty's subjects pay all holders of the honourable office of constable to detect offences, treason according to Blackstone CJ is the most serious offence there is. The Justices of the supreme court are guilty of high treason by placing their will over the will of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. You as the holder of the ancient office of constable are charged with the responsibility to place these eleven Justices before her Majesty's courts in defence of the Crown of England, there is no greater responsibility. Failure to prosecute treason constitutes the major crime at common law of Misprision of treason the tariff is severe. 
Respectfully Submitted
Albert Burgess

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk