Globalist control. Evidence. Not conspiracy theory.

  • 0 Replies
  • 834 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4115
  • +75/-0
Globalist control. Evidence. Not conspiracy theory.
« on: July 22, 2016, 09:16:15 PM »
Please start reading this thread from the bottom upwards
===========================================
Globalist control. Evidence. Not conspiracy theory.
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 18:16:02 +0000

 
Your reply is most interesting because it confirms my suspicions .Caroline Stephens used to disparage me but now actively agrees with me. When I promote her support on UKIP websites they are quickly taken down. To me and perhaps you this demonstrates that UKIP are very afraid or that they are a relief valve for the globalist control and agenda. The they you speak of of must be the people behind the UN agenda 21 (now 30) They are all powerful but to me and people like you and Caroline they are susceptible to what we know and circulate. The more we can inform, the safer we will be because there is safety in numbers. See the people in my circulation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: FW:
To: John
From: Delphine
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:30:07 +0100

 John this is about the fifth time I have sent it out.  Two of my friends told me a couple of weeks ago that they had never seen it from me.  Possibly I was sending out too many emails prior to the Referendum.  Hopefully it will soon reach 10,000 so Parliament will have to acknowledge and answer it.
 Well done for your perseverance.
 Confidentially, do you have any idea of who the dark forces are?  I ask because of my unfortunate experience with UKIP and I have now sought legal help and hope, sadly, to sue the Party.  I am still a kipper at heart, despite being banned now (they will not even tell me why) but 'they' have tried, now successfully, to get rid of me for over a year.

Delphine

On 22 July John wrote


 
Hello Delphine. Now at 8604. Thanks for circulating. I should have included you in the below list. 
I'm sure that you will be interested



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John
 
Caroline Stephens, UKIP candidate for Stroud who previously rubbished me regarding Albert's stance must have had a Damascene moment because she is actively, dare I say it excitedly, promoting the Kilmuir petition.  Rodney Atkinson who has personal contact with David Davis and Liam Fox has made sure that they are aware of it..
They with Theresa May are between a rock and a hard place.

Do they follow the law and expose the corruption of all the previous governments, or do they continue with their unlawfulness and risk being ruined by their own corruption if the Kilmuir letter becomes public knowledge.

The petition stands at just below 9,000. When it reaches 10,000 the government has to comment on it. At worst they have to admit the letter exists. Keep up the pressure and take heart.

There are indications that Caroline Stephens has realised that there is some dark force controlling UKIP because others in UKIP have removed my posts on Facebook (using the name Colin ) which pointed out Caroline Stephens support for the petition. JohnT



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
 To:  Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:29:45 +0000

 



David Davies MP Albert Burgess
The House of Commons
London
SW1A 1AA
21st July 2016


Ref Brexit


I am enclosing my book on the English Constitution into which a considerable amount of research has gone, and a CD which you may already have had and binned. However if you read the book which should take twenty minutes no more you will discover our membership of the EU is entirely contrary to the common and constitutional law of England. I would recommend you get the legal eagles busy checking the facts in my book there is a reading list at the back you will find I am right. You may even send them to my home I own the books mentioned and hundreds more. I will keep the tea and bacon butties coming for them.


The CD contains around 220 pages of government papers from the Heath era all marked secret, confidential or restricted liberated from the public records office. They tell the story of how Edward Heath set up a criminal conspiracy to subvert the constitution the major crime of sedition and at this level of sedition treason. And to hand this ancient Kingdom over to the EEC/EU the major crime of treason.


The report by Anthony Royal makes interesting reading as he openly boasts about the methods they used to commit these major crimes.


All it takes to get us out of the EU whose predecessor the EEC were complicit in this treason. Is to simply declare that Edward Heath, Norman Redaway and Anthony Royal conspired to commit treason and that Edward Heath lied to the Queen, Parliament and the people, so the 1972 EEC Act is void and every treaty signed on the back of this 72 Act is also void.


You will be naming three traitors all now dead so there will be no lengthy trials to pursue. And we are clear of the EU no article 50 no long drawn out negotiations just the application of English Law and the Vienna treaty on treaties.
Respectfully submitted






Albert Burgess




Bernard Hogan-Howe Albert Burgess
Commissioner of Police
New Scotland Yard
10 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG 21st July 2016


Ref Islam and policy decisions 




Sir
I have not yet received a reply to my letter of the 3rd June 2016 apart from being bad manners not to reply it also fails to meet the Mets response time for replying to letters. May I remind you, you are a public servant and are required to comply with the rules laid down for your organisation? You might inform ADI Gail Granville Major Crime unit at Putney I am still waiting for her reply to my letter of the 12th June 2016 and a major crime book number.


Now to the matter in hand I and a good many of her Majesty natural born subjects are sick to death of seeing Muslims parading and preventing her Majesty’s natural born subjects from using there right of free passage on England’s roads, as they congregate and make repeated death threats against the natural born subjects and those immigrants of other faiths or none who live and work here peacefully.


Threats to kill are I should not have to remind you, are major crime contrary to Sec 16 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which carries full powers of arrest.


It is my opinion that you have taken a policy decision not to arrest Muslims who make threats to kill or who impose Muslim patrols in order to enforce sharia law on the streets of England. These violent vigilante patrols constitute a threat to the Queens Peace. A peace you are on oath to preserve.


I would remind you that the comments of the three eminent Judges in Regina vs the Commissioner  of the Metropolis ex-parte Blackburn 1968 were quite clear a policy decision not to prosecute a particular type of crime is illegal. I would recommend you take a good long look at the Judges’ comments and then do your job and apply the law of this Kingdom the way it is intended to be applied without favour, fear, malice or ill will in accordance with your oath before it becomes necessary to apply for an order of Mandamus. Which will I feel sure will be granted?
Respectfully submitted






Albert Burgess

 
 







The English Constitution Fact or Fiction?


What is this mythical thing called the English Constitution, what part does or should convention play in the constitution, what is custom or legal fiction? These and many other questions occur.


There is a fallacy that we the English do not have a constitution. What we do not have is a constitution written on one piece of paper like the American constitution. But that does not mean we do not have a very real constitution because we do. Indeed our constitution is so real and so good just about every common law country in the world has copied it, Talleyrand a French Bishop and diplomat who served Three French Kings and Napoleon Bonaparte said “When the English Constitution dies freedom dies” And for his entire life he was our enemy. 


Constitution
So where do we find this mythical constitution of ours? Professor Taswell Langmede senior lecturer in Constitutional Law and History at University College London in his book written in 1871 said the English Constitution comprises Magna Carta 1215, the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights, I would add Habeas Corpus. These four things comprise the English Constitution. But they do not complete the constitution because Magna Carter and the Bill of Rights tell us what the King is not allowed to do; The Petition of Right is telling the King how we want to be governed. But there is nothing in any of these major pieces of constitutional law which tells the King or us what the King can do. This comes from the ancient Common Law of Kingship, this goes back to when we first elected the first King of the English and maybe much further back than that.


Custom and Legal Fiction.
So let us start there. The Anglo Saxons believed their Kings descended from the ancient God Woden. Who they dumped, when they converted to Christianity. Alfred the Great on being elected King of the English looked at all the laws and customs of the old Kingdom’s which combined to make his Kingdom. What is a legal custom? A custom is any law that has been in use from before time of memory with the approval of the people. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke ruled that before time of memory was any law older than 1197 when Richard the lion heart was Crowned 400 years before he was speaking. So any law over 400 years old becomes the Custom and Practice of England. As such it is beyond the reach of parliament so cannot be lawfully/legally repealed. What is a legal fiction? A legal fiction is a tool used by the courts to get over an impossible situation for example, your uncle dies and leaves everything to you. But for whatever reason you hated him and want nothing of his. His will says it must all come to you so by law you have to have it like it or not, so the court will invent the legal fiction that you died before your uncle so it is impossible to give it to you. It then goes to whoever follows you.


Kingship and Prerogative.
Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights impose limits on what the King can do but neither of these great contracts between the King and the people contains anything new. When they say the King cannot fine us or seize our property or send us to prison these things had been in existence since Alfred the Great imposed limits on what he as King can do. The King cannot on his own make or unmake law he does this in conjunction with Parliament. But what can the King do? The King can do anything which is legal, to do this we give him what is known as the Royal Prerogative. Government today say it is difficult to define the limits of the prerogative, this is arrant nonsense DESIGNED TO ALLOW GOERNMENT TO EXCEED THE PREROGATIVE POWERS OF THE KING WHICH THEY HAVE STOLEN. The King may use the prerogative to do anything which benefits his subjects. However if he does anything which harms even his lowliest subject this is an illegal use of the prerogative and must be withdrawn. Who can use the Royal Prerogative? The prerogative like everything else the King has was given to him by our ancient forefathers. And the King and only the King can use the Royal Prerogative; the King is refused permission by us the loyal subjects from letting anyone else use it. So what happens if the King is in a long term illness which prevents him working? The office of King must still function so we the people in discussion with the Kings family appoint a Regent to perform the duties of the King until he is able to carry them out himself. So the practice of government ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative is constitutionally illegal and treasonable.


To Diminish the King/Crown.
When our forefathers elected our first King it was decided by them the King must be visibly higher than his subjects, so they gave him vast tracts of land and lots of money and jewels. And they made the rule the King must live of the profits of what we now call the Crown Estates, and they gave him the Royal Prerogative on which they set limits. The King is forbidden by law from disposing of any of his wealth, or from giving or lending the Royal Prerogative to anyone else for any reason because to do so would diminish the Crown. And that is illegal under our Common Law of Kingship. Over the last 300 years Parliament in the form of the House of Commons has stolen the Royal Authority and like all theft it is illegal in this case it constitutes the major crime of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Common Law of Kingship


The King in Parliament
Parliament as we know it was formed by King Edward I in 1297. It comprises the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the King. Since 1420 the Commons has the right to initiate all legislation which then goes to the Lords who look at it and purely in line with their conscience they recommend amendments, reject it outright or give it their certificate as good law. When it has been passed by both houses it goes before the King who looks at it and depending entirely on the Kings conscience he will grant or refuse the Royal assent. If the King refuses the Assent there is no power on earth can overrule him or make him give his reasons.


Convention
Convention is an agreement that the Lords will not do certain things, in contravention to the will of the Commons. Conventions in this sense erodes the authority of the Lords and are constitutionally illegal.




Cognisance
Each House of Parliament has a common law cognisance to conduct their business in their own way and that includes the right of each house to decide who sits in it and who does not.


At least that is how our very intelligent forefathers set the system up with checks and balances. But since 1420 the Commons has been on a power grab in 1667 they demanded that the Lords could not amend a money bill in 1677 the Lords in a moment of madness gave way. In 1909 believing they could not amend they rejected the budget. Asquith put a bill forward to remove the authority of the Lords to reject a bill. On the threat of him putting 500 new Peers into the House of Lords who would vote for its closure. The Lords gave way and agreed they would not reject a bill. King Edward VII refused the assent stating it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. Asquith was ordered to go to the country he was returned and during the Kings speech King Edward said the only reason he was putting the Parliament Act forward was because his ministers said he had to. The King could still refuse the assent however shortly after this the King fell ill and died. King George V on becoming King was told he kept all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a minister. The power grab was complete the Commons had neutered the Lords and usurped the Royal authority.


Albert Burgess
[email protected]
www.englishconstitutiongroup.org










 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk