Lincolnshire Voice

Guest article by Albert Burgess

The Rape of the English Constitution

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.

Last week patriots from across Lincolnshire and beyond attended a very interesting talk by Roger Hayes, Chairman of the British Constitution Group, regarding the lawful bank and The Alternative Monetary System. We have posted below videos which hopefully explains this in a little more detail.

Suffice to say, there were many sceptical people prior to the talk, but some were a lot more optimistic following the presentation. Many blunt questions were asked and answered well. As Roger said, "they may build walls in our way but we have the bulldozers to knock them down."

One thing is for sure, this country and the world do need a new monetary system or at least one that is controlled by the government who then act for the people (now there's a novel idea!). The people are losing their freedoms and have become debt slaves to the international financiers who act like they can do what ever they please and make money out of thin air (fractional reserve banking basically).

Is the lawful bank and alternative governance the answer and will they work? perhaps we should give it the benefit of the doubt as nothing could be worse than doing nothing - enough is enough! We shall watch this carefully to see what progress can be made.

Like any good politician - talk a load of garbage and don't answer the question!

A 6 year old and a 4 year old are upstairs in their bedroom. 'You know what?' says the 6 year old. 'I think it's about time we started cussing. The 4 year old nods his head in approval. The 6 year old continues, 'When we go downstairs for breakfast, I'm gonna say something with hell and you say something with ass..' The 4 year old agrees with enthusiasm.

When the mother walks into the kitchen and asks the 6 year old what he wants for breakfast, he replies, 'Aw, hell, Mom, I guess I'll have some Cheerios.'

WHACK! He flies out of his chair, tumbles across the kitchen floor, gets up, and runs upstairs crying his eyes out, with his mother in hot pursuit, slapping his rear with every step. His mom locks him in his room and shouts, 'You can stay there until I let you out!'

She then comes back downstairs, looks at the 4 year old and asks with a stern voice, 'And what do YOU want for breakfast, young man?'

‘I don't know,’ he blubbers, 'but you can bet your fat ass it won't be Cheerios!'

PASS IT ON IF YOU LAUGHED!!!!!

The Lawful Bank

There is to be a public meeting next Thursday, 26th January at the Kings Head Hotel, 10 Mercer Row, Louth LN11 9JQ from 7pm to 10pm. Guest speaker will be Roger Hayes, (the man who tried to arrest a judge!) Chairman of the British Constitution Group. Anyone who has researched the global elite will know that the international financiers are the cause of the problem. This will be a talk about The Lawful Bank and how it aims to become a real alternative system run by the people for the people. Please attend if you can, admission is FREE. Come and learn the truth, which you wont hear/see in the controlled mainstream media.

More information can be found at http://lawfulbank.com

Please help spread the word.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair channelled millions of pounds through a network of companies and paid just a fraction in tax, according to recently published official accounts.

The accounts provide the strongest evidence yet of the scale of Blair’s complicated finances through his various activities since leaving office in June 2007, which include his business consultancy firm Tony Blair Associates, speeches/lectures, and acting as an adviser to JP Morgan and Zurich, among other ventures.

Richard Murphy said in his blog that Blair adopted a “massively opaque structure” to ensure that much of his activity was hidden from view in an “arcane and rare” corporate structure called a 'limited partnership'.

The former Labour leader had set up a management services company, Windrush Venture, which was principally used to manage his business affairs.

The accounts reveal an income last year of more than £12m and ‘administrative expenses’ of £10.9m, leaving Windrush Ventures with a profit of more than £1m, on which Blair paid just £315,000 in corporate tax, at a rate of 28%.

Continued here

Some believe that Tony Bliar's businesses are very "Occult" sounding. Into the black arts Mr Bliar ?

You might also be interested in chief traitor Heath who didn't declare to the House of Commons additional income, flights and gifts he received from foreign corporations here

As Britains Armed Forces continue to be dismantled from within, the United Kingdom National Defence Association speak out - letter published in the Daily Telegraph 2nd Jan 2012:

To the Editor

Sir,

The British Army will soon be smaller than at any time since the late nineteenth century (when the UK population was half what it is now). The rate of shrinkage under the current defence cuts means that the Army, already chronically under-manned, will have lost a fifth of its present strength by the end of this decade. That is equivalent to axing 64,000 of the NHS’s 320,000 nursing staff.

The Government’s intention is for the UK to rely increasingly on the Territorial Army and other Reservists, to “plug the gaps” in the nation’s defence. Indeed, the Reserve forces are to be expanded and investment made in training and equipment in order to raise the skill levels and capabilities of Reservists.

We welcome this commitment to the strengthening of the TA. The contribution of Territorials to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has been invaluable, and has demonstrated the vital role that Reserve forces can play in support of Regular troops. However, any further widening of the role of the TA should not be at the expense of the Regulars, and cannot be seen as a substitute for an adequately resourced Regular Army. Front-line operations require a level of fitness, experience, and training to Regular Army standards that cannot readily be matched by part-time soldiers. At present, barely 1,500 TA personnel (5% of Territorial strength) have sufficient training to be deployed in the way that the Government envisages.

We urge the Ministry of Defence to halt further cuts in Regular Army manpower and to review its current redundancy programme. We further call upon the Government to re-examine this aspect of the Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR 2010) and to recognise that the primary role of the TA and other Reserve forces is as a vital support to the full-time professionals of Britain’s Armed Forces, not as an alternative to them.

Andy Smith
Co-signed by: Col. David Benest Col. Richard Kemp Col. Tim Collins Cdr. John Muxworthy Dr Peter Caddick-Adams and Andrew Roberts

Guest article by Mike Stuckey

...except moan. You should all know by now that letters and e-mails are being ignored by MP's and the Queen. There are not enough united anti-EU activists, and I use the term 'activists' very loosely, to be of any concern to the unlawful authorities.

We are already living under a Dictatorship, and Traitors and Collaborators have had a hold on the UK and its people for decades now. So, how is it that so many think that merely informing the public will release us and the UK from the EU bondage and rid us of betrayers? There is a multitude of informers, but those who would rid us of the rot are few and far between. Are you not simply informing those who will inform others? where will that get us? Unless those of mettle are to be found and energised - the unlawful authorities have nothing to worry about. Do you see signs of worry in MP's? Is there increased protection for MP's and the Queen who are hardened Traitors? Is 'Common Purpose' disbanding?
Have you heard of any pro-EU officials being harassed or inhibited?
The answer is NO!
Why?
Because we are all talk! and all talk will not get things DONE!
Quote: "The courage of ones convictions". As I say "Doers do, and Talkers don't".
How can we expect others to do what we will not?
Age and infirmity are no excuse when your country is unlawfully controlled by a foreign power, and Traitors and Collaborators are rife. The older ones of us are in the know, and it is our duty to organise a Lawful Rebellion - for the good of all. Patriots don't get old. The love of ones country never ages or dies. And freedom is not just for the young.

You don't need to stop the talk, but if that's all you are prepared to do, then don't be surprised at the continued slip into subservience and the refusal of others to do more than talk, and when it is blatantly obvious that the gurgling - is the sound of the last remnants of our country going down the plug-hole - then remember these words "I told you so".

We were given brain's to think, and bodies to put those thoughts into action. And I have to point-out again that actions - in this case, need to be more than letters and e-mails and meetings etc.
I know that there are those of you who are waiting for the Euro to totally fail, and those who say that it is inevitable that the EU fails because it is not workable. Are you so confident that the EU will fail that you would do nothing and wait to the very last - when it will be too late to properly ACT? Or would you not dare to risk losing your country and your freedoms?

You must ACT. There are many reasons I can give you - why you should ACT now. It is an easy decision for those who have courage, but - for those of faint heart it is an easier decision to merely continue sending letters and e-mails.

If you don't know how to actively inhibit Traitors and Collaborators - then ask me how. If you know - then get to it. This scum have to be scared so that they will cease their activities. It does not involve threats or the intimidation of their families. The Traitors and Collaborators just need to feel uncomfortable and be aware that we know who and what they are (backed-up by a physical presence to show that we are more than just talk). They should then seriously consider the continuation of their Treasonous activities. There are many other ways, and also ways to indirectly make things uncomfortable for them.

Regards,
Mike Stuckey.

NB. This is a circular and is intended to stir some of us into proper action. Some recipients know the necessity for REAL action - and this e-mail is not (wholly) intended for them. It is not meant to offend, but it is meant to be taken seriously.