Reveal Heath's treason, making all treaties void

Letter exchange:

David Davies MP 

The House of Commons

London

SW1A 1AA

21^st July 2016

Ref Brexit

I am enclosing my book on the English Constitution into which a considerable amount of research has gone, and a CD which you may already have had and binned. However if you read the book which should take twenty minutes no more you will discover our membership of the EU is entirely contrary to the common and constitutional law of England. I would recommend you get the legal eagles busy checking the facts in my book, there is a reading list at the back you will find I am right. You may even send them to my home I own the books mentioned and hundreds more. I will keep the tea and bacon butties coming for them.

The CD contains around 220 pages of government papers from the Heath era all marked secret, confidential or restricted liberated from the public records office. They tell the story of how Edward Heath set up a criminal conspiracy to subvert the constitution the major crime of sedition and at this level of sedition treason. And to hand this ancient Kingdom over to the EEC/EU the major crime of treason.

The report by Anthony Royal makes interesting reading as he openly boasts about the methods they used to commit these major crimes.

All it takes to get us out of the EU whose predecessor the EEC were complicit in this treason. Is to simply declare that Edward Heath, Norman Redaway and Anthony Royal conspired to commit treason and that Edward Heath lied to the Queen, Parliament and the people, so the 1972 EEC Act is void and every treaty signed on the back of this 72 Act is also void.

You will be naming three traitors all now dead so there will be no lengthy trials to pursue. And we are clear of the EU no article 50 no long drawn out negotiations just the application of English Law and the Vienna treaty on treaties.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

                                              ------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard Hogan-Howe 

Commissioner of Police

New Scotland Yard

10 Broadway

London

SW1H 0BG 21^st July 2016

Ref Islam and policy decisions

Sir

I have not yet received a reply to my letter of the 3^rd June 2016 apart from being bad manners not to reply it also fails to meet the Mets response time for replying to letters. May I remind you, you are a public servant and are required to comply with the rules laid down for your organisation? You might inform ADI Gail Granville Major Crime unit at Putney I am still waiting for her reply to my letter of the 12^th June 2016 and a major crime book number.

Now to the matter in hand I and a good many of her Majesty natural born subjects are sick to death of seeing Muslims parading and preventing her Majesty’s natural born subjects from using there right of free passage on England’s roads, as they congregate and make repeated death threats against the natural born subjects and those immigrants of other faiths or none who live and work here peacefully.

Threats to kill are I should not have to remind you, are major crime contrary to Sec 16 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which carries full powers of arrest.

It is my opinion that you have taken a policy decision not to arrest Muslims who make threats to kill or who impose Muslim patrols in order to enforce sharia law on the streets of England. These violent vigilante patrols constitute a threat to the Queens Peace. A peace you are on oath to preserve.

I would remind you that the comments of the three eminent Judges in Regina vs the Commissioner  of the Metrpolis ex-parte Blackburn 1968 were quite clear a policy decision not to prosecute a particular type of crime is illegal. I would recommend you take a good long look at the Judges’ comments and then do your job and apply the law of this Kingdom the way it is intended to be applied without favour, fear, malice or ill will in accordance with your oath before it becomes necessary to apply for an order of Mandamus. Which will I feel sure will be granted?

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

                                                  ------------------------------------------------------

The English Constitution Fact or Fiction?

What is this mythical thing called the English Constitution, what part does or should convention play in the constitution, what is custom or legal fiction? These and many other questions occur.

There is a fallacy that we the English do not have a constitution. What we do not have is a constitution written on one piece of paper like the American constitution. But that does not mean we do not have a very real constitution because we do. Indeed our constitution is so real and so good just about every common law country in the world has copied it, Talleyrand a French Bishop and diplomat who served Three French Kings and Napoleon Bonaparte said “When the English Constitution dies freedom dies” And for his entire life he was our enemy.

Constitution

So where do we find this mythical constitution of ours? Professor Taswell Langmede senior lecturer in Constitutional Law and History at University College London in his book written in 1871 said the English Constitution comprises Magna Carta 1215, the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights, I would add Habeas Corpus. These four things comprise the English Constitution. But they do not complete the constitution because Magna Carter and the Bill of Rights tell us what the King is not allowed to do; The Petition of Right is telling the King how we want to be governed. But there is nothing in any of these major pieces of constitutional law which tells the King or us what the King can do. This comes from the ancient Common Law of Kingship, this goes back to when we first elected the first King of the English and maybe much further back than that.

Custom and Legal Fiction.

So let us start there. The Anglo Saxons believed their Kings descended from the ancient God Woden. Who they dumped, when they converted to Christianity. Alfred the Great on being elected King of the English looked at all the laws and customs of the old Kingdom’s which combined to make his Kingdom. What is a legal custom? A custom is any law that has been in use from before time of memory with the approval of the people. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke ruled that before time of memory was any law older than 1197 when Richard the lion heart was Crowned 400 years before he was speaking. So any law over 400 years old becomes the Custom and Practice of England. As such it is beyond the reach of parliament so cannot be lawfully/legally repealed. What is a legal fiction? A legal fiction is a tool used by the courts to get over an impossible situation for example, your uncle dies and leaves everything to you. But for whatever reason you hated him and want nothing of his. His will says it must all come to you so by law you have to have it like it or not, so the court will invent the legal fiction that you died before your uncle so it is impossible to give it to you. It then goes to whoever follows you.

Kingship and Prerogative.

Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights impose limits on what the King can do but neither of these great contracts between the King and the people contains anything new. When they say the King cannot fine us or seize our property or send us to prison these things had been in existence since Alfred the Great imposed limits on what he as King can do. The King cannot on his own make or unmake law he does this in conjunction with Parliament. But what can the King do? The King can do anything which is legal, to do this we give him what is known as the Royal Prerogative. Government today say it is difficult to define the limits of the prerogative, this is arrant nonsense DESIGNED TO ALLOW GOERNMENT TO EXCEED THE PREROGATIVE POWERS OF THE KING WHICH THEY HAVE STOLEN. The King may use the prerogative to do anything which benefits his subjects. However if he does anything which harms even his lowliest subject this is an illegal use of the prerogative and must be withdrawn. Who can use the Royal Prerogative? The prerogative like everything else the King has was given to him by our ancient forefathers. And the King and only the King can use the Royal Prerogative; the King is refused permission by us the loyal subjects from letting anyone else use it. So what happens if the King is in a long term illness which prevents him working? The office of King must still function so we the people in discussion with the Kings family appoint a Regent to perform the duties of the King until he is able to carry them out himself. So the practice of government ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative is constitutionally illegal and treasonable.

To Diminish the King/Crown.

When our forefathers elected our first King it was decided by them the King must be visibly higher than his subjects, so they gave him vast tracts of land and lots of money and jewels. And they made the rule the King must live off the profits of what we now call the Crown Estates, and they gave him the Royal Prerogative on which they set limits. The King is forbidden by law from disposing of any of his wealth, or from giving or lending the Royal Prerogative to anyone else for any reason because to do so would diminish the Crown. And that is illegal under our Common Law of Kingship. Over the last 300 years Parliament in the form of the House of Commons has stolen the Royal Authority and like all theft it is illegal in this case it constitutes the major crime of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Common Law of Kingship

The King in Parliament

Parliament as we know it was formed by King Edward I in 1297. It comprises the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the King. Since 1420 the Commons has the right to initiate all legislation which then goes to the Lords who look at it and purely in line with their conscience they recommend amendments, reject it outright or give it their certificate as good law. When it has been passed by both houses it goes before the King who looks at it and depending entirely on the Kings conscience he will grant or refuse the Royal assent. If the King refuses the Assent there is no power on earth can overrule him or make him give his reasons.

Convention

Convention is an agreement that the Lords will not do certain things, in contravention to the will of the Commons. Conventions in this sense erodes the authority of the Lords and are constitutionally illegal.

Cognisance

Each House of Parliament has a common law cognisance to conduct their business in their own way and that includes the right of each house to decide who sits in it and who does not.

At least that is how our very intelligent forefathers set the system up with checks and balances. But since 1420 the Commons has been on a power grab in 1667 they demanded that the Lords could not amend a money bill in 1677 the Lords in a moment of madness gave way. In 1909 believing they could not amend they rejected the budget. Asquith put a bill forward to remove the authority of the Lords to reject a bill. On the threat of him putting 500 new Peers into the House of Lords who would vote for its closure. The Lords gave way and agreed they would not reject a bill. King Edward VII refused the assent stating it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. Asquith was ordered to go to the country he was returned and during the Kings speech King Edward said the only reason he was putting the Parliament Act forward was because his ministers said he had to. The King could still refuse the assent however shortly after this the King fell ill and died. King George V on becoming King was told he kept all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a minister. The power grab was complete the Commons had neutered the Lords and usurped the Royal authority.

Albert Burgess

albertburgess@hotmail.com

www.englishconstitutiongroup.org

T May article pulled from Telegraph

Reproduced in full below is a Telegraph article by Jonathan Foreman* headlined “Theresa May is a great self-promoter, but a terrible Home Secretary”, which was pulled after pressure from her campaign. It is excoriating…

In the run-up to the 2015 election, one of the handicaps David Cameron had to finesse was the fact that net migration to the UK was three times as high as he had promised it would be. 

Remarkably, none of the opprobrium this failure provoked brought forth the name of Theresa May, the cabinet minister actually entrusted with bringing migration down. Then, as now, it was as if the icy Home Secretary had a dark magic that warded off all critical scrutiny.

The fact that her lead role in this fiasco went unnoticed and unmentioned likely reflects Mrs May’s brilliant, all-consuming efforts to burnish her image with a view to become prime minister.

After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.

People find this hard to credit, because she exudes determination and strength. Compared to many of her bland, flabby cabinet colleagues, she has real gravitas. Few who follow British politics would deny that she is a deadly political infighter. Indeed, Theresa May is to Westminster what Cersei Lannister is to Westeros in Game of Thrones: no one who challenges her survives undamaged, while the welfare of the realm is of secondary concern.

Take the demoralised, underfunded UK Border Force. As the public discovered after a people-smugglers’ vessel ran aground in May, it has only three cutters protecting 7,700 miles of coastline. Italy by contrast has 600 boats patrolling its 4722 miles.

Considering the impression Mrs May gives of being serious about security, it’s all the more astonishing that she has also allowed the UK’s small airfields to go unpatrolled – despite the vastly increased terrorist threat of the last few years, the onset of the migration crisis, and the emergence of smuggling networks that traffic people, drugs and arms.

Then there is the failure to establish exit checks at all the country’s airports and ports. These were supposed to be in place by March 2015.

Unfortunately the Border Force isn’t the only organisation under Mrs May’s control that is manifestly unfit for purpose. Recent years have seen a cavalcade of Home Office decisions about visas and deportations that suggest a department with a bizarre sense of the national interest.

The most infamous was the refusal of visas to Afghan interpreters who served with the British forces in Afghanistan – as Lord Guthrie said, a national shame. Mrs May has kept so quiet about this and other scandals – such as the collapse of the eBorders IT system, at cost of almost a billion pounds – that you might imagine someone else was in charge at the Home Office.

[It’s not just a matter of the odd error. Yvette Cooper pointed out in 2013 that despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down.]

The reputation for effectiveness that Mrs May nevertheless enjoys derives from a single, endlessly cited event: the occasion in 2014 when she delivered some harsh truths to a conference of the Police Federation.

Unfortunately, this was an isolated incident that, given the lack of any subsequent (or previous) effort at police reform, seems to have been intended mainly for public consumption.

In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread over reliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

When considering her suitability for party leadership, it’s also worth remembering Mrs May’s notorious “lack of collegiality”.  David Laws’ memoirs paint a vivid picture of a secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful minister, so unpleasant to colleagues that a dread of meetings with her was something that cabinet members from both parties could bond over.

Unsurprisingly, Mrs May’s overwhelming concern with taking credit and deflecting blame made for a difficult working relationship with her department, just as her propensity for briefing the press against cabinet colleagues made her its most disliked member in two successive governments.

It is possible that Mrs May’s intimidating ruthlessness could make her the right person to negotiate with EU leaders. However, there’s little in her record to suggest she possesses either strong negotiation skills or the ability to win allies among other leaders, unlike Michael Gove, of whom David Laws wrote “it was possible to disagree with him but impossible to dislike him,”

It’s surely about time – and not too late – for Conservatives to look behind Mrs May’s carefully-wrought image and consider if she really is the right person to lead the party and the country.

There’s a vast gulf between being effective in office, and being effective at promoting yourself; it’s not one that Theresa May has yet crossed.
                                           

Brexit

OKTC, copied to my MP and IDS as a courtesy.

It should now perfectly clear to everyone that Michael Gove was put up as a puppet leader of VoteLeave, with the support of the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office, to which the Electoral Commission reports.  (It is not independent - its creation was simply a device to transfer control of elections from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office).  I said as much during the campaign of course.  Even Blind Freddy can now see it. 

There is simply no other credible explanation for the failure of VoteLeave to emphasise the massive trade deficit with the EU27, the huge regulatory burden imposed as a result of our membership of the so-called single market and the massive costs of labour displacement due to the uncontrolled immigration into the UK of unskilled and semi-skilled EU economic migrants.   

Gove is playing a similar game with the Tory leadership contest. He has no campaign on the ground and if he gets on the ballot paper he obviously plans to lose, as he planned to to lose the EU referendum.  He has very obviously agreed with Theresa May that he will be Chancellor and she will be PM. 

The idea, equally obviously, is to subvert the constitution of the Conservative Party by having two MPs on the same ticket nominally opposing each other.  If  Gove were to succeed in blocking Andrea Leadsom, the conservative with most Parliamentary support, from the ballot, the 'contest' would be a farce, like a televised wrestling match, followed by a 'unity' Cabinet, which at best would include a token handful of Eurosceptics.

Remember that May was the author of those gratuitously offensive 'nasty party' remarks (apparently she has never forgiven me for taking up some of 'her' air-time that night with my speech to the Bruges Group).  Both May and Gove, sadly, appear with respect to be ruthless, unprincipled, centrist machine politicians.

More than that, each is obviously committed to continuing membership of the EEA Agreement, i.e. each supports uncontrolled labour dumping from Europe, regardless of the social and economic cost, and the likely loss of life, as the angry, displaced white working class take their revenge.

The uncontrolled immigration policy has clearly been rejected by the electorate.  It is not even clear that Article 50 would operate to terminate membership of the single market, i.e. bring UK membership of the EEA Agreement to an end.  It probably woudn't.  Thursday's vote was as much a vote against membership of the so-called single market as it was against EU membership.

It is understood that Germany is relaxed about our leaving the EU, provided that we can be forced to remain trapped inside the 'single market', so that we continue to be a dumping ground for EU, mostly German, exports, and EU27 surplus labour.  Cameron appears to have caved in to these key German demands as the European Council meeting. 

Chris Grayling is obviously being lined up as Home Secretary.  He is weak man, with respect, and would probably continue May's policy of not doing much to interrupt the distribution of narcotics inside the UK (May has been a failure when it comes to controlling the deadly trade in dangerous drugs). Since Germany's GO2 controls the two main distribution cartels in the UK this is another key German demand, although of course it can only be made in smoke-filled rooms as German control of the drugs trade, which costs about 30,000, mostly young, lives in the UK each year is covert.

I do not say that May as Home Secretary is aware that the drugs trade is controlled from Germany.  She is not that bright, with respect, is intelligence illiterate (so much so that she has probably never heard of GO2) and so far as I know has not read Spyhunter. She is a typical, "house-trained idiot", to paraphrase 'Jim Hacker', no offence intended.  It would not be difficult for Home Office officials to pull the wool over her eyes.

Eurosceptic MPs should clearly question Gove closely about his views on denouncing the EEA Agreement. I imagine they will find him evasive, as he was during the referendum campaign.  The reality is that he belongs to the Chamberlain/Heath/Major/Cameron wing of the party and is prepared to cave in to German demands, just as he would probably have supported our community partner Adolf Hiltler's demands at Munich in 1938.

The good news is that Andrea Leadsom has a good chance of being placed on the ballot.  Eurosceptic MPs should swing behind her.  If she becomes PM she will have a strong team and would probably go down the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties route. She has already made it clear that she will not accept uncontrolled immigration from the EU27 and that Europeans would have to take their chances like everybody else.   

European economic migrants already here should be given time to leave, parallel with the notice period, preferably the 12 month Vienna period. 

We do not need tariff-free access to the so-called single market and there is no need at all to enter into time-wasting negotiations with our community enemies.

Michael Shrimpton QC

Judge me on my record yes we MAY!

No way should May be PM...we will not tolerate yet another stitch up by those we elect to work for us.

  This woman voted to betray us, as Cameron et al did so she cannot be anywhere near our exit plans or Number 10

She said to judge her on her record, so let's do that.

  Allows Sharia Courts to operate in this country.

Responsible for the 2014 the passport fiasco.

Moaned about the Human Rights Act allowing suspected terrorists to continue living in this country under the clause that speaks of their right 'to a family life'. After complaining so much, actually did nothing to get that Act amended. 

  In charge of the Police she did no better. 

   Cutting their numbers and budget while the terrorist threat was at its highest and sat back doing nothing while in Leicester, Rotherham, etc police failed to stop the wholesale rape and sexual abuse of under-age white girls by Muslim men.
Also failed to intervene in the infiltration of schools in Birmingham by Islamic extremists.

  It was her job to reduce the number of immigrants from over half a million every year to tens of thousands. Strangely enough - it increased.  She blamed Shengen and the EU’s open borders rule but voted for Remain!  Go figure.

 Still think she should be PM?

 NO 'Remainian' should be PM that is a betrayal of 17 million people and we will not tolerate it.

Anon