Nov
01

Arrest The Prime Minister? Request to Act Under Bill of Rights 1689.

Arrest The Prime Minister? Request to Act Under Bill of Rights 1689

Dear All

This is a letter to Commissioner of Police, United Kingdom, it is well researched and gives a short History of the Bill of Rights 1689 and explains some of the legal chains that bind the parliament and the Her Royal Highness. There are more chains much more but this is a very good start. If you wish to support him in the UK you, we are all subjects under our Constitution and it is just as relevant to us, and you, maybe more so, as we have more to lose then what the UK have already lost. So send an email or a letter to the Police Commissioner and ask for David Cameron’s arrest and prosecution and then we can plan making a similar complaint here to the Federal Police Commissioner. Got to keep the axeman busy, Ron Owen.

Poor Ron, I had another Red Head in Mind For Arrest.

Poor Ron, I had another Red Head in Mind For Arrest.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To Bernard Hogan-Howe

Commissioner of the Metropolis

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

SW1A 1AA United Kingdom

Sir

You will be aware that Mr Cameron, Her Majesty’s Prime Minister, has been talking to the other heads of Commonwealth countries about changing the Bill of Rights 1689 to allow the sovereign to marry a Roman Catholic. You are probably not aware of the history surrounding this Major Constitutional Law. I will therefore explain the history and reasoning behind this most important constitutional law.

I fully realise our police are not taught constitutional law, it being only very rarely that it raises its head, however it is not only law it is higher law which Parliament is required to legislate within the restrictions imposed upon it by the English Constitution, and which our police are duty bound to enforce. The Act of Settlement 1701 is a simple clarification on the rules of accession and in no way amends the Declaration or Bill of Rights 1689.

The Police service use Blackburn vs the Commissioner of the Metropolis 1968 as an excuse for not doing their job under the law, this court ruling is in fact ultra vires. The court had no authority to allow an enquiry to be dropped into an allegation of crime, which effectively grants a dispensation to those who break the law from suffering the penalty for their criminal activity.

I would refer you to the judgement on the dispensing powers of the King in Thomas vs Sorrel 1674 by Chief Justice Vaughn of the Common Pleas whose explanation is very clear as to the powers of the King to grant a dispensation from a penalty for a crime. Because this Ruling is dealing with the powers of the King to act, or not act ,as the case may be it is, by its very nature, a constitutional ruling on higher constitutional law.

Queen Elizabeth I demonstrated this dispensing power perfectly when she forgave the Earl of Essex for a personal treason against her, but she removed his head when his treason was against her subjects.

King James II was ruling outside the rule of law and appointing Roman Catholics to positions of authority in the armed forces which the law forbad him the right to do. Parliament spoke to King James about this and asked him to change his ways, his response was to prorogue parliament and carry on as before.

The now out of office politicians and the Peerage asked Prince William of Orange if he would come to England to protect the Protestant faith as established by law. William landed at Torbay, with a much smaller army than James, but James’ army deserted in droves forcing James to send his wife and son to France. James attempted to follow them but was captured and taken to William who placed him in a palace on the banks of the Thames. James escaped and took a boat down river to France.

William was asked to take on the administration of the country, but he despised the English and sacked a lot of our prominent military leaders and civil servants replacing them with Dutchmen. The still out-of-work politicians spoke to the Aldermen and 50 of the common council about this, and William hearing about this ordered that writs should be sent to every borough in England for representatives to be sent to Westminster to tell him how we the English wished to be ruled.

A convention, and not a Parliament, took place at Westminster in January 1689 and a document the ‘Declaration of Rights’ was drawn up and shown to William and Mary and they were told that if they wanted the Crown they could have it conditional upon them accepting the terms laid down by the representatives of the people.

William and Mary accepted the terms and were jointly offered the Crown, which they accepted, William them called a parliament consisting of the representatives of the People and the Baronage and the Declaration of Rights was passed into law as the Bill of Rights 1689. With two codicils:

Any amendments to this Bill must be made before 23 September 1689 or they are void, and not lawful, and this Bill is for all time. Because this was put through parliament by people who were specifically sent to tell William how we the English wanted to be ruled and not by a properly elected parliament, and as the will of the people in England is supreme over parliament, and the sovereign, under English law, and custom and practice this Bill can never be repealed, or amended, by any normal parliament only by another convention of the people.

I am enclosing a copy of the oath taken on that occasion. If you read the oath you will discover that this oath, from the Bill of Rights 1689, refuses the right of parliament to sign any EEC or EU treaty’s which transfer powers to govern away from the Queen in Parliament to any foreign power.

What Her Majesty is forbidden by law to do Parliament, who operates in Her Majesty’s name, cannot do without committing High Treason in the same way David Cameron’s actions constitute an act of High Treason against the Sovereign and Constitution of this country.

William III and Queen Mary accepted terms offered to them and the Bill of Rights is not a parliamentary act in the normal sense it is a binding contract between the sovereign and people of England, a contract Her Majesty can not break without forfeiting the Crown. If she does the law is quite clear, the next in line will become King the second the contract is broken and it is as if Her Majesty had died.

This letter constitutes a formal allegation against David Cameron, Prime Minster of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom of Great Britain, of High Treason against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and the Constitution of England, by attempting to amend the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, which lays down the inheritance of the Crown, and which, if done, will forcefully remove Her Majesty from her titles, and temporalities, as Queen of England. As though she were dead. This is consistent with David Cameron imagining her Death, which is an act of High Treason, contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.

You, Sir, took an oath to uphold the laws of England to the best of your ability, and without favour, fear, malice, or ill will. You took that oath to Her Majesty and Her Majesty took an oath to her subjects to rule England according to our laws. You have a clear duty to do every thing in your power to assist her in keeping her oath, taken before God, to her subjects.

Sir, you are on record as saying it is not for the police but the victim to decide if a crime is investigated. Any assault on Her Majesty’s honour, and the constitution, are an assault upon all Her Majesty’s subjects, you included; we are all victims in Mr Cameron’s act of High Treason. You are therefore requested, and required, to fulfil your oath and deal with Mr Cameron for his High Treason against Her Majesty, the English Constitution and subjects of Her Majesty. For your information I am enclosing a copy of my book Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution. Which I hope you find to be a good read and informative.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

Speak Your Mind