PASSAGES FROM  BRITISH DEMOCRACY FORUM  (www.democracyforum.co.uk)

AlanA : 04-02-2009

AlanA   04-02-2009

Aardvark   04-02-2009

twizzel   07-02-2009

Aardvark   07-02-2009

gimlet : 15-02-2009

Gimlet   15-02-2009

Aardvark   15-02-2009

Aardvark   16-02-2009

Aardvark   17-02-2009

PAGE 3 OF 3

A CASE FOR TREASON

I don't know if this video has been posted elsewhere on this website, but it is well worth watching.

You Tube - A Case for Treason

No it is not. Albert Burgess is a semi-literate French polisher with an inflated opinion of his legal knowledge. He has misunderstood the treason laws, believes that some that have been repealed remain in force and that some that remain in force have been repealed. Misprision, the failure to report an offence was replaced in 1967 with

Criminal Law Act 1967 (c.58) - Statute Law Database

Misprision therefore ceased to exist as an offence in its own right in this country. Treason charges have to be brought within 3 years, Treason Act 1695, as Albert has been told many times:

Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) - Statute Law Database

If you want to read the real laws of treason see the following:

Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

There are no other extant treason laws in the UK, although 3 repealed laws are accessible on the government database - the Treason Acts 1790, 1795 and 1817 which were repealed on 30th September 1998.

Albert frequently states it is treason to repeal treason laws - this is patently absurd since some are specific to people long dead. It's like saying the bit of Magna Carta that dispossesses John's Norman knights of their offices can be enforced today even though they've been dead over 750 years!!!!!!!  

Albert doesn't understand that to convict people of treason requires that they are brought to justice within 3 years of the treason being committed. The offences he complains of, which were not offences in any event, all happened an awfully long time ago. If anyone reports the offences to the police they are wasting police time.

It is nice to see some things in life do not change Ardvark you are still spouting nonsense I have it on good authority from an eminent QC that the case I make for treason is compelling, to quote the QC he said in his letter "you have certainly been marvellously diligent and I congratulate you". He also said the papers collected by Aarable are a remarkable collection of papers. These are the papers you rubbish whilst offering abuse to Aarable who many believe has performed an invaluable service to this country and it's people by finding these papers which actually do evidence treason at the highest levels of government. I served as a police officer and have been trained in the application of the laws of this country, you I believe have no practical experiance working in the legal profession. You are of course correct when you talk about my lack of accademic qualifications, that has not stopped me getting a conviction in the courts on every time I have attended to give evidence against someone I have arrested. You also knock the fact that I am a french polisher, I would point out that, that is a highly skilled profession at which you could not earn a living but which has fed and clothed my family for over 40 years and as such I have not been a drain on the hard working taxpayers of this nation. Can you say as much?

Albert, I wondered where you were. Which QC wrote to you without going through a solicitor? When you get the legal opinion please post it on here for all to look at.

The papers collected by aarable (Dave Barnby) are a remarkable collection of papers and would make the basis of a good article or book if supported by credible interviews with the key players. They would need to be balanced with the rather innocuous papers that he would have seen and decided not to buy copies of.

What the papers show is politicians and civil servants going about their normal business. They were sealed up under the 30 year rule because they contained policy discussions that were private, not because the particular government was concealing anything. All of Blair's stuff is also sealed up under the same rule as is Thatcher's and Major's.

You served as a part-time police officer, or Special Constable and you were not promoted beyond the
equivalent rank of PC. You were at the bottom of the heap and were not involved in policy or management decisions.

As I understand it CPS, and before that your seniors, brought the cases and obtained the convictions based not only on your evidence, but also that of others and on the interpretation of the law. I do not believe that you controlled, managed or decided on which cases were brought to court.

You are wrong of course about my having worked in the legal profession. Your impeccable source doesn't actually know much about me. I worked in a solicitor's office and also in the legal department of the then DHSS where I prepared case files for prosecution amongst other things. I have not practised as a Barrister. I did, as you know, spend 5 years studying law full time, including the time in the offices referred to above. I obtained 2 degrees in the subject. Unless I am much mistaken you have never undertaken a degree level exam in law and have no ‘academic’

Training in the subject. Specials do not undertake the training that a policeman undertakes.

I don't knock the fact that you are a French polisher, a job that requires a keen eye and a skill with your hands. It is just that a non-academic French polisher without paper qualifications is unlikely to pick up things that someone with 5 years studying a subject might pick up. It is laudable that you have been able to make a living within your trade for 40 years, as many people have been less lucky. I have never criticised you for it. I just don't think people should nail their flag to your and aarable's masts as the whole project is a complete waste of time.

Neither you, nor your QC, apparently have accepted the 1695 Treason Act, linked above on a Government website, which states quite clearly that you are out of time to bring charges, even if your interpretation of David Barnby's documents were to be correct, which IMHO it is not. Please ask your QC to e-mail me and I'll provide him with the link above if he doesn't discover it himself the moment he checks the statute law database.

As yet, Albert, you have never, despite repeated requests, provided the name of the 2 solicitors who said you had a good case (what's happened to them?) nor your counsel. You have not provided the details of the statute you rely on nor a single case that supports any of your propositions. You have not provided a single case to support your ludicrous assertion that it is treason to repeal the treason laws. Where on earth is that written?

I have provided links to all of the extant treason laws. The most recent case that came to court was Joyce, who was hanged in 1948. I don't think there is any case that supports your proposition nor any law. You have failed, on this forum, to provide a written explanation of the case and your videos are not well argued, IMHO.

Also, foolishly, you have encouraged people to waste police time by reporting treason to the local nick. You were kicked into touch over your complaint about the police not investigating the alleged crime.

I have advised you before to send your papers to the Attorney General, or the DPP, since it is only the law officers who can instigate a treason investigation and charge. You've been playing this game for years in order to get publicity for yourself, but if you genuinely believed you were right you would have reported this to the correct people a long time ago or you and Barnby would have put your money where your mouths are and got counsel's opinion. Even Ashley Mote got counsel's opinion before he gave his papers, which I prepared, to the SFO; he might not have been successful, but he took the correct action (one of the few things I would congratulate Ashley on).

*          *          *

THE CASE FOR TREASON MERITS SERIOUS ATTENTION

Below is a copy of a NOTE from Leolin Price CBE QC to Mr Albert Burgess. I trust Aardvark will now withdraw his ignorant comments made about Albert and offer him a full and unreserved apology.

Attached Images

No I won't. The note says that it merits serious consideration and investigation. Leolin Price has only seen Albert's version of events. A note like that is a trigger for legal aid, if legal aid is requested, but doesn't prove that treason has been committed or that Albert took the trouble to highlight the current law - that is there is a 3-year time limit on treason. What I want to see is a legal opinion that supports a claim of treason. Had Leo Price spoke to me I would have argued equally strongly, using the law, that there is no prospect of success.

Leo Price is not going to bring a private prosecution as he knows that such an action would be taken over by the DPP who would then drop the action.

Since 1968, Leolin Price has practised as Queen's Counsel specialising in Trusts, Property, Company

Law, Commercial Law, Taxation, Charity and all the areas that fall within (and in many cases falling outside) the scope of Chancery practice

This means that Leo Price might not have taken a major criminal case since 1968, if ever. It could be 40 years since he looked at a criminal law book. I might be more current on criminal law than he is having passed a paper in criminal procedure in 1980.

I'm sorry, but I want to see a written opinion by someone who has actually practised at the criminal bar and understands the current position on mens rea, actus reus and the current law of treason. Albert has not been diligent. He has wilfully misled Leo Price by not providing him with the 1695 Treason Act and thereby prevented him from seeing the whole case. Anyway, now I know who counsel is I can write to him and bring the current law to his attention.

     (Originally Posted by gimlet)

     (Aardvark, you and your side kick now believe that you have more knowledge than a constitutional lawyer?)

Rather than attack us, prove that anything we say is wrong. Do you disagree with chikrodah's analysis of Leolin Price's note? Does the note mean that Albert is correct on his interpretation of the law (not mentioned)? Your line of debate remains consistently flawed. Neither you, nor Albert, nor Dave Barnby has ever presented a cogent argument on this forum as to the documents' contents, the words that prove treason and the statute and case law to back up those assertions. Leolin Price's note doesn't do that either.

I've been asking seemingly forever for that information and despite your bluster you have been unable to provide even the most basic of information.

I've sent the details of s5 Treason Act 1695 to Leolin Price for his comment. The reason I've done that is because Albert hid the existence of the law from Leolin in the hope of getting a favourable comment. You will agree that that is only exercising due diligence, something you haven't done.

I received this e-mail from Leolin Price QC today. I think it says it all. I'll bet those who were demanding an apology from me are unlikely, having abused me for months over this issue, to apologise.

Unless I am much mistaken the opinion of a learned QC is that there was no treason in the early 70s. Likewise he is not in favour of trying to pin criminality on Ministers of the Crown.

          Dear Paul,

          Thank you for your e-mail of 15 February 2009. 1 hoped that my note for Albert Burgess           reads -as 1 Intended - as saying that what he presents merits serious consideration but           does not indicate that my opinion is that there really was criminal treason in the early           1970s or later. It would have been better, for our constitution, and institutions and           independence, if the UK had not acceded to the Treaty of Rome and had not signed up to           the later accumulation of Treaties culminating in the Lisbon Treaty. That is my continuing           opinion; but 1 am really not in favour of trying to pin criminality on Ministers of the           Crown involved in this history of folly. If anyone thinks my Note for Albert Burgess gives a           different impression I should tell him not to use it. My opinion as briefly here stated has           been made very clear to Albert Burgess; and after all his hard work has greatly           disappointed him.

          Yours,

          Leolln Price CBE QC