Hello Jack. Would you please enlarge on your comment. Who is the federal Albert
Burgess. Does he exist or is it a nom de plume. What was the email address on
the false Albert
Subject: [patriots] Albert's discourse
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: ukpatriot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:59:55 +0000
Hi All,
I had this passed on to me.
Jack
Jack, this originates from Albert Burgess…. the true one is
below Albert’s « Origin’s »… Albert is as you know an ex fédéral
police officer and has been very economical with the truth.
The Origins Rights
and Authority of Parliament
The Origins of parliament
are shrouded in the midst of time,
we can only go back so far in time
and know for certain how ancient
people governed them selves. However
it seems sensible to assume the
family unit was governed by the will
of the father of the family unit.
Where several family units lived
together it is reasonable to assume
that they would select one of their
number to run the small unit of
family's working together for their
mutual benefit. Some times this
leader would be leader not by choice
but because he was bigger and
stronger than the others so he took
what he wanted and the rest served
him. In a pride of lions the
strongest male runs the pride he is
the one who fathers all the lion
cubs born to the pride the lionesses
choosing to have the biggest and
strongest lion to mate with.
Humans are no different
Genghis Khan fought and defeated his
father and promptly had sex with his
mother. The Norman French maintained
the practice when a couple on the
Barons estate wanted to get married
the Baron claimed the right to sleep
with the bride on her wedding night.
This is the rule might is right.
We know that the ancient
people of these Islands elected
their Kings and the King who could
rule on his own only rarely did so
preferring instead to discuss policy
with the wise men of the Kingdom. I
believe it was common for women to
be included in these councils. The
Anglo Saxon Kings called these
meetings Witan which was simply a
meeting of the wisest men the King
could find to help him govern.
The Norman Kings sought
advice from their Barons it was our
early Norman Kings who included the
Knights and Burgesses in these
meetings. At Runny Mede the Common
man was included in the meeting with
King John which was a meeting of the
estates of England the highest law
giving body in the land with
authority to fire and hire Kings.
The Estates of England comprise the
Lords Spiritual ( the Bishops) the
Lords Temporal ( the Barons ) and
the commonality of England ( as many
of the freemen of England as can
attend ) The Bishops representing
God the Barons as our natural
leaders and the people of England.
At Runny Mede the Barons were in
full armour and the common man was
armed with weapons to suit his need
King John was left in no doubt if he
did not agree to rule us according
to our ancient laws he would not
leave the field alive. Magna Charta
was not new law but a restatement of
our ancient law given to us by King
Alfred and reissued as the Charter
of Liberties in 1100 by King Henry
I.
King Edward I included the
Knights and Burgesses as full time
members of Parliament in 1297 since
when the common man in Parliament
has been on a power grab. A properly
constituted Parliament consists of
the House of Commons who originate
legislation, the House of Peers who
look at this legislation and send it
back for amendment, reject it or
accept it in accordance with their
collective conscience. If the House
of Peers accepts it, it goes before
the King who will ask for amendments
accept it or reject it in accordance
with his conscience. It is not until
the King accepts it that it becomes
law.
Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas William Beresford 1306-1326
ruled “there is no such thing as a
bad law for if it is bad it is not
law”. Chief Justice Stonor of the
Common Pleas 1329-1331 ruled “law is
that which is right”. Chief Justice
Sir Edward Coke of the Kings Bench
1616-1628 ruled “Parliament may pass
a law which is beyond common right
and reason is repugnant or
impossible to perform in which case
the common law will intercede and
strike it down”. I would like you to
remember these rulings of these
Chief Justices it will become clear
later on.
Parliament was formed at
first informally by the King seeking
advice from whichever wise men were
available later it was put on a more
formal basis with the Witan and
finally with Edward I in 1297 on its
finished form as it should be today.
I said should be because from day
one the House of Commons has been on
a power grab in 1420 in exchange for
voting a tax in they were granted
the right to originate all
legislation, in 1609 they wrote to
the House of Peers claiming to be
the Knights Burgesses and Barons of
the high court of Parliament. The
House of Peers correctly replied
that they would never accept them as
Barons and without them they were no
court at all. In 1667 the commons
told the Peers they could not amend
a money bill a ten year argument
followed when in 1677 the Peers for
some reason not based on reason
agreed not to amend any money bills.
In 1909 Asquith a Fabian put forward
a budget part of which gave the
working man a pension. The Peers
knowing what the working man was
earning knew the extra 3 pence in
the £ tax imposed on what was
already being taken was more than
the working man could afford,
believing they could not amend it
they rejected the bill. Asquith told
them he was putting a bill forward
to stop them rejecting a bill. The
Peers said they would not pass it,
so Asquith said he would put 500 new
Peers into the house and they would
vote for its abolition. The Peers
gave way and passed the Parliament
Act. King Edward VII refused the
assent on the grounds it was
unconstitutional and removed a
protection from his subjects. The
King ordered Asquith to go to the
country. Asquith and his ministers
went around the country telling the
people those bastard Peers on their
big estates would not let the
working man have a pension. The
Peers felt it was beneath them to go
round the country explaining their
reasoning. Asquith was returned and
King Edward VII in his speech at the
opening of Parliament said when
referring to the Parliament Act the
only point Parliament by removing
the authority of the House of Peers
to reject a bill became
constitutionally an unlawful
assembly. Before the bill could be
presented to King Edward VII who may
well have refused the assent again
he fell ill and died. I did write to
the police commissioner and say I
would be interested in the post
mortem results on King Edward VII he
did not reply.
On coming to the Throne King
George V was told by a minister he
keeps all his prerogatives but may
not use any of them unless he has
the backing of a minister. This of
course means he has no prerogative
powers. King George V gave the
assent to the 1911 Parliament Act or
did he. According to a report put
out by the House of Commons library
the Royal Assent has not been
granted in person by the Sovereign
since 1854. King George V after a
long reign fell ill and was murdered
by his Dr who gave him a massive
over dose of drugs so that they
could make the morning edition of
the times with the announcement of
his death. Ask yourselves who has
the authority to kill the King.
Queen Mary his wife would never
agree, Prince Edward might being the
next in line and a spoilt brat. But
only a high ranking minister could
pose the question Dr will you murder
the King for us. According to
government the last time the Royal
assent was refused was by Queen Anne
in 1707 over the Scottish Militia
Act. But that is a lie Queen
Victoria refused the assent to a
bill on homosexuality because it
mentioned Lesbians she did not
believe women would do these things
to each other. The bill had to be
rewritten removing all reference to
women. We have dealt with King
Edwards’s refusal of the assent.
Now I want you to remember
those ancient rulings of our Chief
Justices. Parliament today say they
are omnipotent they can do anything
they like they evidence this by the
blue eyed baby rule. They say they
can pass a law saying all blue eyed
baby boys born in June must be
killed and they would have to be
killed. Chief Justice Stonor ruled
law is that which is right. No one
in their right mind would say this
law was right. Chief Justice
Beresford ruled there is no such
thing as a bad law for if it is bad
it is not law. No one in their right
mind would think this law was in any
way good law it is bad so it cannot
be law. Chief Justice Sir Edward
Coke ruled parliament may some times
pass a law which is repugnant
against common right and reason or
impossible to perform in which case
the common law will intercede and
strike it down. No one in their
right mind would find this law
anything but repugnant, every one
would find it was against common
right and reason. And it would be
impossible to perform because when
they came for your son you will
fight to keep him your family and
friends and neighbours will fight
with you soon the entire country
will be at open war with Parliament
and Parliament will loose so it is
impossible to perform.
You have all heard about the
new Bill of Rights what you may not
know is that it will have a clause
written in it that by passing a bill
Parliament can remove any or all of
our normal rights and freedoms, they
are creeping this removal in because
you are no longer to speak the
evidence of your eyes for example by
saying Islam is an evil cult which
encourages rape and murder. Oh dear
I wonder how many laws I have just
broken. Parliament have also been
having what they refer to as an
interesting discussion on whether by
passing a bill they could remove the
rule of law. Now let us look at
that. If they remove the rule of law
your 12 year old daughter or son
could be dragged of the street into
Parliament and gang raped and it
won’t be a crime. Your old mum can
have her door kicked in be beaten
and gang raped murdered and all her
property stolen and it wont be a
crime. This Ladies and Gentlemen is
what the House of Commons have in
store for us. Why else would they
want to disarm us, why else would
they dress our police in black and
reduce the entry standards to employ
people who are prone to thuggery
they are still only a very small
number of officers at the moment the
bulk of our police are good. Look
after yourselves boys and girls.
Albert
The True Version
The Origins Rights and
Authority of Parliament
The Origins of parliament are shrouded in
the midst of time, we can only go back so
far in time and know for certain how ancient
people governed them selves. However it
seems sensible to assume the family unit was
governed by the will of the father of the
family unit. Where several family units
lived together it is reasonable to assume
that they would select one of their number
to run the small unit of family's working
together for their mutual benefit. Some
times this leader would be leader not by
choice but because he was bigger and
stronger than the others so he took what he
wanted and the rest served him. In a pride
of lions the strongest male runs the pride
he is the one who fathers all the lion cubs
born to the pride the lionesses choosing to
have the biggest and strongest lion to mate
with.
Humans are no different; Genghis Khan
fought and defeated his father and promptly
had sex with his mother. The Norman French
maintained the practice when a couple on the
Barons estate wanted to get married the
Baron claimed the right to sleep with the
bride on her wedding night. This is the
rule, might is right.
We know that the ancient people of these
Islands elected their Kings and the King who
could rule on his own only rarely did so
preferring instead to discuss policy with
the wise men of the Kingdom. I believe it
was common for women to be included in these
councils. The Anglo Saxon Kings called
these meetings Witan which was simply a
meeting of the wisest men the King could
find to help him govern.
The Norman Kings sought advice from their
Barons; it was our early Norman Kings who
included the Knights and Burgesses in these
meetings. At Runny Mede the Common man was
included in the meeting with King John,
which was a meeting of the estates of
England the highest law giving body in the
land with authority to fire and hire Kings.
The Estates of England comprise the Lords
Spiritual (the Bishops) the Lords Temporal
(the Barons) and the commonality of England
(as many of the freemen of England as can
attend) The Bishops representing God, the
Barons as our natural leaders and the people
of England. At Runny Mede the Barons were
in full armour and the common man was armed
with weapons to suit his need; King John
was left in no doubt if he did not agree to
rule the English according to ancient
English laws he would not leave the field
alive. Magna Charta was not new law but a
restatement of ancient English law given to
people of England by King Alfred and
reissued as the Charter of Liberties in 1100
by King Henry I.
King Edward I included the Knights and
Burgesses as full time members of Parliament
in 1297, since when the common man in
Parliament has been on a power grab. A
properly constituted Parliament consists of
the House of Commons who originate
legislation, the House of Peers who look at
this legislation and send it back for
amendment, reject it or accept it in
accordance with their collective conscience.
If the House of Peers accepts it, it goes
before the King who will ask for amendments
accept it or reject it in accordance with
his conscience. It is not until the King
accepts it that it becomes law.
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
William Beresford 1306-1326, ruled “there is
no such thing as a bad law for if it is bad
it is not law”. Chief Justice Stonor of the
Common Pleas 1329-1331 ruled “law is that
which is right”. Chief Justice Sir Edward
Coke of the Kings Bench (1616-1628) ruled
“Parliament may pass a law which is beyond
common right and reason is repugnant or
impossible to perform in which case the
common law will intercede and strike it
down”. I would like you to remember these
rulings of these Chief Justices it will
become clear later on.
Parliament was formed at first informally
by the King seeking advice from whichever
wise men were available; later it was put
on a more formal basis with the Witan and
finally with Edward I in 1297, on its
finished form as it should be today. I said
“should be” because from day one the House
of Commons has been on a power grab, in
1420, in exchange for voting a tax in they
were granted the right to originate all
legislation; in 1609 they wrote to the
House of Peers claiming to be the Knights
Burgesses and Barons of the high court of
Parliament. The House of Peers correctly
replied that they would never accept them as
Barons, and without them they were no court
at all. In 1667 the commons told the Peers
they could not amend a money bill; and a
ten year argument followed when, in 1677,
the Peers for some reason not based on
reason, agreed not to amend any money bills.
In 1909 Asquith, a Fabian, put forward a
budget, part of which gave the working man a
pension. The Peers, knowing what the working
man was earning, knew the extra 3 pence in
the £ tax imposed on what was already being
taken, was more than the working man could
afford, believing they could not amend it,
they rejected the bill. Asquith told them
he was putting a bill forward to stop them
rejecting a bill. The Peers said they would
not pass it, so Asquith said he would put
500 new Peers into the house, who would vote
for its abolition. The Peers gave way and
passed the Parliament Act. King Edward VII
refused the assent on the grounds it was
unconstitutional and removed a protection
from his subjects. The King ordered Asquith
to go to the country. Asquith and his
ministers went around the country telling
the people those bastard Peers on their big
estates would not let the working man have a
pension. The Peers felt it was beneath them
to go round the country, explaining their
reasoning. Asquith was returned and King
Edward VII, in his speech at the opening of
Parliament, said when referring to the
Parliament Act, by Parliament removing the
authority of the House of Peers to reject a
bill, Parliament became, constitutionally,
an unlawful assembly. Before the bill could
be presented to King Edward VII, who may
well have refused the assent again, he fell
ill and died. I did write to the police
commissioner and say I would be interested
in the post mortem results on King Edward
VII. He did not reply.
On coming to the Throne King George V was
told by a minister he keeps all his
prerogatives but may not use any of them
unless he has the backing of a minister,
meaning the Monarch had no prerogative
powers. King George V gave the assent to
the 1911 Parliament Act … or did he?
According to a report put out by the House
of Commons library, the Royal Assent has not
been granted in person by the Sovereign
since 1854. After a long reign King George
V fell ill and was murdered by his Doctor
who gave him a massive overdose of drugs so
the King’s death could make the morning
edition of the Times, with the announcement
of his death. Ask yourselves who has the
authority to kill the King. Queen Mary, his
wife, would never agree; Prince Edward
being the next in line and a spoilt brat,
might; only a high ranking minister could
pose the question “Doctor, will you murder
the King for us?” According to government
the last time the Royal assent was refused
was by Queen Anne in 1707, over the Scottish
Militia Act, but government lied as Queen
Victoria refused the assent to a bill on
homosexuality because it mentioned Lesbians,
and she did not believe women would do these
things to each other. The bill had to be
rewritten, removing all reference to women.
We have dealt with King Edwards’s refusal of
the assent.
Now I want you to remember those ancient
rulings of our Chief Justices. Parliament
today claim they are omnipotent, so can do
anything they like; they evidence this by
the `blue-eyed baby rule.’ Parliament
claims they can pass a law saying all
blue-eyed baby boys born in June must be
killed, and they would have to be killed.
Chief Justice Stonor ruled law is that
which is right.. Chief Justice Beresford
ruled there is no such thing as a bad law,
because if legislation is bad, it is not
law. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke ruled
Parliament may some times pass a law which
is repugnant against common right and reason
or impossible to perform, but the common law
will intercede and strike it down. A sane
person, in their right mind, would say a
`Blue-eyed Baby rule’ is repugnant, goes
against the mind, goes against reason and
good conscience and common right, therefore
could not be legislated into law; and would
be impossible to perform because when they
came for your blue-eyed son born in June,
your family and friends and neighbours and
the entire country would be at open war with
Parliament; and Parliament would loose.
You may have heard about the proposed
British Bill of Rights, but you probably may
not know it will contain a clause that,
should Parliament pass the proposed bill,
will remove all of our normal rights and
long-established traditions and
long-established freedoms such as the right
to speak the truth evidenced by our own
eyes, for example, saying Islam is an evil
cult which encourages rape and murder, would
be classed as a crime. Parliament have also
been having what they refer to as an
“interesting discussion” on whether by
passing a bill they could remove the rule of
law . . . if so, the removal of the rule of
law would allow your daughters, your sons,
your wife, your mum to be dragged off the
street or, after having your front door
kicked and battered down, out of your home,
into Parliament and beaten, gang raped and
murdered, and it won’t be classed as a
crime; Parliament could steal all your
property and it wont be classed as a crime.
This Ladies and Gentlemen is what the House
of Commons have in store for us, that’s why
Parliament wants to disarm us; and why
Parliament created the Police Officers
Association and allowed British constables
to wear black military clothing, and reduced
entry standards to employ people prone to
thuggery. At present, the number of Crown
federal officers is low, but remain vigilant
and look after yourselves. Albert