• 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4097
  • +75/-0
« on: October 07, 2018, 07:56:17 PM »
1) Islam has, as essential doctrine #2, al Walaa wal Baraa. In short, it is for the destruction of everything non-Islamic. For more information, here is a short video. Al Walaa wal Baraa is explained within the first 2 minutes.
2) English law has long included praemunire or praemunire facias. This is a 14th-century law prohibiting the assertion or maintenance of any alien jurisdiction, religious or other, or any claim of supremacy, religious or other, in England against the supremacy of the Monarch and English law. It was created due to the threat of attempted papal jurisdiction. The penalty: imprisonment for an indefinite period, ending only with death or the king’s pardon.
It is obvious that this law applies to Sharia, in fact to anything from Islamic laws. It likewise prohibits any legal jurisdiction over Britain by the European Union.
It is Boris Johnson, a British MP, formerly mayor of London, also a former Foreign Secretary, who mentioned this law at the 2018 Conservative Party conference in Birmingham. Another recent claim to fame is his stance on the burqa: he is against banning it, but considers that it makes wearers look like British letter boxes. That comment led to a bit of fuss: several letter box lovers protested, as did the considerably larger PC mainstream plus many Islamics.

Bringing up the law of praemunire (also spelt premunire) makes the comment on the burqa pale into insignificance. One may or may not consider that burqa wearers resemble letter boxes. The law of premunire makes Britain being part of the EU, which claims supremacy over British law in many areas, an act of treachery. It also makes any encroachment of Sharia in Britain an act of treachery.
According to Wikipedia, “as of the Criminal Law Act 1967 coming into effect, praemunire facias is no longer an offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland” - though it seems it still is in Scotland.  The truth is that as the Criminal Law Act 1967 was  treasonable (see Albert above), praemunire is still an offence.
Perhaps as a consequence of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, according to the information I have, Johnson DID NOT INSIST that Britain being part of the EU is treachery. He merely SUGGESTED that the government might be in breach of this law regarding the European Union.
THAT SAID, as is now widely recognised, Britain has in law never been part of the EU.  See the attached.  So there is nothing to ‘negotiate’ with the EU about, Britain owes Europe nothing and can freely WALK AWAY.  Heath in his secretive and pro-Europe treachery unwittingly made sure of that.
Though the 1967 Criminal Law Act pre-dates the treasonable Heath administration, parliaments have since 1911 been unlawful assemblies possessing no lawful authority or power to govern let alone enact legislation because of affairs surrounding the 1911 Parliament Act. 
So ALL of Britain’s historic safeguards, protections and legislation against foreign intervention or supremacy are still in full effect as they day they were each written.
All this can potentially be the basis for an explosive outcome in getting our country back from the criminally insane.

PRAEMENURIE AND PROVISOS are two laws we need back.  They were according to the Law Commission, repealed because no one had been prosecuted for breaching them for so long that they were “obsolete”.
It came as a surprise to them when I pointed out the purpose of law is not to punish crime but to prevent crime.  The fact that no one has been prosecuted for these offences for hundreds of years does not signify the laws are obsolete but that they are working very well, doing their job in the prevention of crime.  The LC were doubly surprised when I pointed out there is no principle of obsolescence in English law.  As long as a law works, it stays.
These are both treason laws and as their ‘repeal’ has permitted treason to occur  -  which has damaged this, our ancient Kingdom  -  the repeals were treason and are therefore voided by the Common Law.

Albert Burgess

« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 07:59:41 PM by the leveller »


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4097
  • +75/-0
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2018, 04:19:11 PM »
I am sure the text below is correct and valid and it raises the even more important question, why is our Constitution routinely ignored by Westminster ? 
Why is the role of the Head of State [a Constitutional Monarch] not being exercised as our Constitution : allows / demands.  ?
The Queen meets HER appointed Prime Minister on a weekly basis as our representative but we are not told what she : says – asks – demands or instructs, on our behalf.  WHY  ?
Has HM asked HER P.M. why she has not implemented the electorate’s instruction to withdraw us from the EU ?
We voted to LEAVE, not negotiate future trading terms.
In the absence of a satisfactory reply, WHY has SHE not replaced HER P.M. as in fact Gough Whitlam was dismissed in 1975 when the Queen gave the Royal Assent to an Australian Parliamentary bill and the Governor General served it .
 A national debate on our Constitution is required as a matter of some urgency.   And an investigation into who chose to disregard it, and why.

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk