Cameron's illegal act. (Letter)

Dear David

I realise your lack of knowledge of the English Constitution, springs from a number of things. Firstly you are a Scott, and we all know that the Scott loves the chance to put one over on those bloody English, who so often in history have trashed the Scott's for straying south of the border with evil intent. Secondly you have an Ashkenazi family link and the Ashkenazi are intent on world domination through banking. Thirdly you received your instruction in constitutional law from Professor Vernon Bogdanor, this is a fate no one should have to endure, in the majority of cases this is to be viewed as a minor inconvenience. In your case however as Prime Minister I fear I must inform you this is a fatal flaw which at the least will result in your spending the rest of your life in prison as a guest of Her Majesty's, I would of course rather see you hang for your treasons.

The Parliament Acts

Parliament was born of the King, who was himself born of the Common Law. The King using the authority granted to him by the common law took advisors into his service to enable him to administer his Kingdom as efficiently as possible and so as to give maximum benefit to his subjects. This was true north and south of the border. Now I am not overly familiar with Scottish law, so if you will forgive me I will stick to English law.

We will leave out for convenience the Anglo Saxon Kings suffice it to say William I chose to keep the laws of Edward the Confessor, his advisors were largely the Barons who he had brought to England with him. This remained largely the case until Edward I in 1297 invited the Knights and Burgess's into his Parliament believing they would vote him the taxes he needed for amongst other things keeping those troublesome Scots in order, if they were given a say.

However the trouble with the common man like you and I is we get greedy for power money or usually both. So in exchange for taxes the Commons gradually annexed to itself more authority, until in 1420 they obtained the right by convention not law to originate all bills placed before Parliament.

This defined how Parliament evolved through usage in a sensible manor, capable of producing consistently the best form of government, where the Commons originate a bill which then goes to the Lords, who are charged by the King to return it for amendment, reject it, or approve it to go before the King. The King then using only that wisdom God gave him, and in accordance with his conscience, will accept it or reject the bill. If the bill is rejected it is dead and if accepted it becomes statute law.

A statute has yet another restriction placed upon it, it must comply with the spirit of the common law, if it does not the common law intercedes and strikes it down as bad law and therefore not law.

Now this all started to go seriously wrong when the Commons suffering from delusions of grandeur wrote to the Lords in 1609, claiming to be the "Knights, Burgess's and Barons of the high court of Parliament". The Lords replied saying "they would never accept the Commons as Barons and without the Lords they were no court at all".

Still nothing ventured nothing gained. So in 1667 the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill, there is no constitutional legal basis for this claim. There followed a ten year argument between the houses, until in 1677 the Lords in a moment of madness gave way. This was to have catastrophic consequences. With no basis in law.

In 1909 Asquith put forward a budget, which the Lords believing wrongly, they could not amend they rejected it, Asquith then put forward a bill to restrict the house of Lords ability to reject a bill, the Lords said they would reject it. Asquith told them he would put 500 new Peers into the house, and they would vote its abolition. The Lords gave way a second time, and the bill was placed before King Edward VII WHO REJECTED IT on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects! The Kings mistake was to order an election, during which Asquith and his Ministers, went round the country telling every one those beastly Lords would not let the common man have a pension. Once again the Lords slipped up believing it beneath them to go to the country, and telling the true reason they rejected the bill. Asquith was returned and the King in his speech made it clear he did not want the Parliament Act saying the only reason he was doing this was because his Ministers told him he had too. This attracted comment at the time.

The Parliament and the 1999 House of Lords Acts, are entirely unconstitutional and are illegal, under the Common Law arrangements for Parliament. Your plan to use the Parliament Act to force a referendum is unconstitutional and a treason against the common and constitutional laws of England. I suggest you hand this to your legal people who if they know anything about the law, which I doubt will tell you the use of this law is an unlawful aberration particularly as our membership of the EU is entirely illegal and your failure to remove us from the EU will result not in a prison term but the death penalty being applied to you. A project to which I am devoting my every waking moment. Enjoy your Christmas you may not have many left.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

'Royal' is now meaningless but don't tell the public

Marine Blackman is a victim of his time

 

 

Without doubt our enemy's greatest weapon is incredulity.

 

  Tell Mr and Mrs Average that in 1972 the Queen abdicated and the monarchy was ended and that Parliament became an unlawful assembly following a covert political coup by the Conservative Party and they will not believe you, yet the evidence of this is to be seen everywhere.

 

Up to 1972 when the then Conservative government and the Queen surrendered the people's sovereignty and the supremacy of the Crown to the European Economic Community our armed forces personnel took an oath of allegiance to the Monarch, and through the Monarch to the British people, which made our soldiers accountable only to the Monarch and no one else,. Parliament had nothing to do with it and for good reason. This arrangement insured that the Monarch, as official Governor of the nation and Commander in Chief of the people's Armed Forces, retained the essential power to dismiss and dissolve unlawful and despotic Parliaments.

 

The oath of allegiance our soldiers took not only committed them to protecting the Monarch her heirs and successors and so the people from their enemies it also protected them when engaged in their duties by the limitation of the oath. An accusation against a soldier when he or she is on active service was also an accusation against the Monarch who, being the soldiers Commander in Chief was accountable for their actions.  

 

 

This all changed in 1972 when, under the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome, the nation's sovereignty was ended along with the supremacy of the Crown and the monarchy as the Treaty contained no provisions for a constitutional monarchy. There can be no sovereign head of state in a nation that is no longer sovereign and no official governor of a nation that is no longer self governing.

 

Having abandoned recognition of constitutional constraint, Parliament then presumed the position of the UK's official administration for the European government. With the termination of the supremacy of the Crown and the office of the monarch, Parliament also assumed control over our armed forces, using them as political mercenary forces engaged and acting under contracts of employment, like any other worker or work force. 

 

Our soldiers still take an oath of allegiance to the monarch but it is now meaningless, as the constitutional authority of the office of the monarch has been ended, along with the sovereign authority of the British people who are now citizens of the EU and as such subordinate to the EU government according to the constraints and conditions of that citizenship.

 

With our soldier's oath of allegiance now meaningless, the protection the oath afforded them has been removed, a point it seems that did not escape the notice of Chief Justice Lord Thomas, a fully compliant member of our now politicised judiciary. The outcome of this means that our armed forces personnel no longer have lawful protection when engaged in armed conflict and can therefore be held individually accountable, by any group or nation anywhere in the world and at any time in their lives, even many years after an alleged offence. Now that the defence of this country depends entirely on a voluntary force one can only view the handling of this particular unfortunate incident as a threat to that dependency, occurring as it has at a time of irresponsible national defence cuts and growing discussions on the building of a European defence force.   

 

 

Marine Blackman is a victim of his time. The state he bravely served is now a sham, a charade, justice, order and accountability abandoned. The once supreme spirit of our law is now subordinate to the letter of the law for reasons of political expediency. Those who presume to preside in high offices still wear the robes and carry the trappings of state, they even act out the traditional ceremonies, but all this is but meaningless pantomime. This once great nation now resembles a last year's Christmas tree on a June day, the false tinsel still sparkles, but the tree beneath is dead.   

 

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

 

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

CICERO

The treason of Britain's metrication

THE TREASON OF BRITAIN’S METRICATION

Treason is treachery, a betraying or a breach of faith and in law denotes the grave crime of treachery toward the Sovereign as head of the State and any betraying of the State itself. (Moriarty’s Police Law. 17th edition, page 202.) Treason is to betray or violate one’s duty of allegiance to one’s own people and thus to one’s country in support of any other state, power or authority. It is disloyalty, duplicity and to undermine your own country. Regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon
the British nation, treason is still a hanging offence.
To use or represent the metric system in Britain as the accepted legal standard British units of measurement is intentionally or otherwise to mislead and undermine the British public mind. Most commonly found in British TV broadcasting and government services, its use is to attempt to influence the nation into believing that Britain has accepted such foreign pressure and control when the people have agreed to nothing of the sort. It is a gravely serious offence to attempt to undermine or mislead the British nation against its will. It is TREASON. Since 1897 the people of Britain have consistently rejected the metric system as “inferior, restricting, inflexible, long-winded and of limited utility”. They have also refused it as prone to considerable
error (misplaced /omitted decimal point), having too few units, units of impractical size and of being entirely unsuited to measuring needs. These views extend also to the sale of commodities in metric quantities all of which are illegal under British law and are considered less practical in use. Surveys repeatedly show that more than 90% of British people refuse to accept or adopt the metric system.
Imperial weights and measures for all purposes are protected by English Constitutional and Common Law. They have been expressly authorised by the Parliament in Westminster. No amending Act has ever been introduced. Imperial therefore, is still the British system of measurement required by law and protected by it.
No law, ruling or edict exists that requires Britain’s metrication. No White or Green Paper, political party manifesto, Queen’s speech, parliamentary legislative programme or popular mandate has ever suggested that Britain should or would adopt the metric system. The imperial scales therefore remain
the lawful standard British system of measurement in official and exclusive use in this country.
The parliament inspired mantra “The UK took the decision to adopt the metric system in 1965” is a lie. Irrefutably exposed as such, it was contrived purely for political purpose and is better known as the
“Myth of 1965”. The UK has never “decided” to adopt metrication. The public have never been consulted, their agreement or consent has never been sought let alone given and metrication has never been debated in Parliament. The myth arises from the personal hope of two 1960’s civil servants and Harold Wilson’s failed sop to the French who still refused UK admission to the EEC anyway. These do not justify metrication in Britain.
Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union. Thus metrication has no purpose.
When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, then Prime Minister Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU.  His was the most calculating and grievous treason in British history. Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become legally binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. His then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful. It too, has no legitimacy.
2
No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to continue Heath’s outrageous and unthinkable pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly signed up to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had authority to make such an undertaking without the people’s knowledge and consent. Their actions are therefore contrary to law for serious misconduct in public office, dereliction of duty, acting without public consent, acting against the nation’s known interests, acting in the political interests of a foreign power or authority, wilful deception and deliberate betrayal of the nation, to name but a few.
Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly committing the most atrocious act of treason against their own people by inviting and imposing foreign rule over their own country. Not one has ever acted within the law. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they continue to deceitfully conceal the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has always been known that the British people
would object most violently were they ever to find out. But they are finding out. Considerable documentary evidence of this criminality exists in the public domain and over 600 pages of evidence can be read at

http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/index.php/the-evidence-files and in Hansard.
No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly. British law and our imperial system of measurement therefore, remain in force as they were prior to signing of the 1972 Act. That means that just as before 1972, metric measurements have no place in Britain
whatsoever. In consequence of the above, Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union as every Act, EU Treaty and every statute since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent, is treasonous, illegal, null and void. So also, is any attempted standard use of the metric scales.
This naturally includes such documents as the Weights and Measures Act 1985, the Metric Regulations 1994 and all EEC/EU Regulations and Directives which have no lawful relevance here.
The European Union has no legitimate influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. They exist only in certain political minds. In any case, the supremacy of British law in this country automatically strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The pretence of European influence (and of metrication) is none other than parliamentary make-believe and pure theatre designed at the highest levels of Westminster to deceive and subjugate the people to
foreign rule against their will for others’ political purpose, contrary to law. It is WILFUL TREASON.
A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally and without mandate, wilfully import and impose upon their own people, foreign rule and influence that has no legality in Britain. Metrication in Britain then, is based solely upon the deliberately contrived lie that “The UK took the decision to adopt the metric system in 1965” when in fact the people knew nothing about it, would never have consented and have been knowingly and purposely deceived and betrayed by those paid to serve them.
Having no basis in law or popular mandate, metrication brings decreased practicality. Britain already has the world class imperial system of measurement evolved over time for every quantifying need and emulated around the world. Maligned for foreign political purpose and with feet and inches wilfully associated with backwardness, imperial measurement has enabled every modern development
including nuclear technology, space travel and electronic communication.
In committing the most unimaginable treason against their own people, every parliament since 1972 has broken English Constitutional and Common Law. This includes among others, the Treason Act 1351, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. These laws are inviolable and are in perpetuity. They are beyond the reach of Parliament
to alter or repeal, impliedly or otherwise. Just because modern day lawyers are not trained or versed in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that serious major offences have not been committed.
Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, the laws of England are the birthright of the people and cannot be taken away. Exclusive use of the imperial measurement system in Britain as required by law, is thus the birthright of the people and cannot be removed.
Imperial measurements are the international standard legally required for air and sea use around the world. Worldwide distances are measured in nautical miles, yards (sea depths are also in fathoms) and feet and inches. Quantities are in ounces and pounds (weight), tons, pints, quarts and gallons.
This is because imperial units are chosen universally for their practicality and application in all air and sea uses over the metric accounting system that is workable only in multiples of 10. The British Government has confirmed that transportation and road use are never likely to become metric and though some people mistakenly believe centimetres, metres, kilometres, kilos and litres to be the “correct” units, their public use is an offence at law. The legal units are the inch, foot, yard, mile, ounce, pound (weight), pint, quart and gallon as required by law. Despite purposeful misleading and misinformation, the imperial system of weights and measures has never been replaced.
British industry and retailing have been wilfully deceived and compelled into metrication under political false pretence. The British Government’s stance that business supports compulsory metrication is a contradiction in terms. If business wanted to go metric, the (unlawful) regulations compelling it would not be necessary. Had the metric system been as beneficial or expedient as claimed, it will have been readily adopted by nations around the world, most particularly by the people of North America and Britain. Some 400 million people in the U.S. and Britain however,
choose imperial measurements exclusively. In Canada, metrication proved so unpopular that the government backed-down and restored freedom to use imperial units. No nation in the world has willingly accepted the metric system. Its adoption has demanded enforcement and its use is associated with dictatorship. Yet despite obligation, a great many of the world’s people still choose imperial units for their flexibility, ease of use, practicality and immediate application.
The Common Law imposes upon every British subject, two enduring and strict duties acquired at birth. Allegiance and loyalty to the British nation and the British people and compliance with the law (thus requiring the reporting and prevention of treason). Every British person is duty bound to the constitution of the realm and to the law. These duties cannot be resigned except by renouncing British nationality. They pre-date the Bill of Rights 1689 which protects Britain from all foreign influence or rule by any power or authority: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or
ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.” The Common Law remember, is inviolable and in perpetuity.
The treason of Britain’s metrication is being reported by a growing number of angered people across the country, to the police for prosecution. Under Common Law, to be aware as you now are that treason has been and is being committed but to do nothing to prevent it, is to commit the equally serious offences of ‘Misprision of Treason at common law’ (knowing of treason committed but doing nothing to report or prevent it) and ‘Compounding (the) Treason at common law’ (any act or inaction
which effectively condones, supports or allows the treason to continue). These are tried in court as the original treason and the legal obligation to report known treason extends to every British national.
William Joyce was convicted for treason and was hanged for just such misleading and undermining influence against the British people as is metrication these days. The treason laws have not changed despite certain politicians’ personal desire and attempts to do that. Treason continues to be regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation that it is still a hanging offence. You will
know that ignorance of the law is no defence.
_________________________________

The real enemy

This is a very interesting email which I find believable. I also have received information on local government plans under Blair to socially engineer society to break up and destroy the traditional historical British structure and to introduce tension through enforced multi-culturism. Dispersal of asylum seekers was part of this plan to 'nudge' people into accepting and becoming used to newcomers in their local communities.

The first target areas were London boroughs such as Haringey, Hackney, Islington etc. Whilst this occurred under labour administration the agenda has continued through the LibCons and through UK.

At this point I emphasise that the people creating and implementing such policy were our own so called government. Those encouraged into the country did so because they were invited - they did not fight their way ashore.

We begin to see the real enemy - treasonous MPs and their politicised Civil servants who as knowing or useful idiots implemented such policy.

The ultimate aim of the policy is to create tension, division and violence, because this will allow a vicious state clamp down under the Civil Contingency Act. Divide and rule to be precise.

Those invited and living in Britain now are not the main or most dangerous enemy. Yes there are newcomers hostile to our society, but the fact remains that the most migrants are perfectly ordinary and innocent people being used as pawns in the game - the dangerous people are our own politicians who speak of our welfare and betray us behind our backs.

In the camps which will surely follow if these traitors get their way we will not be worried if our fellow prisoner is black white asian or chinese or other. These will be our fellows of suffering.

If we are to remain out of the camps it is vital that attention and effort is focused on appropriately rooting out the real danger - look first to Westminster and the myriad of think tanks NGOs and quasi political bodies, all funded by international banks, that quietly and deceptively create such policy for Blair, Brown, Cameron and the real hidden mastermind Clegg. Common Purpose has been key to much of the implementation of this policy, training the top 200 civil servants amongst other actions. However the common purpose ideology is the real threat and this is implemented via the myriad of organisations I have mentioned.

All could be stopped overnight by banning contact of Westminster MPs and Civil Servants with any of these policy forming groups and agencies, and of course cutting their funding supply by taking control of our money back into the legitimate government by re-issuing the Bradbury pound as credit to meet the needs of the nation, rather continuing to permit the private banking fraudulent debt based currency.

If any are not yet aware - the Remembrancer sits in Westminster at all debates at all times to ensure the needs of the City are not compromised by decisions made in the house.

Please check this yourselves.

The enemy is not humanity drawn to this country by  a desire for a better life or even an easy life on benefits - the enemy is a dangerous political mafia and judiciary. It is their 'common purpose' that must be exposed as the first step to regaining sanity in this island.

kind regards Brian G