September 07, 2011

It's The Law, Ken Clarke, So Act Upon It

I thought you good folks should see this letter from Albert Burgess to Ken Clarke in his position as Lord Chancellor.

Albert knows his onions. So should Kenneth Clarke. Any bets on the man doing as he must, in law?


Kenneth Clarke
Lord Chancellor                                                                               
The House of Lords

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 

I won't be holding my breath. The law is not for the elites. They can, and do, act with impunity.

Mind you, I do have lawful excuse and I do ignore statutes.

Lawful Rebellion;-it has its advantages....



F***W*T TW****R said...


nominedeus said...

Excellent Cap'n will be reblogging and H/T,ing you.
You gotta love Alberts persistace don't you!

Nick said...

Ok! I'm slightly pissed, but an idea has sprung to mind. Does anyone have any idea how much a prominent piece in a national newspaper would cost? Assuming it would be published, which I doubt! But a piece could be written by someone as literally gifted as Albert (or our host) which might awaken more people to our ongoing enslavement. I would be prepared to contribute a few Grand to save my kids from what I believe is approaching. Just an idea, but I'm serious. Or am I being a gin and пиво soaked wishful thinker?

wayne said...

No Nick you're not gin soaked, it's a good idea

annette said...

New Petition

Please sign,it only takes a few seconds.

IanPJ said...

I thought this was so important it is copied in full over at mine.

Pesky Anonymous said...

A mighty piece of writing from a mighty man.
I'm not holding my breath either Captain.
Countless things have clearly exposed that they are a law unto themselves, Roger Hayes at Birkenhead, the treatment of Norman, to name but a couple.
The only thing that can save us is total non compliance by a majority.
It's coming. Albion will awaken. It's just when.

A full page advert in the paper? The Beatles tried that in the Times for the legalisation of marijuana. It obviously didn't work.
But all publicity is good publicity. Every little helps.

Anonymous said...

Cracking stuff Captain.

For any who want to know more about Coke's ruling, it came from "Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians" or "Dr Bonham's Case", at the Court of Common Pleas in 1610:

"And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such act to be void"

In many places, one example:

Unsurprisingly, the subject of great debate...and now "discredited" on the part of those who claim to know such things, replaced by the notion of parliamentary sovereignty as articulated by Blackstone: "It [Parliament] hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in the making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal" (Commentaries Vol 1)

A couple of other “matters” are not mentioned in that list ;-)

Introducing the notion, Blackstone refers to Coke, saying: "The power and jurisdiction of parliament, says Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds."

What Coke actually wrote was this: "Of the power and jurisdiction of the Parliament for making of Laws in proceeding by Bill, it is transcendent and absolute, as it cannot be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds..." (Institutes pt. 4)

A possibly important phrase left out by Blackstone, though of course one must be careful when looking at all these things...

Context is also important, considering considering the players at the time: Coke, King James, Francis Bacon, etc. The wiki on Bonham's case is useful as a summary both of the case and the "accepted thinking" :S, as well as avenues for further reading.



Indyanhat said...

This post has been reblogged and hat tipped to yourself Captain...There is too much going on that needs ranting about and I am back to rant about it at Indyspareings.
Excellent letter from Mr Burgess and though I believe it will be at best fobbed off and at worst ignored this message must be relayed to the people on as many fronts as possible! Full marks to the commenter above for wishing to run a newspaper ad about it, and good luck with that!

Anonymous said...

There is no chance, Ken Clarke QC is a Bilderberger, so my opinion for what it's worth he's one of the foxes guarding the Hen house.

It will need a Country wide non-compliance action to go on for as long as it takes. It would be better if it were World Wide all at the same time, could you imagine the pile of poo from the TPTB if that was brought into reality.

James Higham said...

I've been doing my own bit of ignoring of statutes and it appears to be a standoff at this moment.

bollixed said...

Just a few points to consider here. I admire Albert and his efforts are admirable but ultimately doomed at this stage due to the separate interests of those occupying Parliament. I remind people of Cromwell's speech on the dissolution of the long Parliament. Still as relevant today as it was then. This one has just stood for a bit longer than that one.

1. A country is nothing more than a jurisdiction. It is not a people or tribe (that has sadly been engineered out of existence). It is not a land (we have no automatic national claim on our land). It is nothing but a legal jurisdiction. There goes my loyalty as an ex-soldier! The flag and all the fancy emblems are merely corporate logos, trademarked and belonging to the Crown corporation.... not us. We need to change the Lawful rebellion flag by the way.

2. The PM and his cabinet are The Crown. (p36, The British Constitution, author: Anthony King). Refer to all Acts and statutes and they contain the arms of the Crown, not the blue blood Monarch. Parliament is setting Laws with not even a hat tip of deference to our constitutional Monarch now. 1911 Parliament Act, in effect removed the royal power of veto. Thus statutes since 1911 are unconstitutional and unlawful. Even more so since the House of Lords Act 1998 and the good work put into dismantling that institution by one Baroness Ashton of Upholland. You might remember her? Works for some dodgy bankrupt corporation called the EUSSR?

3. The Crown is nothing more than a board of directors of the trust of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You are a shareholder if you are on the voter's register. Remember that! This also makes your trust liable for the company rules and regulations as a Government agent/employee. It is also your implied consent that they make such a deal about. Get off the voter's register and formally and completely remove your consent to be governed (a dumb peasant!) and any claim on you by this mob of villains.

4. I recommend everyone has a read through the various parliamentary discussions on parliamentary sovereignty and the proposed 'replacement' (hahaha) to our Bill of Rights. This is in the consultation process. Makes for a very telling insight into how MPs minds work. And its not in OUR sole interests, I can assure you. They are even warning about disquiet in the ranks of the judiciary and academia about the current state of affairs regarding the state of the judicial system.

Tell the bastards what you think about it. I hear the Human Rights Act will be codified in it....God help us all!!

bollixed said...

5. If you have formally removed yourself from the voter's register then this means you are not a part of UK PLC and all the dastardly apparatus that goes with it. Consent to be governed has been formally removed. You are no longer a citizen of the UK or the EUSSR. Acts require "the consent of the governed". As there is no actual government of England, Wales or Scotland this opens up some interesting questions whether you now have an nationality as you do not technically 'reside' in the UK. The UK is merely a corporate entity. How can you inhabit a corporation? You inhabit your own wee bit of turf which you can call whatever you want. I like Brigantia here, after our local ancient tribe. Won't go into it any further than that for now but suffice to say that I am not a subject or a slave or a serf or a fucking idiot and whatever Ken Clarke or his mates say or do is irrelevant to me as a free sovereign Briton who will remain so until Parliament is fixed and we see a lot of lamp-posts occupied round Westminster.

Oh, and the number of decent, normal people now asking me questions about Lawful Rebellion and wanting hear what we have to say or to 'join up' is getting bigger every day. Ken Clarke better think of an answer to Albert's letter because one day in the not too distant future he will be facing 12 of us in a jury who will demand an answer. If I were a current or former MP I would be bricking it...or booking a one way ticket to somewhere very, very far away.

Thanks to all you rebel bloggers who keep the candle flame lit. :)

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks to all for the great comments and the links.

Been busy here in Cameroon so I haven't had time to reply individually.

Bollixed, you raise very valid and interesting points.

Good to know you are also of the Brigante Tribe. I am myself. My family tribe was the Setantii.


Clive said...

Thank you all, there are some great comments on this blog and I am proud that people seem to be waking up, with more and more doing so every single day.

I have an affidavit ready to send to the ATTORNEY GENERAL. Tried to get it witnessed, everyone I asked said I don't sign anything I don't read and don't understand, well like an idiot I let one so called friend read it, but I did say to him that you will not comprehend it, anyway after he read through he said, and these were his words, "I'm not signing that you have a wierd outlook on life" well I never got the affidavit signed by three of my peers.

I have two daughters each has a boyfriend, all of age, I have asked them to witness the taking of an Oath with my hand upon the Bible and the signing of the affidavit, I also asked my best friend who has agreed, so looks like I shall be able to send it in after all, just have to fix a date and time.

It's just a matter of time

Captain Ranty said...


I have heard similar stories like this over the last three years.

Do you want a game-changer?

Explain to your witnesses (and this goes for a Notary Public as well) that they are NOT agreeing with your words, they are merely signing to say that they SAW YOU sign the affidavit.

They are witnesses to your signature only, nothing else. They have no responsibility other than, (if asked in court), to say "Yes, I saw Clive sign that document". That's it. They are then off the witness stand. Job done.


Anonymous said...

> My Lord

Not my lord, I can tell you. Clarke is a fat cunt.

Captain Ranty said...


The protocol says that you write to the office, not the individual fat cunt.


Anonymous said...

Captain ranty, may i ask how do you travel if you are not part of the system? Do you have a passport? If so are you not giving your consent? I'm not registering my son to be, i'm calling him anon (im pronouncing it anun) too. I've even got my partner on board with it! She was hell no at first but i think it grew on her!... Btw she was called to the gp the other day because they found something wrong with her blood... They didn't explain anything over the phone or in the letter, we were panicking! Well it turned out it was her iron, she was a 9 (whatever that means!) when she should of been 10... So 1 point below their threshold warranted scaring us half to death! Anyway while I was there I asked the doc what is in those iron tablets? He said erm, um well iron! I say "that's it just iron?" "well erm basically" "doc is it basically or actually?" "erm well I don't know the actual composition, erm"... The prick wants us to take something that he doesn't even know! Then he proceeded to ask if our children were up to date with jabs! Well we had another set to there! lol. He told me I'd better write a letter explaining that i wasn't vacinating! I told him I don't need to inform anyone! H wanted rid of me quick time!... Anyway i get home and research what is in ferrous fumourate! Sodium lauryl sulphate and parafin, ummmm yum! Oh and over twice the recommended daily allowance of iron! On it said it was unknown whether it is harmful to unborn babies! Fucking sick cunt! sorry captain but it upset me that this man can be so thick! Oh he also tried to tell me that they do not get the pills from pharma companies anymore! (lie, it says it is on the fucking label!) I laughed at him and said "all your drugs are from pharma what you on about"?

Captain Ranty said...


I never claimed to be disconnected from the system. I said I wanted to be.

In my job, where frequent international travel is a requirement, I need not one, but two passports. I have not yet found a suitable alternative. So yes, I have to consent to some things if I am to put food on our table and keep a roof over our heads.

I admire and support your stance. Saying no to a doctor is almost heresy. I've done that a few times now and it is very satisfying. They seem to know only a very little about the crap they dispense and I know for certain it is about money for them, not health. (Not all the time, but I have spotted it three times now with my doctor).

Disconnection has to happen at a pace you are comfortable with. I'll get there in the end. I am fighting one battle at a time, otherwise it gets overwhelming.

Good luck to you!


bryboy said...

So many free spirits on this blog. It really is uplifting.The 'awkward sods' keep the fight going and it won't be long now before the EU empire unravels. Then I really hope that the consequences begin. I want to see the Quango bastards in the dole queue. Once the flow of money from the EU stops then they have nothing left and so many of them are unemployable. Lots of great properties soon to be on the market!