FAO Christina Hughes, The Law Commission,

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
FAO Christina Hughes, The Law Commission,
« on: January 03, 2015, 09:38:30 PM »
FAO Christina Hughes                                                                                            Albert Burgess
 The Law Commission
 Ist Floor, Tower
 52 Queen Anne's Gate

Dear Christina
 The purpose of law is not to punish crime but to deter crime, this is so basic in the study of the law I am surprised lawyers and others who practice law seem to be unaware of it.

The Act of Provisors 1351 was put in place to prevent the transfer of ownership of English assets from English to foreign ownership which King Edward III considered an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England.

Is the honour and dignity of Queen Elizabeth II any less than the honour and dignity than that of King Edward III? As Queen of England it cannot be any less than King Edwards honour and dignity.

By the repeal of the Act of Provisors 1351 England's industrial might has been systematically sold to foreign owners who have asset stripped them and taken the business back to their own country's to the great detriment to England and Her Majesty's subjects. Not to mention the treasonable attack on Her Majesty's honour and dignity as Queen of England.

This was an old law which in spite of its age protected England and Her Majesty's subjects.

The Act of Preamunire 1351/3 predates the 1392 act both Acts are worded differently the terms of the 1351/3 act are not covered in the 1392 act and there fore the rule of implied repeal can not apply the correct interpretation is that the 1392 act is an addition or amendment of the 1351/3 act of Edward III. King Edwards act deals with his subjects being drawn out of the Kingdom, since 1351/3 this act which was considered obsolete when no such principle of obsolescence is known to English law. A law which for over 600 years has protected Englishmen from foreign injustice, with its treasonable repeal Her Majesty's subjects now live in fear of the European arrest warrant over which Her Majesty's constables or courts have no power.

This Ancient Kingdom is ruled not by the King who is the visible sign but by the ancient common law of Kingship in the form of the Royal Prerogative granted to England's Kings since time before memory, a supreme guiding principle of the prerogative is it cannot be used to the detriment of even one of the Kings subjects no matter how lowly the subject is. anything the King Does which benefits the subject and the Kingdom is legal and lawful, anything which harms even the most lowly subject is illegal and unlawful. The Royal assent is a part of the prerogative so the assent given to all these repeals are illegal unlawful and contravene the ancient laws of Kingship. Following the ruling of Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice. "Parliament may sometimes pass a law which is repugnant, against common right and reason or impossible to perform in which case the common law will intercede and strike it down". The repeal of the 1351 Act of Provisor's and the 1351/3/92 Acts of Preamunire are Repugnant , Against common right and reason, and contravene the restrictions placed on England's Kings by preventing them from doing anything which harms the Kingdom or the subject. And is therefore impossible to perform. Parliament today claim to govern by Henry VIII powers. These were illegal when Henry VIII used them and the only way he got away with it was because he was an arrogant bully. Our Kings and Parliaments do not have powers, they have an authority to govern us according to our ancient laws. These are good laws which you seem to want to systematically destroy, to the detriment of this Kingdom and its people.

In the past Kings who stepped beyond the limits imposed on Kingship by the ancient common laws of Kingship were removed most bloodily. In the case of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II who has received her education in constitutional law from Sir Henry Marten a Fabian, whose wish is to destroy all that is good and pure in this Kingdom, and who has been badly served by every government she has had since the Churchill government. And because she has the undying love of her loyal subjects it is my view a re-education in the ancient laws of Kingship and the constitutional and common laws of England along with all those in line for the Throne of England is the most appropriate step to take, there being little doubt of the love of these islands the Royal family so obviously have.

In your letter you state you do not minute discussions, I believe as you are dealing with the repeal of laws which effect the safety of Her Majesty's subjects you should record the content of these meetings if only so we may know who to hang. You give some names and state it is not stated what the exact roll of the sender is, can you supply the department they worked for along with copies of their letters so that I may ask those departments exactly who they were and what there roll in that department was. I do not seem to have the correspondence between Kenneth Jones and
 H Boggis-Rolf I wonder if you could supply a copy of that correspondence. You state that other bodies were not consulted because it was assumed that because there had been no prosecutions for a number of years they would not object. You may be aware of the saying "Assumption is the mother of all f###-ups" In future you should bear that in mind and if you are required to consult and even when no such requirement exists consult anyway.
 Respectfully submitted

 Albert Burgess
 Cc to Jones, J
 Amina Hussain Who if you would care to look up the law relating to Denizens should not be employed in a public office. A law the King is specifically refused permission by the law from changing and what the King cannot do Parliament who operate in the Kings name are forbidden from changing.

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk