To the Fatuous Twat in the seat of POWER!

HEY  FATUOUS ONE! look below your game has been unveiled and you can no longer hide behind your pretense that nothing is wrong in the world you are intent on FUCKING UP! There are good and conscientious people out here in the real world who will hold YOU and YOURS to account for the complete fucking balls up you are making of our lives! below is a letter from Albert Burgess which details all the salient points of why it is YOU and YOUR politician friends that  are the real ENEMIES of the nations peace, you have a last chance to show that YOU the LORD CHANCELLOR respect the rule of law and can understand a simple arguement based on incontrovertible fact...DO YOUR DUTY AND PUT THIS RIGHT NOW, or be condemned forever as the traitor you will prove yourself to be...

Kenneth Clarke
Lord Chancellor
The House of Lords
London
SW1A 1AA
-
My Lord

Each house of parliament has a common law cognisance to run its own business, in its own way; neither house can by Common Law interfere in the internal working of the other house.
This is the constitutional settlement placed upon parliament by our forefathers, and described in the Prerogatives of the King by Sir Mathew Hale 1713 Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. And F W Maitland Late Downing Professor of the Laws of England in the University of Cambridge. At the university press 1908.
Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice of the Kings Bench 1628 ruled that parliament may some times pass a law which is repugnant or impossible to perform in which case the common law will intercede and strike it down. Giving the Common Law the status of higher law than statute law.
There are a number of cases of the cognisance of the commons to conduct its own business its own way, but I have not been able to find one case which deals with either house interfering in the running of the other house. Yet this is exactly what the House of Commons has done to the House of Lords, they started this process in 1661 after the restoration of King Charles II when the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill only accept it or reject it, the commons were claiming without any legal authority, complete autonomy in all things financial. This was the commons interfering with the cognisance of the upper house to do its job of scrutinising legislation.  For some inexplicable reason the Lords accepted this state of affairs. This was the precursor to all the subsequent parliament acts.
In 1910 Asquith put forward a money bill and the upper house being erroneously of the opinion that they had no authority to amend this bill rejected it. In fact the upper house had the common law right to amend it and return the amended bill to the commons for approval.
As a result Asquith put forward the first parliament act which limited the authority of the upper house, Asquith told the upper house if they did not consent to this bill he would put 500 new Peers into the hose who would vote for its abolition, when this bill to restrict the upper house was submitted to King Edward VII he refused the assent on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. In fact it interfered with the cognisance of the upper house to perform its duties in the manor laid down by the constitutional and common laws of England, these laws are so good they have travelled to every common law jurisdiction in the world. Even Talleyrand our sworn enemy said when the English Constitution goes freedom goes.
King Edward VII fell ill and died, and on coming to the Throne King George V was told by a government minister he keeps all his prerogatives but may not use any of
them unless he has the backing of a government minister. This principle is unknown to our constitutional or common law. The assent was given to the 1911 Parliament Act which effectively weakened the authority of the upper house but with no constitutional or common law authority for the commons to even contemplate such a move. The mere fact they are the elected house does not authorise their actions. Because at no time have the public been put in the constitutional picture, which would allow them to make an informed decision. As to whether they wish to weaken the upper house in this or any other way. In fact Asquith toured the country slanting the true position so much as to be an outright lie.
The 1948 Parliament Act was yet another interference with the cognisance of the upper house to perform its constitutional duties, as our forefathers set it up. Once again this was done without the benefit of law, nor is there any justifiable legal principle which can be quoted to justify the unjustifiable.
The 1998 House of Lords Act by the same token interferes with the cognisance of the upper house to determine itself who does or does not sit in the upper house. This is a clear breach of the constitutional arrangements of parliament and is contrary to constitutional and common law.
Each of the above acts has subverted the constitutional arrangements of parliament; this is the major crime of Sedition at Common Law, and at this level of Sedition an act of High Treason.
The letters patent as granted to a Baron of the realm are such as to be a clear and lawful order from the King, to the recipient of the letter patent to undertake certain duties on the Kings behalf, it is clear that the King can not possibly know or understand every thing put before him, he should have a good general understanding of his Kingdom, his subjects, and world affairs. But there will always be occasions when his knowledge or understanding will fall short of allowing him without assistance from reaching the right decision. In order that he has a ready source of advisors who are good and capable men, he uses those peers of the realm that he or his ancestors have appointed to Baronetcies, and the letters patent represent a lawful order from the King to the holder of the Letters Patent to undertake this work. They instruct the holder of the Letters Patent that he must sit in the upper house of parliament and scrutinise legislation passing through the parliament to ensure it is in the best interests of the country and his subjects, it further gives a lawful order to the holder of the letters Patent that he is to act as an advisor to the King. In short the King requires those with the best available knowledge and experience to advise him as to the best course of action under any circumstances.
England is a Monarchy and we all owe a duty of loyalty and obedience to our lawfully anointed sovereign, the letters patent are by our laws to be obeyed. For any one who ever they may be, whatever position they hold within the Kingdom be they farm labour or Prime Minister to come between the King and the holder of the letters patent so as to prevent the holder from carrying out the lawful commands of the King is for that person to set himself above the King. That by our law is an act of High Treason contrary to the Common Law of England and the 1351 Treason Act.
I respectfully submit that is just what Anthony Blair did when he put through the 1998 House of Lords Act. He in effect set Her Majesty’s lawful order to those hereditary peers sat in the upper house at nought thereby imagining the death of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen. Contrary to Common Law and the 1351 Treason Act.
He also removed Her Majesty’s honour as a Sovereign Queen by assuming he had a greater authority in this Kingdom than Her Majesty. Contrary to Common Law and the 1848 Treason Felony Act.
I would like you to explain to me why I should comply with any law passed in Parliament since 1911 because since that day parliament has not been properly constructed according to the tripartite agreement set in place by our forefathers, and as such it has no mandate to pass any legislation.
I would further request that for every hereditary peer removed from the upper house, under the 1998 House of Lords Act. A warrant should be issued for the arrest of Anthony Linton Blair one time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on a charge of High Treason for imagining the death of the Anointed Queen of England Queen Elizabeth II Contrary to Common Law and the 1351 Treason Act.
Respectfully submitted
Albert Burgess

PS Although Albert (bless his little socks) respectfully submits the above , believe me Kenneth there is precious little respect left for you and your ilk out here in the real world and absolutely none from theis blog, you and yours have ridden roughshod over our rights for too FUCKING LONG! get it right for once and give us (the people) that which has always been our right as sovereign peoples...you risk too much going on the way you have been...

Hat tip to Cap'n Ranty and Nominedeus 
also blogged on by Ian PJ

Traitors Day...Treason and John Hurst's Stand.

As promised my friends the John Hurst Case and my views of the days (dirty ) dealings.

As my good friend GOT would say MY PISS IS BOILING!!!!!, no I will go further than that my shit is incandescent and my gorge has risen.w

Where to start, I shall assume I am reaching out to those who 'KNOW ' the background to this case (otherwise I will be writing for a week at least) if you do not know the details then follow the links to catch up OK! (see previous posts)

Lawful Rebellion, no that's not right its not loud enough, LAWFUL REBELLION, its an established and never repealed right of the |British people ( no not never repealed but rather UNREPEALABLE right!). Established in and by Magna Carta 1215 art 61, and the bill of rights, that friends was Johns defence against the, because of his entry  into lawful rebellion, imposition of ANY tax upon him by the Queen, crown or any of their derivative bodies, such as the courts.

Pre proceeding there were approximately 35 interested parties gathered (apart from the defendants and their advocates/McKenzie friends) people from all walks of life and from places as diverse as Shetland (hi Dylan) to the south coast, North to south and East to West, little old ladies called Sheila who at (forgive my indelicacy please Sheila)  70 + years of age sat primly and when asked said "I am here because it just isn't right, its not the British way, this is all wrong) sheila could have been any ones Granny. Yet here she sat watching this case because what was happening 'wasn't right' I'll say!, ranging then through all ages downward to a 20 something young man who knew enough about anything you engaged him in to shame a teacher/ lecturer in the subject.

We were gathered outside when the local police inspector waltzed up!, high vis jacket and batman belt, he waited politely at the edge of our crowd for some minutes before we stopped our various conversations to let him through, which he took as his moment to try to 'lay down the LAW to us.....ha ha ha ha ha aaaaaaa! what a fucking HUGE mistake that proved to be for him, not only was he quietly put in his place and on his oath by John and others but he was so impressed he volunteered the information that we , as a crowd, had worried the clerk of the court and others that we would protest and try to disrupt proceedings.... we talked with him, we addressed his questions and posed a few of our own for him to answer, though funnily enough our questions were more rhetorical and backed by so much knowledge of the LAW that he had to accept them as statements. he  enquired as to where we had all come from and was told what was in the above paragraph, he said there would be a police presence in the court, to be corrected in that a) it wasn't a court (per se) but an administrative hearing, and b) that any police present in that hearing (being in a 'court' were in fact no more than ordinary human beings dressed in funny costumes AND carrying arms (tsk tsk tsk). He to give him his due either knew the LAW  or decided not to argue the point, and said " all we are hear for is to make sure that there was no disturbance to the proceedings" the wall of sound (Phil Spectre would have been proud enough to have fired a revolver in the air) of quietly voiced deprecation of the very idea that we would in anyway interrupt proceedings went on for some minutes and when died down to an occasional quip, said and I quote " well I can see that you are all responsible people and you have satisfied me that there will be no trouble" He then asked our leave to be excused ( no really he did!!!) and went to inform the Magistrates who were cowering in a back room somewhere!! queue much laughter amongst the gathered crowd!

Entry was made into the court where we were decided we would only stand or sit at a command from John, thus establishing his right as an equal in common law to the Mugjistrates on the bench. The early stage of the hearing was quickly turned into a quiet argument between John and the Clerk to the justices, when John asked if it was a 'common law' court, she was unable to much more than bluster " you don't have the right to question me", to which John corrected her saying she was a public servant and he had every right to establish the jurisdiction of the 'court'. She eventually decided that discretion was perhaps the better part of a lynch mob, and claimed the 'court dealt with common law, statute and many other forms of law?????

The crowd were in quietly festive mood and , though warned beforehand not to ooohhhh, aaaahhh or otherwise to much, definitely raised a distinct chorus of exclamations of general hilarity. It was obvious this Clerk had absolutely no idea of the jurisdiction rights , prerogatives, duties or liabilities of her own pet little 'court and magistrates'.

John appeared satisfied, the Clerk appeared flustered and was blushing with self contained fury, the magistrates to say the least were restless, well two were, the head and his mate to the left (our left) were, the old Battle axe to the right was sitting ( oh I wish I had a picture for you all) hands clasped before her not inestimable (horsey) bulk, gazing implacably down at the desk before her, for all the world as if she were awaiting the next little Samantha in the gymkhana to enter the ring with a fractious pony!

The first and only prosecution witness was called, a Mr Thomas from the Council Tax department (he was too young for this job and had the definite air of someone who had drawn the short straw long ago and come to regret his ill luck since) . He was no real match for John who questioned him about their correspondence, and whether he had checked the position stated to establish its validity, fair play to hm he said he had referred it to  the councils solicitor.... but they had ignored a properly constituted council of Barons ...WTF...

what is LAW... is it the Rule of Law, or is it what they choose out of the thousands of acts/statutes to follow slavishly into oblivion....don't strain a braincell I will tell you the RULE OF LAW is the common law of the land, Statute runs a very poor second to OUR inalienable rights established under MAGNA CARTA and the BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!!

The upshot of Mr Thomas's testimony was a declaration that he was complicit in an act of TREASON upon the people and the magistrates were instructed by John to issue an immediate warrant for the arrest of a traitor to the Crown ( now held in trust by the Barons Committee for the British people), this they declined to do through the Clerk of the (ha ha haaa) court who said and I quote " they would not be taking any action on the allegation of TREASON"!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shortly after this , and the voiced incredulity of the assembled witnesses, the Head Magistmug said and again I quote, " Mr Hurst we are not here for a history lesson and we are not prepared to sit here all day listening to one"......Well folks my flabber was ghasted I have to tell you...'not prepared to sit there' ...that must be a 'rush to justice ' scenario if I ever saw one, and that dear readers is actually not  a legal or lawful thing to do.....

John claimed distraint, and the head magistrate was heard by me to say "steady mate"....'steady mate'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WTF is that as a comment???????

John pointed out that by the terms of his severance from the police he had to sign a paper saying he would not be guilty of TREASON , and having found out ALL was treasonous since the Barons Committee had been formed and the treaties of Nice and Lisbon signed and then ratified by the Queen (yes our queen sold us down the river) he being a man of good standing and conscience could do no more than refuse to render aid to the gang of TRAITORS that comprise the government, by withholding from their use any and all taxes which were in his power to withhold (not an unreasonable position seeing as the penalties in LAW for not doing so include both his pension being stopped and the possibility of life imprisonment for said TREASON)

I am not a stranger to these arguments, let me assure you, and they are completely valid as far as I can see....and I can see a little farther than the average Joe in the street believe me!, farce went to stupidity shortly there after, we had been guarded by at least 8 police people in all their enforcer finery, right up to benches retirement for the verdict......this was reduced to the presence of just one (1) woman PC who stood chewing gum as the verdict was delivered by a distinctly uneasy bench chairman ( I thought chewing gum in court was an act of contempt, you try doing it if you're up on a charge) ((I also thought having a mobile on was one too, yet all PCs in 'court' had their radio's on and in the 'court' remember they were actually just ordinary members of the public in funny costumes!!!!!

After an hours recess the magistmugs came back into 'court' after having us called back and then waiting a good 12 mins before making their grand entrance...we stood at Johns command , not their 'court' clerks. and sat when John motioned us to ...not when they said.....to listen to the Head Magistmug give his statement . Fearfully he said in advance of doing this  that , and I quote " (he) hoped that we would listen to what he had to say as he had shown his respect by listening to Johns case" WWWWHHHHAAAATTTTTHHHEEEFFFUUCCKKK

We knew what was coming , but listened politely to him making no sound...and \i quote " bla bla bla listened carefully..bla bla ...to evidence from Mr Thomas..bla bla...not refuted...bla bla..reminders sent...bla bla..heard evidence £966.64 was owing...bla bla...Mr Hurd had advanced arguments in favour of not paying...bla bla bla council of barons...bla bla ...Queenie not replied..bla bla...and that they were not persuaded that the case was made...bla ..cannot support as regulations do NOT APPLY ( my emphasis), the argument was political and outside their remit...therefore find for the plaintiff (council) and a liability order was made ...

Solicitor for the council then asked for and got awarded £50 costs..................................

What we 35 witnesses witnessed today was a complete rejection of the common law of this OUR land , what we witnessed was TREASON , not once , not twice but three ties, we saw the advisor to the court unable to understand the simple concept that ALL law is based on MAGNA CARTA and the BILL of RIGHTS and that it is a persons first line of defence against an out of control and despotic government and its captive monarch....We are all affected by the rights that have been stripped from us today, every man woman and child in the British Isles and all its dependencies are diminished , belittled, enslaved by what happened to an HONOURABLE MAN WHO STOOD UP AND ASKED FOR justice IN A COMMON LAW COURT......

THERE IS NO MORE COMMON LAW FOLKS, WE HAVE NO REDRESS FROM THE TYRANNY OF A GOVERNMENT DRUNK AND OUT OF CONTROL ON ITS STOLEN MONARCHICAL POWERS, do you know what that leaves us...do you... its simple really....

Definition : the state of WAR is defined by the suspension of the common law courts and the common mans right to redress before them.......

DO YOU PERCHANCE UNDERSTAND!!!!!

Thank you for your attention, and may your GOD go with you, for the law will not help you anymore! 

From me Indyanhat it is goodnight and goodbye, but please be assured I go from here to another role in the fight against tyranny!!!