Letter to Justin Welby from Albert Burgess

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter to Justin Welby from Albert Burgess
« on: July 29, 2020, 06:37:54 PM »

we see a lot about Magna Carta 1215 as being new law but it was not new law it was simply a reissue of existing law Freedom of information request

Justin Welby Archbishop of Canterbury Albert Burgess
Lambeth Palace

Ref Magna Carta 30-09-2017

My Lord Archbishop
I am enclosing a write up on Magna Carta and its importance in English Law. At the end are some questions to which I would like answers.

Myths surrounding Magna Carta 1215 and subsequent re-issues

The reason for Magna Carta 1215.
King John was a bad King he had upset the Barons by forcing their wives and daughters into his bed against their will, because they were being raped they were not co-operative so the following day John would walk into court and announce that Baron so an soís wife was a terrible lay. As a result the Barons wanted him dead. King John was using foreign mercenaries to suppress the common man so the common man wanted him dead. As a result King John fearing for his life believed he could use a powerful ally, so he surrendered England to the Pope in May 1213, and he rented it back as a vassal King to the Pope. For 1000 marks a year. 700 marks for England 300 marks for Ireland. Two years later in June 1215 John was forced to meet the Barons at Runnymede, that meeting was attended by thousands of the freemen of England determined to Kill John if he did not agree to rule us according to our Ancient laws. Archbishop Langton had found a copy of the Charter of Liberties 1100 a re-issue of English law by King Henry I which he showed to the Barons who said it was good law and it was re-issued as Magna Carta 1215. So Magna Carta was not new law, it was simply a re-issue of our existing ancient law. At Runnymede John was forced to agree to rule us according to our law by the estates of England, Englandís highest law giving body with authority to fire and hire Kings which they did when they fired James II and hired William and Mary in January/ February 1689.

Henry III
The Pope ordered John to renege on Magna Carta starting the Barons war against John. John Died in 1216 and Henry III a nine year old came to the throne, as soon as he became of age he wrote to the Pope stating he Henry answered to God for all things ecclesiastical and to the people of England for everything else and he stopped the payment to the Pope and reissued Magna Carta.

Edward I
King Edward I re-issued Magna Carta in October 1297 with his Confirmatio Cartarum this contained an order to all his Sheriffs, Justices, Mayors and other ministers that this must be published and read in every county after the feasts of St Michael, Christmas and the feast of St John. And every Cathedral must read it out twice a year. King Edward I ruled that any decisions taken in court which contravened Magna Carta was null and void, and that all Archbishops and Bishops shall excommunicate any person who breaks or attempts to break any part of Magna Carta

Edward III
The Pope wrote to Edward III demanding the unpaid monies he claimed were owed him under the agreement with King John. Edward spoke to the Bishops and the Barons they asked for time to seek the opinion of the commonality of England and a meeting of the estates of England took place in May 1366 after which Edward III was told England did not belong to King John he only held it in trust for those who follow on, it was not his to give away King John broke the law and King Edward was not to pay the money. Edward we are told by Sir Mathew Hale CJ wrote roundly to the Pope.

Charles I

King Charles I refused to re-issue Magna Carta because like all the Stuart Kings he believed wrongly that he ruled by divine right. As a result he lost his head. James II lost his Kingdom but kept his head. After a meeting of the estates of England.

A number of academics have postulated over the years that Magna Carta was bad for any number of reasons it is not the law of England or that it is and always has been unimportant. These academics are quite frankly wrong, Magna Carta is simply a re-issue of ancient English Law, it is the legal document which protects our rights and freedoms restating the restrictions we place upon our Kings to guarantee our ancient freedoms, The Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights 1689 simply reiterate those restrictions which have always been placed upon our Kings since Alfred the Great gave us his legal codes in 886 and can be considered a re-issue of Magna Carta. It was Alfred who guaranteed our rights and freedoms. Which have in the last 1136 years become the custom and practice of England. And as such are beyond the reach of Parliament which falsely claims sovereignty contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. On the 8th March 1784 Parliament debated the question of Sovereignty and Parliament decided in the only legal way they could that ultimate and total Sovereignty lies with the Lawfully Anointed King.
(1) In compliance with the statute of Confirmatio Cartarum 1297 which has not been repealed is Magna Carta read out twice a year in every Cathedral?
(2) If it is not why is the Church of England in breach of the law?
(3) What action do you propose to take to ensure the above statute is complied with?
(3) When will the benefit of the Church of England be withdrawn if necessary posthumously by excommunication in compliance with the law by those who repealed sixty of the sixty three articles. ?
Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk