The 2002 Police Officer`s Oath of Attestation - Treason!
01/02/10 08:56
IT APPEARS THAT ALL POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN ATTESTED USING THE 2002 POLICE OATH HAVE COMMITTED TREASON!
"Any arrests made by this Officer are illegal and any detention is unlawful because the officer is in fact impersonating a Police Constable."
Albert Burgess explains.
A Sovereign King or Queen is the fount of all law, without their assent there can be no law.
At the Coronation of all our Kings and Queens, we the people pass to the Crown as an ancient office, our Sovereignty for the Crown in the form of an incumbent King or Queen to administer on our behalf and only ever in our best interests.
We do not and indeed without universal support have not asked anyone else or anything else to administer our Sovereignty for us. No such universal support either having been requested or granted exists. Sovereignty therefore rests squarely with the current holder of the office of Sovereign Queen, in the person of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth 2nd.
Any person or body of people who attempt to change this commit the act of TREASON.
Chief Justice Blackstone in his Commentaries says, “this is the Highest Civil Crime it is possible to commit.” And following the 1945 Treason Act, all prosecutions for treason are dealt with in the same way as murder.
I was taken aback when I looked at the change to the current (2002) Oath of attestation sworn by police officers, the reason being that in the new oath the Queen is not acknowledged as being Sovereign.
Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King George 6th, was Queen by virtue of the fact that she was the wife of the King, and the Mother of our current Queen, Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd who is a Sovereign Prince in her own right.
By removing the words Our Sovereign Lady and reference to Her Majesty’s Subjects the writer of that oath has compiled a document which imagines the death of the sovereign which is a treasonable document under the 1351 treason Act. It has also removed the Style and Honour of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen by law established, which is an offence of Treason contrary to the 1848 Treason Felony Act.
The result of this is that any one who has administered this new oath to a police officer is guilty of the crime of treason, anyone who has taken this oath is guilty of treason. Every one who administers or takes this oath has more legal knowledge than the average man being either a Magistrate or police officer who has undergone some legal training, at any event the maxim ignorance of the law is no excuse and is a tried and trusted maxim.
The result is that any police officer who has taken this oath is actually barred from holding the office of Constable by virtue of the fact he has committed the major crime of treason. It stands to reason then that any arrests made by this officer are illegal and any detention is unlawful because the officer is in fact impersonating a police constable a title he is banned by the laws of England from holding. Any summons or fixed penalty ticket issued constitute an unlawful prosecution.
It matters not whether you are in agreement with the laws of treason or would prefer it if this was a republic. The plain fact is this is a Monarchy and we do have Treason Laws to protect the Sovereign and Constitution and they in turn (should) protect us.
Whilst I have no desire to allow criminals to get away with their crimes we live in a country ruled by the law, our police officers are in a position of trust as are Her Majesty’s Courts, if we allow them to operate outside of the law we the ordinary subjects of Her Majesty have no protection, and the Crown guarantees our protection from all forms of despotism.
It seems to me to query the oath any officer took whilst he is giving evidence and having him barred from giving this evidence by virtue of his treason is a highly efficient way of protecting your client.
When I joined the police force in 1986, you had to be a British or Commonwealth citizen i.e. a subject of Her Majesty. Today you can come from anywhere. I believe this removal of the requirement to be a British Subject is to allow Government to import foreign thugs into our police service and allow unpopular, even despised government to beat us into submission!
P.S. We know of at least one Lawyer, specialising in Criminal Law, who has informed us of their intention to use this anomaly in defence of their clients.
Albert Burgess
(07733) 177590
"Any arrests made by this Officer are illegal and any detention is unlawful because the officer is in fact impersonating a Police Constable."
Albert Burgess explains.
A Sovereign King or Queen is the fount of all law, without their assent there can be no law.
At the Coronation of all our Kings and Queens, we the people pass to the Crown as an ancient office, our Sovereignty for the Crown in the form of an incumbent King or Queen to administer on our behalf and only ever in our best interests.
We do not and indeed without universal support have not asked anyone else or anything else to administer our Sovereignty for us. No such universal support either having been requested or granted exists. Sovereignty therefore rests squarely with the current holder of the office of Sovereign Queen, in the person of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth 2nd.
Any person or body of people who attempt to change this commit the act of TREASON.
Chief Justice Blackstone in his Commentaries says, “this is the Highest Civil Crime it is possible to commit.” And following the 1945 Treason Act, all prosecutions for treason are dealt with in the same way as murder.
I was taken aback when I looked at the change to the current (2002) Oath of attestation sworn by police officers, the reason being that in the new oath the Queen is not acknowledged as being Sovereign.
Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King George 6th, was Queen by virtue of the fact that she was the wife of the King, and the Mother of our current Queen, Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd who is a Sovereign Prince in her own right.
By removing the words Our Sovereign Lady and reference to Her Majesty’s Subjects the writer of that oath has compiled a document which imagines the death of the sovereign which is a treasonable document under the 1351 treason Act. It has also removed the Style and Honour of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen by law established, which is an offence of Treason contrary to the 1848 Treason Felony Act.
The result of this is that any one who has administered this new oath to a police officer is guilty of the crime of treason, anyone who has taken this oath is guilty of treason. Every one who administers or takes this oath has more legal knowledge than the average man being either a Magistrate or police officer who has undergone some legal training, at any event the maxim ignorance of the law is no excuse and is a tried and trusted maxim.
The result is that any police officer who has taken this oath is actually barred from holding the office of Constable by virtue of the fact he has committed the major crime of treason. It stands to reason then that any arrests made by this officer are illegal and any detention is unlawful because the officer is in fact impersonating a police constable a title he is banned by the laws of England from holding. Any summons or fixed penalty ticket issued constitute an unlawful prosecution.
It matters not whether you are in agreement with the laws of treason or would prefer it if this was a republic. The plain fact is this is a Monarchy and we do have Treason Laws to protect the Sovereign and Constitution and they in turn (should) protect us.
Whilst I have no desire to allow criminals to get away with their crimes we live in a country ruled by the law, our police officers are in a position of trust as are Her Majesty’s Courts, if we allow them to operate outside of the law we the ordinary subjects of Her Majesty have no protection, and the Crown guarantees our protection from all forms of despotism.
It seems to me to query the oath any officer took whilst he is giving evidence and having him barred from giving this evidence by virtue of his treason is a highly efficient way of protecting your client.
When I joined the police force in 1986, you had to be a British or Commonwealth citizen i.e. a subject of Her Majesty. Today you can come from anywhere. I believe this removal of the requirement to be a British Subject is to allow Government to import foreign thugs into our police service and allow unpopular, even despised government to beat us into submission!
P.S. We know of at least one Lawyer, specialising in Criminal Law, who has informed us of their intention to use this anomaly in defence of their clients.
Albert Burgess
(07733) 177590