Unlawful Changes To British Constitutional Law/ Magna Carta

Liz R (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Ministry of Justice.

Liz R (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

How many times has the British Constitution been altered without the vote or consent of the British public since the writing of the Magna Carta please?

Yours Sincerely,

Elizabeth R

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

<<2376829>> Please find attached a response to your recent enquiry,

Thanks

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

J Wilson left an annotation ()

Where have I seen this reply before? Only in answer to the last question I looked at.

What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights our State signed up to? Does Parliamentary Sovereignty mean that they could ignore all the rights and freedoms which they proclaimed in that to believe in.

Not one UK Act of Parliament since 1949 has been wholly compatible with those rights as the UN knows. Just us who are kept in the dark about our rights and fed lies about Parliaments rights to deny them to us, just like this response implies.

Liz R (Account suspended)

Dear Eirian Walsh-Atkins,

You wrote;

'Parliament holds sovereignty on behalf of the people it represents.'

My answer is that that is correct as far as this government goes but in essence, illegal, as our constitution was changed undemocratically and against the original Magna Carta- our people are barely aware that Great Britain and it's commonwealth cousins are no longer ruled by a Royal Sovereign.

It's my belief and understanding that the HM the Queen Elzabeth had no right to allow Mr.Brown to sign away her sovereignty and that, only the Royals with the power to do so in any event, would be Prince William and Prince Harry by dint of them being the only pure Royals due to their mother having been a Plantagenet - as far back as the Lady Elizabeth lucye, whose family resided at Charlecote from the 11th Century (see the two Sir William Lucys') and whom married and or was betrothed to King Edward the 1V, gave him two children and lived with him and his family in their home. The King was therefore at least guilty of breach of promise, if not bigamy. 'Breach of promise' was law in those days indeed, and, cutting a long story short, that leaves the Plantagenets the proper and true Royal line of Great Britain, therefore the Lisbon treaty could be called void, by either Prince William or Harry, or anyone who emerged to be more 'royal' than they- if they so chose to do.

I believe the majority of the British public would be supportive of such a move.

I believe all the above is true and supported by documents - especially of Sir Thomas More.

My mothers' family are of the Lady Elizabeth Lucye blood line.

I am also related to the current royal family via Beatrice van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha (paternal grandmother) and Henrietta De R De Champagne.

Yours sincerely,

Liz R

Liz R (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

More on the Lady Elizabeth Lucy (Plantagenet)

'The source of Shakespeare's representation of King Edward IV's precontracts and "bigamy" was Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard III (pub. 1557) (Candido, "More" 139). More originally wrote this work in Latin and English in or near 1513, when he was still strongly supportive of Henry VIII. Ironically, a book written by an advocate of Henry VIII would one day become the source of a stage depiction potentially critical by analogy of the king and embarrassing to his daughter. Analysis of More's History sharpens the critical commentary on Henry VIII latent in Shakespeare's dramaturgy. More emphasizes Elizabeth Grey's widowhood as the basis for the Duchess of York's claim that marriage to her would be bigamous: More's Duchess tells Edward, "`wheras ye only widowhed of Elizabeth Gray though she wer in al other thinges conuenient for you, shold yet suffice as me semeth to refrain you from her mariage, sith it is an vnsitting thing, & a veri blemish, & highe disparagement, to the sacre magesty of a prince, yt ought as nigh to approche priesthode in clenes as he doth in dignitie, to be defouled wt bigamy in his first mariage"' (62). In canon law, bigamy included marriage to a widow, especially by ecclesiastical clerks. "`And as for ye bigamy,' More reports Edward as replying, 'let ye Bishop hardely lay it in my wai, when I come to take orders. For I vnderstand it is forbidden a prieste, but I never wiste it yet yt it was forbidden a prince"' (64). Edward had sired at least two illegitimate children-a son, Arthur Plantagenet, definitely by Elizabeth Lucy, and a daughter, Elizabeth, perhaps by Elizabeth Lucy. The girl was born about the time of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville Grey. More's Edward boasts to his mother, "`That she is a widow and hath alredy children, by gods blessed Ladye I am a batcheler & have some to: & so eche of vs hath a profe yt neither of vs is lyke to be barain"' (64) . Because of the story of Edward's precontract with Elizabeth Lucy and the Duchess's accusations, the bishops refused to marry Edward and the widow. They relented only after Elizabeth Lucy publicly equivocated on the matter of the precontract. '

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

Dear Ms R,

thank you for your email, which mentions the Magna Carta and the
succession to the Crown.

It is not the case that any changes made to Magna Carta are illegal.
Changes in rules of UK constitutional law can be effected by ordinary
legislation, (unlike the situation, for example, in the United States of
America, where changes can only be made by a complicated process of
constitutional amendment).

Your comments on the line of succession to the Crown, while interesting,
are inaccurate. The Act of Settlement provides that the Electress
Sophia of Hanover and her heirs should inherit the Crown after the
deaths of William of Orange and Queen Anne. The succession is settled
upon her heirs, excluding those who are Roman Catholics or married to
Roman Catholics.

Regards

Eirian Walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Liz R (Account suspended)

Dear Walsh-Atkins, Eirian,

thank you but of course you'd say it's inaccurate, it's not.

Yours sincerely,

Liz R

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Elizabeth, many may ridicule what you have said here, however, I can testify to the truthfulness of what you have said. I have more blood royal than our Queen. Bonnie Prince Charlie is my line, even be it illegitimate lineage. I have the same bloodline as Earl Spencer. Lady Diana is a distant relative of mine also.

I guess this is why we leave no stone unturned and fight for justice. We are like finely bread race horses with great integrity, which is more than I could ever say about the NAZI impostors who occupy the Throne today.

I can trace all the way back to Jesus Christ through King David. Being a blue blood is nothing to be proud of though.

Liz R (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

You miss the point Ivan, ridicule is all yours on this point -by a long way- sorry-- this is about MAGNA CARTA - the point being;
The Queen had no right to allow Mr.Brown to sign over
sovereignty of the UK and all commonwealth countries to Parliament without consulting the British people in a fashion that was understood by all- she does not have the power as she is not the correct line as recognised by the world right now, as in the MAGNA CARTA-
due to Elizabeth Lucyes' marriage to Edward 1V that has been covered up
for years, the Plantagenet blood is William and Harry who could
choose to sign over sovereignty if they wanted to, not Gordon Brown HE HAD NO RIGHT under constitutional law that has been altered ILLEGALLY- them (Princess Dianas' children) being the true and proper line
via their mother only have theat right- this response from government is expected, they know precisely what I'm talking about if very clearly you don't- Lisbon treaty should be made void -and they know it, and this will be challenged
in court at some point in the future. This is about getting history, blood-lines and most of all, our constitutional law, correct. Magna Carta.

Liz R (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

In attempt was purportedly made to repeal Magna Carta in 1969, when the Statute Laws (Repeal) Act was sneaked through parliament during the moon landings.

It repealed Edward 1’s Confirmation of the Great Charter Act of 1297 - but it did not repeal Magna Carta itself. Yet again, as we understand the legal position, a repeal of a statute which gives effect to common law does not repeal the underlying common law itself. The gap between the two events might extend to hundreds of years, but the effect is always the same. The original common law remains untouched.

see more at http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:nnoS_...

L : Turnbull left an annotation ()

A statute is the fine tuning of the common law. It is an ordinance issued by the crown and cannot be repealed by parliament. To do so is to commit treason.
The one who said that parliament holds sovereignty for the people has committed an act of treason. The crown holds the sovereignty of the people IN TRUST. It is a contract which the present malfeasant incumbent signed in 1953.
The present incumbent of the office of sovereign is the servant of the iniquitous.
L. Turnbull