From: SMITH ANNETTE
Date: 10 December 2015 at 19:01
Subject: FW: parliament
_____
From: albertburgess@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:albertburgess@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: parliament
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:59:44 +0000
Please circulate
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
