The Rape of the English Constitution

 

Guest Article by Albert Burgess;

Before we start this article, it is first necessary for a short explanation of the history of the English legal system as regards to the origins and value of our law.

Our laws come in two basic sorts, those within memory and those outside living memory. Any law older than 1189, when King Richard I (the Lionheart) came to the Throne, is said to be before time of memory (Sir Edward Coke 1628). Any law after this time is said to be made within memory. Prior to 1189, we have knowledge of these laws from before time of memory mainly from the history books and other writers and we call these laws the Common Law or the Custom and Practice of England. Custom is any law which has been in use since times of Greatest Antiquity, with the approval of the people. These laws gain their authority because they are the Custom of the English people. Parliament has no authority to repeal these laws, only the people collectively can do so because it is by the authority of the people that they have been in use for so long. These common laws are the main and original source of our English freedoms. These common laws themselves come under two headings, Those Anglo Saxon laws of King Edward the Confessor, (Alfred’s Law) and those laws from the time of King William I or the Conqueror, 1066 and King Richard I or the Lionheart 1189. For the most part, King William I kept the laws of King Edward the Confessor adding just a few dealing with the preservation of the peace and military matters.

Most of these ancient laws, because they protect our rights and freedoms, are constitutional in spirit. But from time to time, because England has not always had good Kings, we the people have had to restrain the king and force him to reissue these old laws again. King William II, also known as William Rufus, tried to ignore the rule of law, he was killed in a hunting accident, shot through the heart by an arrow which history tells us glanced off a tree. King Henry I was forced to issue his Charter of Liberties in 1100. King John, an evil man, was forced to sign The GREAT CHARTER or Magna Charter in 1215. This was a reissue of the Charter of Liberties 1100. King Stephen was forced to issue his charter 1135, a reissue of the laws of King Edward the Confessor. In 1327, King Edward II was deposed and murdered. In 1628, King Charles I was given the Petition of Right, a demand we be ruled according to our laws. In 1641 he was given the Grand Remonstrance, which he also ignored, so in 1649 we removed his head. In 1688, King James II was ruling outside the law and was forced to flee the country for his life. King William III issued the Bill of Rights 1689, a reissue of our rights and freedoms as guaranteed by our English Common Law. It was not as Parliament claims, a restriction on the authority of the King which remained unchanged. The Charter of Liberties 1100, Magna Charter 1215, the Petition of Rights 1628, and the Bill of Rights 1689 are Major Constitutional Laws which, with the Common Law and Custom, are Higher Law. All higher law is beyond the reach of parliament. Add to these the Acts of Provisors and Praemunire 1351, the 1351 Treason Act, and the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and we have the English Constitution.

England has been the victim of black bloody rape and rape of the worst kind.

Before you can commit rape you need a victim. In this case the victim is English higher law, Common and Constitutional law. How, you ask, can you rape a law? Rape, after all, is a violent crime, or is it always violent? Today we have rape by the use of drugs, not just violence, rape can also be by lies and deceit such as a promise made with no intention of keeping your word. In our case, we are talking of the rape of higher law by deception.

Next, we need to know which higher laws have been raped by deception. First, our forefathers set up Parliament a tri-partite agreement. The House of Commons originate law, the House of Lords accepts, amends or rejects that law and, if accepted, it then goes to the King for the Royal Assent, or not, depending whether the King believes it to be in the best interests of his subjects and the country. Parliament itself is made up by the elected representatives from the boroughs, the House of Lords is made up of the Hereditary Peerage, the Lords Spiritual advise on whether the law conforms to Christian values, and the Law Lords who are Life Peers and sit in the House of Lords in their judicial capacity advise on the legality of proposed legislation. Every Lord is a Peer of the realm and has a letters patent which gives his title and job description which is that he is to sit in the House of Peers and scrutinise legislation on the King’s behalf to ensure that only the legislation which benefits the subject and the country is approved, and to thus act as an advisor to the King.

The legal position of the King.

Kings of England are both hereditary and elected. This means that if the people believe the eldest son of the King is unsuitable to hold this high office, they can and will elect someone they feel to be more suitable to the role of King. This is why, at the Coronation of a new King, a Knight in full armour will ride into Westminster Abbey and throw a gauntlet on the ground and say something like, “Are there any foul and base traitors here who dispute the right of this Prince to be King, If there are, step outside and a time and place will be assigned for us to dispute this in battle.”

Once the King has been anointed and crowned, by custom he is the supreme governor of England. This is why he must give or refuse the Royal Assent. This has always been the case ever since King Alfred the Great refused the authority of the Pope to interfere in his Kingdom, making Alfred supreme governor both of the country and the church. This was put on a semi-formal basis by King Edward III when he issued his Act of Provisors 1351 which makes it an act of high treason to dispose of any English asset to a foreign owner, and his Act of Praemunire 1351 which makes it an act of high treason to impose any foreign law into his Kingdom, for his subjects to be drawn out of his Kingdom to be tried in a foreign court, and for any of his Bishops to excommunicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope. This was put on a formal basis by King Henry VIII when he issued his Act of Supremacy of 1534, and it was repeated by Queen Elizabeth I in her Act of Supremacy of 1559.

This rape started after the restoration of King Charles II. Charles had just been handed his father’s throne, and was somewhat indebted to the House of Commons so he did not argue when the Commons told the Lords they could not originate a bill or amend a money bill. The Upper House resisted this for some time but eventually gave way; there is nothing in the English Constitution which allows this assault on the powers of the House of Lords. As a direct result of this 1666 nonsense, the House of Lords accepted that they would not amend a money bill. After the death of Queen Anne in 1714, we inherited a King. King George I did not speak English so, unlike every King or Queen who went before, he did not attend Parliament or Cabinet Meetings. This allowed the politicians a free run. George I signed everything put before him, not knowing what he was signing. King George II was told he should not attend Parliament and Cabinet Meetings by government. This was both unconstitutional and an act of treason by restraining the King from carrying out his constitutional role to supervise legislation, and he spent his life complaining that his ministers were kings in his kingdom. George III fought a twenty year battle with the House of Commons as to where sovereignty lay, with him as the Anointed King, or with the House of Commons. After a speech by Pitt the elder in which he said “instead of the arbitrary power of a Stuart King we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of the Commons. If this be true what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is exercised by a number of tyrants, My Lords, this is not the fact, this is not the constitution, we have a law of parliament. We have a statute book and the Bill of Rights.”

The King won the vote in the Commons. It was decided that sovereignty lay with the King. This is the legal, constitutional position today. Indeed, that has always been the case. Parliament tells us that the last time the Royal assent was refused was in 1707 by Queen Anne over the militia act. This is untrue. Queen Victoria refused the assent to a bill on homosexuality because it referred to lesbians. She did not believe women would engage in these deviant practices, the bill received the assent only after all references to lesbians had been removed. Queen Victoria also refused bills by putting them on one side and saying the Queen will consider it, and from then it was never seen again. As a result of believing that they could not amend a money bill, the House of Lords rejected the 1909 budget; this made the Prime Minister Asquith present to the House of Lords a bill to prevent them rejecting a bill. When the Lords said they would not give it the assent, Asquith threatened them he would put 500 new peers into the House who would vote it out of existence. Faced with this threat, the Lords caved in and gave it their assent.

Asquith presented the Parliament Act to King Edward VII. King Edward refused the assent on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects by altering the constitutional role of the House of Lords and restricting them from carrying out the job of rejecting bad legislation. King Edward VII said Asquith would have to go to the country. Asquith went around the country telling the electorate that those nasty Lords would not let them have a pension, when in fact the Lords said nothing of the sort. The reason for rejecting the budget was that the extra tax imposed upon the working man would be more than he could afford on top of the tax he was already paying. Asquith was re-elected and King Edward VII DIED of an illness. When King George V came to the Throne, he was told by a government minister that he would keep all of his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a government minister. King George V was never due to be king. He had an older brother, Prince Edward, who died of pneumonia. Edward was betrothed to Princess May of Tech. In spite of her name she was an English Princess. May however, was in love with his younger brother Prince George, George also loved May. The death of Prince Edward left the way clear for them to marry. The point is that Prince Edward, as heir to the Throne, would have been taught in depth about the English Constitution. Prince George’s constitutional education would not have been more than rudimentary as he was unlikely to need the knowledge. So when a government minister told him he could not use his prerogatives he was unlikely to believe he was being told anything but the truth, when actually he had just been the victim of an act of high treason. Particularly, as he had just lost his father and in all probability was not thinking too straight. King Edward VIII would have been told the same thing, government by now having neutered both the King and the House of Lords. Edward was, in the end, not King for very long due to being forced illegally to abdicate, The English Constitution and Common Law having no mechanism for changing a King otherwise than by his death. His successor, his younger brother the Duke of York afterwards King George VI , like his father, would not have spent a great deal of time learning the Constitution. His daughter Princess Elizabeth was taught from the age of 12 to 22 years of age by one Henry Marten, a Fabian, and we know The Fabian Society want to destroy all that is good in this Kingdom. So an impressionable young girl was placed in the hands of the anti-Christ; someone we would consider to be a traitor. In the Criminal Law Revision Act 1948, the Labour Government repealed the Act of Provisors thus clearing the way for the wholesale selling of our English assets to foreign buyers who have closed down our manufacturing and fishing industries. In the Criminal Law Act 1967, the Labour Government repealed the Act of Premunire, clearing the way for foreign law to be imposed upon this country to our great discomfort, and the European arrest warrant. The rest, as they say, is history with the King and the House of Lords the victims of acts of treason which prevent them fulfilling their role as protectors of the people, and with a House of Commons with far more traitors and crooks than any conventional company could employ and hope to survive. This United Kingdom, this England is well down the road to extinction. Each and every time our ministers sign an EU Treaty, they are handing more and more of this country’s sovereignty to a foreign power the EU a clear act of high treason.

Advertisements

About Duncan:

reclaim your Sovereignty,
This entry was posted in BBC, EU, Free Dom, lawful rebellion, right to keep and bear arms, Right toTravel, Treason and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Rape of the English Constitution

  1. Rastarim says:

    Thank you for such an interesting post, researching the legislation historically

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s