This is an excellent letter from Albert Burgess in 15 Parliament Road whose website is called “A Case for Treason”.
He previously received a letter with page 1 and page 2 from Ms Vagg which sounds ‘ever so proper’ once again, fudging the issue, as they always do, these people who ‘only doing their job’…
Eileen Vagg Albert Burgess
Cabinet Office 15 Parliament Road
4th Floor South Thame
1 Horse Guards Road South Oxfordshire
London OX9 3TE
SW1A 2HQ 15-10-2011
Ref House of Lords Reform
Dear Ms Vagg
It never ceases to amaze me just how much those who govern us, and those who work for those who govern us, do not know or understand the English Constitution or Common Law.
So let me remind you, you are not answerable to the deputy prime minister an office unknown until Margaret Thatcher invented it for Willy Whitelaw a traitor of the worst kind. As he was a prime mover and shaker of Heaths when he sold this Kingdom to the EEC for £60,000. You are answerable to the law as it is written, and to the people who employ you. That is not the government of the day but the great British tax payer, who are getting increasingly annoyed at government which sees itself as above the law and answerable to no one. History tells us that when that situation occurs governments and Kings are removed, generally, painfully.
You talk about parliamentary sovereignty, meaning I have no doubt the sovereignty of the House of Commons, which they erroneously claim on the grounds they are the elected chamber. It might interest you to know that King George III carried out a 20 year fight with the commons as to where sovereignty lay, with the House of Commons or the King. It was determined that sovereignty lay with the King. So Her Majesty is Sovereign not the commons, who are largely elected because most of them are inveterate liars, not to mention thieves. Who seem to feel they can steal our money with impunity.
Our constitution is both ancient and very good, indeed as so many countries around the world have modelled their constitution on ours, one may conclude our constitution is as perfect as it can get. In spite of your belief that parliament is all powerful and can do anything it likes, things like the Great Charter of 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689 which incorporates the Declaration of rights 1689. Can not be repealed by parliament because they are binding contracts between the King and his subjects, and are outside the remit of parliament. Habeas Corpus goes back to that truly Great King, King Alfred, and as such it is the custom and practice of England. As such it is beyond the reach of parliament.
Custom is any law which has been in use from times of greatest antiquity with the approval of the people; all custom is beyond the reach of parliament, because it has become the custom and practice of England. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke 1628 ruled that any law which was older than 1199 was the custom of England this sets greatest antiquity as any law more than 400 years old. So those ancient laws of Provisors 1351, and Praemunire1351 both ostensibly repealed in 1948 and 1967 are both still in force because they are beyond the reach of parliament by virtue of the fact they are the custom and practice of England. This is doubly true because they were repealed to allow the betrayal of this Kingdom to a foreign power the EEC/EU, and the attempted repeals were acts of High Treason in their own right.
Our constitution was built by our forefathers, as a result of having to deal with despotic government; as a result they built into the constitution checks and balances in the way parliament was constructed. According to Sir Mathew Hale arguably our greatest ever Judge, parliament is a tripartite agreement, the Commons originates law, the Lords amend it, pass it, or reject it, and the King gives it the Royal Assent or not. No one part can pass, amend, or repeal law. That is the way our parliament is constructed, it is constructed like that to protect us from despotic government. By preventing any one part being any more powerful than the other parts.
Not one of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects and I stress loyal subjects was ever asked if we wanted to change that, nor were Her Majesty’s predecessors subjects asked if they wanted to change that happy arrangement, nor were we asked if we wanted Nick Clegg or any one else in government to change that happy state of affairs. Had we been asked the answer would be a resounding NO! NO! NO! Or more probably other words to the same effect I will leave you to decide for your self which words I refer to.
In 1661 the commons started on a power grab, when they told the Lords they could not amend a money bill, look as you will? You will find nothing in our constitutional arraignments which authorises that. It was then and is now constitutionally illegal. In 1910 Asquith put a money bill forward the Lords believing wrongly that they could not amend it, rejected it. Asquith went to the Lords and told them he was putting forward a bill to restrict there ability to reject a bill, if they did not pass it he would put 500 new Peers into the house and they would vote for its abolition. Duress and or blackmail are serious crimes who ever or however they are presented by, in this case they constituted the major crime of sedition contrary to common law, because Asquith was subverting the constitutional make up of parliament, and at this level of sedition it becomes an Act of High Treason against the people, the very crime King Charles I was beheaded for. The subsequent parliament acts, and the 1999 House of Lords Act have been acts of sedition in there own right and consequently acts of High Treason. Baroness Ashton in the House of Lords speaking for the government said it was not possible to remove every Peer in a general bill. The 1999 act was is and always will be ultra vires. Translation it is illegal.
Not content with undermining the House of Lords, the commons set about usurping the Royal Prerogative, one of Asquith’s ministers told King George V on his ascending the Throne that he keeps all his prerogatives, but he may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a government minister, look as you will? You will find no constitutional authority for that statement, in fact the opposite is the case, and to usurp the Royal Prerogative is to commit High Treason. We even have a particular law to cover it the 1795 Treason Act makes it an act of High Treason to restrain the King. To prevent the King from exercising his Prerogative according to his conscience is to restrain the King and is an act of High Treason. Every government since is and has been guilty of this major crime.
The government has not now and never has had a mandate from Her Majesty’s subjects to undertake any changes to the constitutional arrangements of parliament as put in place by our forefathers. Nor have they ever had a mandate to sign any EU Treaties which transfer any powers to govern away from the Queen in parliament to the EU or any other foreign power. Nor do they have a mandate to impose EU laws and regulations on the United Kingdom, I recommend you read the Act of Supremacy 1559 and the Bill of Rights 1689 both these major constitutional laws forbid the governments actions with regard to the EU, you might also like to refer to 40 E.3.n.7.8 &c:3 these actions are acts of High Treason contrary to the English Constitution. It is my intention to see the whole lot hang for their ongoing treasons. If I were you I would get another job it has been a long time since this country has hung a woman, it would be a real shame to hang you for Conspiracy to commit High Treason. After a trial before a jury of your peers of course. Your letter is evidence of your conspiracy.
As a matter of fact the cognisance of the House of Lords extends to who sits in the house, the precedence’s for this are many which you should know if your knowledge of this subject were as good as it should be. Nothing originated by the commons can change that without committing treason.
You should also be aware that Her Majesty has the right to change death by hanging for High Treason to public execution by hanging drawing and quartering. This does not apply to women they are burnt at the stake. Personally it is my belief that removing Nick Clegg’s head can only improve his appearance. Though it would undoubtedly spoil the clean lines of London Bridge to display his head on a spike. You should not work on the assumption that no Jury would convict, and there is no shortage of volunteers for public executioner. We will have no problem finding loyal subjects of Her Majesty’s to fulfil either role. Love of Queen and country is far from dead in these islands.