Thursday, 19 September 2013

We do not need a referendum to exit the illegal EU

Britain does not actually need a referendum to leave the European Union. Because Britain is not actually IN the European Union. I will explain.

When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed the British people into the hands of a foreign power, the EEC/EU. THAT was high treason. Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become legally binding because treason cannot do that. Moreover, his then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly because a treasonous government is not lawful. It is an illegal pretence.


No parliament can bind a successor. Each following parliament therefore, has been free to reverse Heath’s treachery. None has. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied and continued Heath’s outrageous pretence that Britain had signed up to EEC/EU rule.

Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly committing treason. Not only has every parliament deliberately furthered Heath’s criminal intent, but they have each conspired to deceitfully conceal the truth of their illicit activities from the British public as it has always been known that the British people would object most violently were they ever to find out. Massive documentary evidence of this exists. (http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/index.php/the-evidence-files and Hansard).


No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or action by an unlawful assembly. British law (and absolute supremacy of our imperial system of measurement, for example) therefore stand as they were immediately prior to signing of the 1972 Act. Britain is thus not part of the EU as every Treaty and all statute law since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent, is unlawful, null and void. In consequence, the European Union has no lawful influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither has European (Napoleonic) Law. It is all make believe. Most notably, the Attorney General acknowledges this summary.


It is therefore high treason to pretend or assert that Britain is part of the EU and many in Westminster are guilty of that. Treason is the most serious crime in English law as it is committed (generally deliberately) against the sovereign interests, national security and collective political will of the British people - solely for political or other eventual gain of others not necessarily of this country.


So as you can see, Britain has never been part of the European Union in the first place. It needs only a responsible, sincere, trustworthy and truthful government that will for a change, put our country first and will act in the genuine interests of our country that current MPs have solemnly sworn a lifetime oath of allegiance to serve, in order for our once Great Britain to get back on its feet and become the world leader it used to be. If the more than £65 billion (2008 figure) frivolously thrown away into the unaccountable EU bottomless pit every year by Ministers were spent on Britain instead, we’d have that Great Britain back in a trice.
 
Anon

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Crime against the Royal Family

Sunday, 1 September 2013


Crime against the Royal Family


Sent: 01 September 2013 14:37
To: The Editor
Subject: CRIME AGAINST THE ROYAL FAMILY


Sir,


Lord Berkeley’s “Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL] 2013-14” currently passing through Parliament is designed to remove to Government control, Her Majesty’s right to grant or refuse new legislation the Royal Assent. This bill is not only bad law but actively treasonable.The Royal Assent is the Monarch’s constitutional and common law prerogative to ensure that only legislation in the best interests of the people, is enacted. Its removal from Her Majesty is high treason as contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, it imagines her death as our Sovereign Queen.

The Bill will also wrest from Prince Charles,Duchy of Cornwall assets for the benefit of Cornish people. Removal of legitimate title for others’ gain is THEFT. This House of Lords Bill is a blatant act of high treason and theft. It must NOT be permitted to become law.



Yours faithfully,
Rex Poulton
***************************

The Met. Police Commissioner’s response to Albert’s very strong Gueterbock treason allegation, is that it is not a matter for the Met. Police. Albert is told he should seek independent legal advice or contact his MP (who like my MP, is a Cameron-following waste of space).
The following is Albert’s reply. It should be retained for reference as the established standard argument demanding that police do their paid job.
Rex


Dear Sarah (Commissioner’s Private Office)

I have received your letter of the 29th August 2013. I have to say I am somewhat confused here. It could always of course, be me having a moment of extreme stupidity but speaking for myself I do not believe that for one second.

(1)
For the Sovereign to give or not give the Royal Assent according to their conscience is an integral part of the checks and balances built into the English Constitution.

(2)
To remove the right and duty of the Sovereign to carry out a clearly defined constitutional role assigned to the current incumbent of the Office of the Crown, is to imagine the death of the Sovereign as the Supreme Governor of England. That constitutes the major crime of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.

(3)
The removal from The Duke of Cornwall his hereditary inheritance is to assume the rights of ownership from the Duke. The last time I looked it up, the definition of theft was to take property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it and thereby assuming the rights of ownership. Correct me if I am wrong, but Cornwall constitutes quite a large amount of property.

(4)
It is my belief based on a considerable amount of research over 27 years of studying and applying the law of England, that no one person nor any body of people are above the law. Whilst it is taught that you cannot prosecute Parliament, it is true to say you can and on occasion are required to prosecute individual members of either House.

(5)
As holders of the office of constable, you have taken an oath to uphold the law to the best of your ability and without favour, fear, malice or ill will. I have used an excerpt from the old oath rather than the politically correct and treasonable claptrap you use for an oath today. We the great British public pay your wages to uphold the laws of England the way they are written and you do not have any choice in the matter. You are required to investigate all reasonable allegations of crime placed before you. My allegations of high treason are all reasonable and backed up with the evidence and the law, in this case constitutional law which has been breached.
(6)
I require your exact reasons for why you are declining to carry out your clear duty in line with the oath you took before God and to your Queen. Please do not quote Regina v the Commissioner of the Metropolis ex parte Blackburn 1968. Neither Lord Denning nor Lords Salmon and Davies said you could pick and choose the crimes you want to investigate and dump the rest. Lord Davies went so far as to state that would put the police above the law and that the courts would never do. Also do not tell me that because I am not a victim and did not witness the crime, I cannot report it. That taken to its extremes, would mean that if out walking my dog I found a body with an axe in the back of the skull, I could not report the murder because I was not the victim nor did I witness the crime. Law should be simple and sensible and lawful. The 2002 Police Reform Act fails on all counts. It is bad law and as such according to Chief Justice Beresford, it is not law. So just in case senility has kicked in, in my case in plain simple everyday English no long words, your full reasons for why you feel I should pay for a private prosecution when I and 65,000 000 others are paying a police service to uphold the law and that includes the Common and Constitutional Laws of England.
(7)
I would recommend you examine the penalties for Misprision and Compounding treason at Common Law. I would far rather prosecute those responsible for committing treason. Rest assured I have no compunction about prosecuting police officers who refuse to carry out their duty to defend this Kingdom from the traitors within.
Albert Burgess

Sunday, 1 September 2013

Attack on Syria - designed to destroy Israel.

From: Ralph.Ellis
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 4:07 PM
Subject: Attack on Syria - to destroy Israel.

Mr Nick Clegg
Liberal Party

 
Re: Attack on Syria - designed to destroy Israel.

 
Daar Mr Clegg,
Thank you for your reply to my letter. But the real reason for Obama declaring war on Syria, is to destroy Israel.
Obama is a Muslim Sunni while Assad is Alawite-Shia-Christian.* Obama cannot attack Israel, as the American people will not let him. But he can destabilise Syria to such an extent that the victorious Syrian terrorists do attack Israel - with Assad's sarin gas. Job done, for a Sunni Muslim like Obama - 5 million Jews killed.
 
In truth, it is the Sunnis (Saudi and Turkish) who want to who want to destroy Assad in Syria (in order to destroy Israel).
And it is President Obama who bows before the Sunni Saudi King, and obeys Sunni Saudi commands:
And it is Obama who is a Sunni Muslim Brotherhood supporter, funded by Saudi Arabia:
 
Be very careful of the Sunni Muslim cuckoo** in the West, who will strike when he is ready.


Sincerely,
Ralph