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

***************************

http://tinyurl.com/om4bcla

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