A detailed rebuttal of Police Legal Arguments

The following is a detailed rebuttal of various legal arguments offered by various police forces as to why they would not investigate our treason allegations. The following is part of letter sent to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Police at the MET written by Albert Burgess.

I am offering the following in answer to the misinterpretation of the law, used by the police, in rejecting the treason allegations previously reported. This revolves around the incorrect use of ‘Direction and Control’ which is a part of the 2002 Police Reform Act. A detailed explanation is given below.

I resubmit the following allegations of high treason against John Major one time Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom, Douglas Hurd one time Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and Francis Maude one time Financial Secretary at the Treasury for their high treason at Maastricht.

Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude signed the Maastricht Treaty under the direction and control of John Major. This treaty purports to make Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of England, a citizen of the European Union. This is a constitutional impossibility under the terms of the English Constitution and the English Common Law arrangements for the Kings/Queens of England.

As a citizen of Europe Her Majesty is no longer a Sovereign Queen of England but a vassal Queen to the European Union, This is expressly forbidden by English Common and Constitutional Law. Her Majesty is expressly forbidden to subjugate the Crown of England or her subjects to a foreign power. The relevant Common and Constitutional law is attached to the allegation. Also see May 1366 vol 2 Stubbs page 435 refers and page 130 Select Statutes of the English Constitution Adams and Stephens.

It is my Contention that Her Majesty, being fully aware of the duties of her office, would not of her own accord betray her office or her subjects. It is my contention that Her Majesty has been overawed by her Ministers since the day she assumed her High Office and has been relegated to being a mere cipher for the criminal and treasonable actions of her Ministers. This on its own constitutes high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, and high treason at Common Law.

Due to the gravity of these allegations it is outside the remit of the police’s ‘Direction and Control’. The English Common Law considers high treason such a serious offence, endangering the safety of the Nation, that it has put in place the major crimes of Misprision of Treason at Common Law. This makes it an offence to be aware of treason, as you now are, and fail to take the appropriate action to investigate the treason. It has also placed on you the major crime of Compounding Treason at Common Law, that being aware of treason, you discuss the treason with another and agree not to investigate and prosecute the treason to the full extent of your power. Both these major offences are tried as treason and carry a life tariff.

Direction and Control

Direction and control is a part of the 2002 Police Reform Act which is treasonable for the following reasons.


  1. It removes the words ‘our Sovereign Lady’ from the police oath of attestation which is to imagine Her Majesty’s death as a Sovereign Queen contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. It also removes Her Majesty’s Style and Honour as a Sovereign Queen which is high treason contrary to the 1848 Treason Felony Act.
  2. It purports to allow the police to apply to the IPPC for a dispensation from carrying out an enquiry into the alleged criminal conduct of a police officer. This effectively grants a dispensation from the penalty for his crime. Dispensations from the penalty for a crime are specifically refused by the 1689 Bill of Rights, which incorporates the 1689 Declaration of Rights. English Common Law therefore voids the 2002 Police Reform Act as being both bad law and treasonable.
  3. It is beyond the reach of parliament to make any law which contravenes the Higher Common and Constitutional Laws of England.
  4. It purports to allow constables to seize and crush motor vehicles before a conviction in court has been obtained. The 1689 Bill of Rights specifically outlaws any fine or forfeiture before a person has been found guilty of an offence in a court and for the court to decide any fine or forfeiture.
  5. Magna Carta 1215 Article 39 ‘applies in that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed [of his motor vehicle] or outlawed, or banished, or in anyway destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him, except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land’ For these reasons the 2002 Police Reform Act is void and of no effect.

1351 Treason Act

Some police forces have argued that the 1351 Treason Act only refers to acts of violence to the Sovereign and their family. In referring to treason the police have quoted this Act out of context.

When King Edward III wrote the 1351 Treason Act he also said this was not a final definition of treason, and that anything which was not included but which was considered to be treason was to be placed before the King for a decision. Every subsequent treason act should be read as an amendment to the 1351 Treason Act. Examples of other crimes of treason:

  1. Allowing high levels of immigration so as to displace the indigenous population and religion.
  2. To reduce the armed forces of the Kingdom to such an extent that they are no longer able to defend the country.
  3. To reduce the food producing industries that we can no longer feed the population.
  4. Making war on Her Majesty’s subjects within the realm e.g. Muslim terrorists who hold a British passport should not be charged under the anti terrorism act, but with high treason.

Well, see, if he got arrested, he must have done something wrong, right? So why would anyone defend him if they weren't a criminal also? This is all in the Constitution somewhere. Don't bother me about where; it's just got to be true. It's got to be. Would Thomas Jefferson have stood up for a bad guy? I don't think so!