"A romantic view of a much-misunderstood episode"
QuoteThe cult of Magna Carta is historical nonsense. No wonder Oliver Cromwell called it 'Magna Farta'

Magna Carta has an iconic status. To many, it is the foundation stone of English liberty – the guarantor of the freedoms we cherish, and the solemn legal basis for our centuries-old way of life.

It is unique in many ways, and widely appreciated as such. When an "original" 1297 Magna Carta was sold by Sotheby's in New York in 2007, it went under the hammer for $21.3 million, a record price for a single sheet of vellum.

Appreciation of Magna Carta stretches beyond the British Isles. In the United States, its hallowed phrases are cherished as a political inheritance from England that underpins the United States Constitution, as well as the charters of Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Carolina, and Georgia (all published between 1629 and 1732). Franklin D Roosevelt summed up a widely-held American view in his inaugural address of 1941, "The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in recent history ... it was written in Magna Carta".

Although England has no written constitution, most people assume that if we did, Magna Carta would be it. Its status is so unimpeachable that last century's best-loved maverick judge, Lord Denning (Master of the Rolls, 1962–82), rhapsodised that it was "the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". And only this week, Prime Minister David Cameron noted that in it "King John had to accept his subjects were citizens – for the first time giving them rights, protections and security". He went on to encourage all schools to teach it when inculcating British (sic) values, as well as exhorting towns to commemorate it, and events to celebrate it.

But sadly, this widespread worship of Magna Carta as one of the planks of an English person's rights has no basis in law or history. In fact, almost everything commonly attributed to Magna Carta is wrong.

For a start, the document waved about at Runnymead on 15 June 1215 was not called Magna Carta, and King John did not sign it.

Despite widespread beliefs about the charter's contents, it actually contained very little of significance. The Articles of the Barons (as it was known) did not guarantee freedom to all true-born English people, subject the king to Parliament, enshrine the notion of trial by jury, guarantee freedom of speech, embed the concept of no taxation without representation, or anything else along these lines. It was a largely dull document that dealt with dozens of administrative matters (inheritance laws, feudal obligations, church, land and forestry rights, fish weirs, prisoners, and so on). It also had a number of clauses we would not want to highlight today, like "No one will be taken or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman for the death of anyone except her husband" and punitive clauses against Jewish bankers.

Another fact not widely recognised is that the grateful recipients of the rights granted in the Articles of the Barons were not the long-suffering English people, but the aristocracy: John's Anglo-Norman (i.e., French, but living over here) barons, who were largely responsible for most of the oppressing going on in the country. The Articles of the Barons was, basically, an agreement between King John and his uppity aristocratic military henchmen. For example, one of the barons was none other than our good friend King John's Sheriff of Nottingham, one of English folklore's greatest villains.

So, the crowds at Runnymead were not grateful English serfs. The Articles of the Barons had nothing to say about them, and they remained the abused majority.

If that was not surprising enough given Magna Carta's mythical status, it is perhaps even more odd that, as it turned out, the Runnymead agreement was only honoured by the barons and King John for a total of nine weeks, before being ignored and consigned to the midden heap.

So why do philosophers, politicians, judges and litigants across the English-speaking world, idolise Magna Carta as the fount of freedom?

Well, as usual, it's down to people not being a hundred per cent clear about the facts. Magna Carta would have been lost in relative obscurity, and known only to people who like to know such things, were it not for Parliamentarians in the 1600s fighting to find an answer to the absolutism of the Stuart monarchy. They eventually located their prize in Magna Carta, which they exhumed from dusty legal digests, holding it aloft as a time-honoured cornerstone of the English constitution.

The only trouble was, they ignored all the little details that got in the way of their story, and simplified it into something that would suit their purposes. For example, they squidged over four entirely separate versions of it into their one historic "Magna Carta".

The document's real history, unsurprisingly, was far more complex. And interesting.

Royal charters setting out good kingly practice were well over a century old. The practice had started with the Norman king, Henry I (1100–1135), fourth son of William the Conqueror. When Henry seized the throne, he published a "coronation charter" in which he assured everyone he would observe the good laws and customs of King Edward the Confessor. Which of course he then singularly failed to do.

Henry published the charter because the country was still going through the upheaval of meshing together Anglo-Saxon and Norman law, so the declaration was designed to reassure his subjects that he was going to play by the rules. He had not invented the idea. Over half a century before him, Edward the Confessor himself had sworn at his coronation to uphold the laws of King Cnut.

When Henry I died in 1135 and Stephen of Blois (a city south of Paris) usurped the throne, Stephen carried on the tradition and issued his own coronation charter. His purpose was, predictably, to reassure his new subjects that even though he knew very little about England, he would govern properly and responsibly. Of course, once the ink was dry, civil war and anarchy raged, and England burned for 20 years under him.

When Stephen in turn died and the throne passed to Henry II in 1154, England became an even more tense place. Henry II was from Anjou, a region bordering Normandy and in fierce competition with it. So with Henry's accession, the Anglo-Norman barons of England suddenly found themselves subject to the rule of their arch-rivals. In line with tradition, Henry II also duly issued a coronation charter.

Predictably (this is the twelfth century), Henry II, and then his two sons, Richard I and John, all proved themselves cruel and venal. Their family, the Plantagenets, became a byword for murder and sacrilege – think Henry and Thomas Becket, or John's suspected murder of the 12-year-old Arthur (his rival for the throne that he was supposed to be looking after). Henry II had been no angel, but John excelled at cruelty and the sexual predation of his nobles' wives and daughters. It was hardly a secret that his courtiers loathed him intensely.

And all the while, the Plantagenets taxed England as hard as they could. They siphoned off money at an unprecedented level, and although Henry's legal reforms may be seen as having laid the basis for our modern legal system, the reason he did it was to industrialise the collection of fines, which were set at increasingly ruinous levels.

Although Henry was bad, John was worse. He lost the majority of the country's lands in France, and squeezed every penny out of the Church and his barons that they had managed to recover after his older brother, Richard, had bled them dry in order to fund his grandstanding on crusade. As a result, John was reviled by all. The monk Matthew Paris, writing at St Albans Abbey, summed up the feelings of many, "Black as is Hell, John's presence there makes it blacker still".

This was never called 'Magna Carta'

By early 1215, John's barons were in full revolt against him. The final straw came on May 17, when they seized London. Facing the loss of his capital and his precious treasury, John capitulated, and agreed to meet with leading churchmen and his barons at Windsor to stave off a full civil war.

There were several speedy rounds of negotiations, with Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury shuttling between both camps. The result was a final meeting at Runnymead on June 15. The document John sealed that day is lost. But in the following months his Royal Chancery sent out around 40 charters, one to each county, to be read aloud in the county courts. The document was still not yet Magna Carta, but simply known as the Charter of Liberties. Four of these 1215 charters survive: at Salisbury cathedral, Lincoln cathedral, and two in the British Library.

Of the 40 documents John dispatched in 1215, there was, of course, no one single "original" from which the others were "copied". Each was an identical original (called an engrossment), complete with John's great seal.

The form of the Charter of Liberties was closely modelled on Henry I's coronation charter. But John's document had a very different purpose. England was on the verge of a full-scale revolt. The negotiations leading to Runnymead were a last ditch attempt to stave off an outright civil war – the second in a century. The document John sealed was not a gesture of his royal grace and munificence — it was a desperate peace treaty.

In the event, the Runnymead charter failed completely in its aim. Its many solemn promises (replacement of named royal advisers, fate of specific hostages, repatriation of foreign fighters, and so on) were left unhonoured. The charter was completely dead by September 1215, not three months after it had first been sealed. Both sides had unequivocally repudiated it. The barons then renounced their oaths of homage to John and declared all-out war on him. Meanwhile, Pope Innocent III released John from his obligations under the charter on the basis that they were shameful, demeaning, and legally invalid because they had been exacted by force. The pope then excommunicated the rebels for good measure.

As the country was sucked into civil war again and the French occupied London, the Runnymead charter was forgotten – it was a failed accord, a botched attempt at finding middle ground. Yesterday's news.

However, an unexpected turn of events would, extraordinarily, soon resurrect it. John died in October of the following year, and his nine-year-old son, Henry III, found himself wearing the crown. To prove that he would be a good king, his regents had him issue a coronation charter in 1216 at Bristol. Henry could not very well take as his precedent the skimpy coronation charters given by Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II, so he modelled his new one on John's Runnymead charter. But whereas John's concessions had been forced from him under pain of war, Henry III's was back to being a noble act of royal grace and good will.

During Henry III's long reign (1216–72), his charter was reissued or reaffirmed many times – notably in 1216, 1217, 1225, 1237, 1246, and 1265. The 1217 version is significant, because the sections relating to English forests were removed and issued separately as the Charter of the Forests. To give a name to what was left, from around 1218 onwards, it began to be called the Great Charter (Magna Carta).

The last two times Magna Carta was issued were under Edward I, in 1297 and 1300. Many of these post-1225 reissues were not because of current political tensions or the emergence of a muscular democracy, but rather to ensure that every county had access to a copy. The reason they ceased being issued after 1300 is that from 1301 the king no longer communicated through the county courts, but instead charters were read in Parliament.

So, far from being one, hallowed document, Magna Carta was in fact issued on multiple occasions by three separate kings, leaving us today with 17 physical copies.

As anyone would expect, in the process of being reissued many times, Magna Carta was updated and amended, resulting in at least four distinct versions. The biggest change came when Henry III issued it for the first time in 1216, as he removed the clauses that impinged most heavily on his royal power. For example, one of the most shameful provisions John agreed to was the establishment of a panel of 25 barons who would scrutinise his decisions. If they disagreed with his actions, they had the right, ultimately, to declare war on him. Unsurprisingly, with the threat of civil war receding, Henry III felt no need to have his powers curbed in the same way, so simply undid the provisions and jettisoned those parts of the settlement he did not like. This was no mere tinkering. By 1225, a mere 10 years after Runnymede, Magna Carta had lost a third of its words, and all of its teeth.

Not only was the charter butchered in the 1200s, but from 1828, what remained was dismembered so comprehensively that only three of its original clauses remain law today. This junking of all but a few of its sentences tells us something uncomfortable about what monarchs and Parliament truly think of Magna Carta.

It should perhaps come as no surprise that the articles of Magna Carta that do remain on today's statute book are all so vague and undefined that they are largely legally meaningless, and would take an unusual set of circumstances to be remotely useful in any modern litigation.

The three survivors (of the 1297 Magna Carta) are a sorry sight:

    1. The English Church should be free from royal interference.

    2. The customs and liberties of the city of London and other cities, boroughs, towns and ports are to be respected.

    3. There is to be no imprisonment of a freeman without trial at the hands of his peers and there is to be no sale of justice.

As a bulwark of the English constitution, it does not add up to much.

Church freedom is clearly an anachronism. The days are long gone when churchmen like Thomas Becket fought to free their institution from royal interference. In reality, the clause makes no sense in a post-Reformation world, where the monarch is the head of the English Church. Unless we give the clause a strained new meaning, it is utterly obsolete, as is the provision regarding the freedoms and customs of cities.

The only relevant clause is the ban on imprisonment without judgment by one's peers. It is something we would all applaud, but even here it is not quite what it seems. It was not new. It only applied to "freemen" (so not the vast multitude of serfs bonded to their masters). And it was carefully qualified with the ability to junk it and apply instead the hopelessly vague "law of the land" – nicely leaving open the possibility for good old-fashioned direct state interference. In any event, this provision has certainly never been observed: not before Magna Carta, at its time, or since. If this clause meant anything today, we would not have people languishing in prison on remand for months awaiting trial at which many are acquitted, nor would the special powers brought in post 9/11 be constitutional.

So where does that leave Magna Carta?

The act of writing something down or making it a law does not mean it is observed. To the contrary. Under dictatorships or tyrannies, laws frequently act as a propaganda shield to be enacted then ignored. For instance, Stalin's Constitution of 1936 contained specific detailed provisions guaranteeing numerous human rights. Certainly, the record of English monarchs for centuries after Magna Carta shows no absence of summary executions ordered on a whim – as true of Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, and Elizabeth I as of the Henrys, John, or Edward. Other strong but non-royal English rulers have also been happy to flout it. When it was shown to Oliver Cromwell, he dismissed it as "Magna Farta". The record shows that, for most absolute rulers of England, Magna Carta was – like Parliament itself – useful window dressing, but rarely something they took seriously.

The real question surrounding our fetishisation of Magna Carta is: why, if it is so sacrosanct, have we hacked it down to three largely meaningless clauses? If it really is "the foundation of all our laws and liberties" (Our Island Story, cited by David Cameron), why have we largely scrapped it?

The reality is that Magna Carta was never intended as a key constitutional document – it was quite explicitly a peace treaty cobbled together at a time when the country was being sucked into civil war. No more. No less. But, like Alfred, Arthur, Robin Hood, Lady Godiva, and so much of our medieval past, it has been taken up and mythologised beyond recognition.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100276672/the-cult-of-magna-carta-is-historical-nonsense-no-wonder-oliver-cromwell-called-it-magna-farta/
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

The Telegraph, so long held as that bastion of freedom and truth for the people of the world, even admits in the long rambling hatchet job carried out by one of the bag boys for the Illuminati

" It should perhaps come as no surprise that the articles of Magna Carta that do remain on today's statute BOOK are all so vague and undefined that they are largely legally meaningless, and would take an unusual set of circumstances to be remotely useful in any modern litigation. "

So from a position of trying to annihilate this most solemn of lawful documents is the above jem. The freemasonic bag boys will do everything they can to muddy the water and confuse us.

But just like Blackstone and others before him the truth must be included and the writer acknowledges that in the above comment.

Peace through Love.

Modify message

Hi, Laurence

the points about the Telegraph are entirely valid. However, the article does raise some key issues.

For instance, with that in mind, perhaps one needs to ask just what Cameron's handlers' intent is when he says the MC must be taught in schools?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-pledges-lessons-on-magna-carta-as-he-seeks-to-push-british-values-9538187.html


As one has consistently pointed out, there is no need to rely on the MC - the ancient laws of these lands predate the MC by thousands of years - they are based in Natural Law and the king who codified them was Moelmut, hence the Molmutine Laws predate any of the phony Anglo-Norman 'legal systems' which were only designed to strengthen the tyrannical hold over the minds of the people.

Unless I've missed it, you have not addressed that fact. These laws are enshrined in the 'Welsh' Triads (Welsh Trioedd Ynys Prydein, literally "Triads of the Island of Britain") and various other historical documents.

Why limit oneself to a dubious agreement of 800 years, when the people's rights, protections and customs under natural law go back thousands of years to a time before the invasion by William the Bastard and the subsequent Plantagenets usurpation and genocidal theft of the land?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/triads1.html


Does Cameron suggest such a thing? Does he fuck - his masters' aim is to keep a lid on the truth.

And the truth is that the ancient ancestors of men like you and i lived under a long established system of natural law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molmutine_Laws
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


QuoteLAWS AND ROADS

That Britain had an indigenous system of law centuries before the
Christian era is abundantly clear from ancient histories of our
islands.

The lawgiver, Molmutius, 450 B.C.(1) based his laws on the code
of Brutus, 1100 B.C. He was the son of Cloton, Duke of Cornwall
(which was and continued to be a royal dukedom) and is referred
to in ancient documents as Dyfn-val-meol-meod, and because of his
wisdom has been called the 'Solomon' of Britain. 'Centuries
before the Romans gained a footing in this country the
inhabitants were a polished and intellectual people, with a
system of jurisprudence of their own, superior even to the laws
of Rome, and the Romans acknowledged this.'(2)

We have it from the great law authorities and from the legal
writers, Fortescue and Coke, that the Brutus and Molmutine laws
have always been regarded as the foundation and bulwark of
British liberties, and are distinguished for their clearness,
brevity, justice and humanity.(3)
'The original laws of this land were composed of such elements as
Brutus first selected from the ancient Greek and Trojan
institutions.'(4)
A Trojan law mentioned by E.O.Gordon, decreed that the sceptre
might pass to a queen as well as to a king; this law was embodied
by King Molmutius in his code and remains an outstanding feature
of the rulership of these islands.(5)

The liberty of the subject, so marked a feature of British
government today, runs from those remote times like a gold thread
through all the laws and institutions in this country.

King Alfred, it is recorded, employed his scribe, Asser, a
learned Welsh monk from St. David's (whom he afterwards made
abbot of Amesbury and Bishop of Sherborne), to translate the
Molmutine laws from the Celtic tongue into Latin, in order 
that he might incorporate them into his own Anglo-Saxon code.(6)

'The Manorial system had its beginning in Celtic Britain and was
so deeply rooted in the soil that when the Romans came they were
wise enough in their experience as colonists not to attempt the
redistribution of the old shires and hundreds.'(7)

King Alfred's ideas of rulership maintained the earlier and
sometimes unwritten laws of Britain in these words: 'A king's raw
material and instruments of rule are well-peopled land, and he
must also have men of prayer, men of war and men of work.'

From the earliest Code of Laws known as the Molmutine, the
following are appended as examples:

'There ate three tests of civil liberty; equality of rights;
equality of taxation; freedom to come and go.

'Three things are indispensable to a true union of nations;
sameness of laws, rights and language.

'There are three things free to all Britons; the forest, the
unworked mine, the right of hunting.

'There three property birthrights of every Briton; five British
acres of land for a home, the right of suffrage in the enacting
of the laws, the male at twenty-one, the female on her marriage.

'There are three things which every Briton may legally be
compelled to attend; the worship of God, military service, the
courts of law.

'There are three things free to every man, Briton or foreigner,
the refusal of which no law will justify; water from spring,
river or well; firing from a decayed tree, a block of stone not
in use.

'There are three classes which are exempt from bearing arms;
bards, judges, graduates in law or religion. These represent God
and His peace, and no weapon must ever be found in their hands.

'There are three persons who have a right of public maintenance;
the old, the babe, the foreigner who can not speak the British
tongue.'

From time immemorial the laws and customs differed from those of
other nations, and that the Romans effected no change in this
respect is very plainly set forth by Henry de Bracton, a
thirteenth-century English judge of great experience. 'He was
thoroughly acquainted with the practice of the law. His "Note-
Book" is our earliest and most treasured of law reports.'(9)
Judge de Bracton states, 'Whereas in almost all countries they
use laws and written right, England alone uses within her
boundaries unwritten right and custom. In England, indeed, right
is derived from what is unwritten which usage has approved. There
are also in England several and divers customs according to the
diversity of places, for the English have many things by custom
which they have not by written law, as in divers countries,
cities, boroughs and vills where it will always have to be
enquired what is the custom of the place and in what manner they
who allege the custom observe the custom.'(10)

Another point on which Britain differs from other countries is
that she has ever maintained the Common Law which holds a person
under trial innocent until proved guilty, whereas the Continental
nations maintain the Civil Law which holds him guilty until
proved innocent.
     
Molmutius, the first king in these islands to wear a crown of
gold,(11) is said to have founded the city of Bristol, which he
called Caer Odor, 'the city of the Chasm'. His son Belinus, who
succeeded him, built a city where London now stands which he
called Caer Troia, and also the first Thames Embankment. He
constructed a sort of quay or port made of poles and planks, and
erected a water-gate. That age, the only gate admitting into
London on the south side, became Belinus Gate or Belins Gate.
(12)

Belinus lived to the age of eighty. When he died his body was
burned (they did not call it cremation in those days) and his
ashes were enclosed in a brazen urn, which was placed on top of
the gate; henceforth it was Belin's Gate and it requires no undue
stretch of imagination to see that Belin's Gate became
Billingsgate.

Bellingsgate enjoys the proud distinction of being the first Port
of London, the only Port of London at that time, and thus the men
of Billingsgate became the first Port of London Authority.

Cambria Formosa, daughter of Belinus, 373 B.C. greatly promoted
the building of cities. She is said to have taught the women of 
Britain to sow flax and hemp and weave it into cloth. Her brother
Gwrgan first built the city of Cambridge which he called Caer
Gwrgan.(13)

In these early times Britain was a wealthy country, with fine
cities, a well organized national life, and an educated and
civilized people.

The so-called Roman roads in Britain were constructed centuries
BEFORE the Romans came to these islands. The dover to Holyhead
causeway, called Sarn Wydellin or Irish Road, later became
corrupted into Watling Street; the Sarn Ikin, later Icknield
street, led from London northwards through the eastern district,
and Sarn Achmaen from London to Menevia (St. David's).

These were causeways or raised roads (not mere trackways as
sometimes erroneously stated), except where raised road were
impossible, and this accounts for the term 'Holloway' in some
parts of the country.

Our roads were begun by Molmutius (c.450 B.C.) and completed by
his son Belinus. On their completion a law was enacted throwing
open these roads to all nations and foreigners: 'There are three
things free to a country and its borders; the roads, the rivers
and the places of worship. These are under the protection of God
and His peace.' In this law originated the term 'The King's
Highway.'(14)

Writers who maintain that the British roads were simply unmade
trackways seem unaware of the fact that the British were skilled
charioteer this fact, without other evidence, should go a long
way to prove that the roads of ancient Britain were hard and well
made. Charioteering is not brought to perfection on soft, boggy
trackways, nor are chariots built without wheelwrights and other
mechanics skilled in the working of iron and wood.

Only once before, in the war with Antiochus, 192 B.C., the Romans
met with similar chariots, but never in any European country. The
British chariot was built after the Eastern pattern, adorned with
carved figures and armed with hooks and scythes. British chariots
were prized possessions of the Romans.

Diodorus Siculus, 60 B.C., states, 'The Britons live in the same
manner that the ancients did; they fight in chariots as the
ancient heroes of Greece are said to  have done in the Trojan
wars.....They are plain and upright in their dealings, and far
from the craft and subtlety of our countrymen.... The island is
very populous.... The Celts never shut the doors of their houses;
they invite strangers to their feasts, and when all is over ask
who they are and what is their business.(15)

Britain, long before the Roman invasion, was famous for its breed
of horses and the daring and accomplishment of its charioteers;
and after the arrival of the Romans the large space given by
their historians to the wars in Britain, demonstrate the interest
felt in them by the whole empire. Juvenal could suggest no news
which would have(16) been hailed by the Roman people with more
satisfaction than the fall of the British king Arviragus
(Caractacus), a direct descendant of King Molmutius.

     'Hath our great enemy, Arviragus, the car-borne British
     king, Dropped from his battle-throne?'

1. Ancient Laws of Cambria (British Museum, 5805, A.A. 4). Myv. 
Arch., Vol. II, Brut Tysillo.
2. Yeatman, Early English History, p.9.
3. De Laudibus Legum Angliae. Coke Preface, third volume of     
Pleadings. Fortescue Brit. Laws, published with notes by     
Selden, Ch.17, pp.38,39.
4. Ibid.
5. Prehistoric London, p.115.
6. Summarized by Edmund Spenser, Faerie Queen, Bk.II, Stanza     
XXXIX (ed. Morris).
7. A Manor through four Centuries, by A.R.Cook.
8. Triads of Dynvall Moelmud, ap. Walter p. 315 Myv Arch., Vol. 
III. Ancient Laws of Cambria, ap. Palgrave and Lappenberg.   
9. Gilbert Stone, England from Earliest Times, p.385.
10.Legibus et Consuet, pp.4,5.
11.Holinshed, Chronicles, Ch. XXII, p.117. Geoffrey of Monmouth,
Bk.II, Chap.XVII.
12.E. O. Gordon, Prehistoric London, p.146.
13.Lewis, Hist. of Britain, p.52. See Baker's MSS. in the       
University Library, Cambridge,XXIV,249.
14.Ancient Laws of Cambriae (British Museum,A.A.4). Stukely,     
Abury, p.42.
15.Dio.Sic., Bk.V,Chap.X. Senchus Mor., IV,237.
16.Juvenal lived through the reigns of Caligula, Claudius, Nero,
Vespasian, Domitian and Trojan, in whose reign he died at the
age of eighty.

Source: http://www.keithhunt.com/Earlbit2.html

                               ............
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

QuoteAround 420 BC Dunvallo Molmutius enacted a famous legal code for Britain, the Molmutine Laws, which became part of Alfred the Great's common law; these laws were expressed as triads for ease of recollection; one of these triads says that

    'There are three protections and securities of the social state: the protection of life and person, protection of possession and place of residence, and protection of natural right.'

Values: British values include freedom (particularly to speak your mind), democracy, fair play (dealing decently with people, keeping your word, abiding by contracts; see Paying your debts), tolerance, pragmatism ('What works is best, regardless of theory'), civility (e.g. queuing) and seeing the funny side of life ("And it thanks to the Magna Carta/That was signed by King John of old/That in England today we can do as we like/Just so long as we do as we're told!"; the CVpedia is indebted to Bill Cooper, translator of the Tysilio Chronicle for providing this music hall verse); individualism is another key British value, encompassing preparedness to be different, the dogged and meticulous British amateur, eccentricism, originality, pioneering and creativity; this orientation was alluded to in 1951 by future prime minister Harold Macmillan who remarked that "The genius of the British has always been originality"; an important aspect of British originality and pioneering has been in the area of humanitarianism, after the rise of the anti-slavery movement, which started in Britain [see Abolition of slavery]; a modern British extension of tolerance is social inclusiveness, which chimes in some people's minds with the perceived need for the human family to pull together to look after a world in sore need of thoughtful tender loving care (TTLC) and sustainability ('Please thrive carefully', to misquote rural British road signs,); the London 2012 Olympics are aiming to be the most inclusive Games ever; the British have a clear sense of identity, everybody else being over the sea; yet the British are not insular; they have an outwardlooking global perspective that makes isolationism a psychological impossibility

Islanders: in a national sense it has helped that Britons are on an island, since everyone else is 'overseas'; the British thus have a clear sense of identity; there was a shared tongue by the 1400s, Norman French having confused matters for a time before English won out; literacy was common but not quite universal by 1700; in terms of personal identity surnames appeared in the late 1300s and early 1400s; privacy and inviolability have been much prized ("a man's home is his castle", said England's most renowned jurist, Edward Coke)

Religious independence & eventually toleration: as part of the Protestant Reformation, Britain broke with Catholic Rome in the period 1529-33, at the instigation of Henry VIII, who wanted to divorce his wife; by this means was the influence of the papacy eliminated from the island's spiritual life, even as the role of domestic kings was to be constrained later in the temporal sphere; Protestantism and its work ethic was disseminated widely overseas by Britain; the British brand of Protestantism, Anglicanism, is unique in Europe because Henry VIII's daughter Elizabeth I elected to keep heirarchy and church ceremonial; Anglicanism developed as a subtle, reflective and tolerant version of Christianity

Bible in English: the King James Authorised Version of 1611 is one of history's most influential books; it incorporated the work of William Tyndale, who is thus one of the founders of English literature; the King James Bible does not mention Britain by name, but some have identified it with the 'islands of the sea' of Isaiah, 11.11; another widely influential work was the Book of Common Prayer, of 1549

John Locke: 1632-1704; first to expound liberalism, today's most influential political philosophy; Locke is regarded by some as the father of the European Enlightenment; a genteel revolutionary, Locke was famously amiable and charming; with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Locke was the pioneering exponent of the contract theory of government which sees political authority arising from the governed with their consent; rulers should serve the people, who would be citizens not subjects; the people were not there to serve the rulers

Age of Reason: this was the clearing of the Western mind also known as the Enlightenment; this started in Britain with Isaac Newton's Principia of 1687, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and John Locke writing in 1690 of 'life, liberty and estate'; the Age of Reason continued in the 1700s with philosophers David Hume (1711-76) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and economist Adam Smith (1723-90), among many others; sceptical reason was enlisted against ignorance, superstition, privilege and tyranny; society could be perfected via common sense and tolerance, it was argued; the foremost value was freedom of speech, the freedom that supports all other freedoms; England had gained a head start, so to speak, by decapitating a non-consensual king, Charles I, in 1649, and experimenting with republicanism under Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658); a great American republican was Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), principal author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States; Jefferson had portraits of whom he felt to be the three greatest men in world history; the portraits were of Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and John Locke, Britons all; an influential and timely advocate of freedom in the later Enlightenment, especially in America, was Thomas Paine (1737-1809; see United States of America); a later champion of liberty was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who preached "governance by discussion" in domestic and global affairs; the antecedent process to the Age of Reason was the Protestant Reformation, a process which started in Britain under Henry VIII and saw its culmination under William & Mary [see William & Mary]; thus was the British mind cleared for greatness, as evinced by the birth of modern science in Britain in 1660, with the foundation of the Royal Society, and the Industrial Revolution, from the mid-1700s

http://www.thenationalcv.org.uk/freedom.html

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Hi All

Do you think that the laws to which you refer could be a precursor to the eventual customs which came down to us and through use and agreement became the law of the land?

This would seem to be a possibility from my perspective.

Since Gods law rules the Royal prerogative and the royal prerogative translates to the judges discretion this discretion can only be used in harmony with Genesis ch 1 the Human Rights ECHR and the UDHR and in the various constitutional documents of which the most important in my view is the Magna Carta.

I do not believe that invokiing the Magna Carta limits what should be possible. There are many entities referred to in the charter and Welshmen are particularised.

The Telegraph is portrayed for what it always has been an organ of the Illuminati and the Freemasons along with the rest of main stream media. Using the article in any proceedings would be risible.

The laws to which you refer became the customs of the people and became the law of the land. Gods law cannot be abrogated and any law of and for the people must accord with love thy neighbor.

I do not believe you have addressed whether or not the charter is a trust document or the articles included for Welshmen.

There is only one Magna Carta 1215. All others are an attempt to hide this truth. It cannot be changed, only the rules of the game are changed and Dominc the liar is just that, along with so called reissues. It is usually a good indicator of a bankrupt argument when the writer mocks perceptions and writes in a dismissive manner.

I try to deal with the present reality in a lawful court as opposed to being railroaded by process in a statute court, which themselves are merely administrative proceedings.

Until the courts are packed with people who can observe without causing a fuss, as feelings run deep as more is known about the many frauds that take place in the HMCTS and the International Banking [ Christine Laguard, head of the IMF occult message ytube January 2014], then the adjudicators will administer justice which is not the same as doing justice.

Until the relevant oaths are accepted then you will be dealt with under statute. Why, banging your head against a brick wall only gets better when you stop.

You invoke what law or laws you want to proceed with. It is your choice because the man who occupys the office of judge is sworn to protect you as a man of the people.


Peace through Love.











#6 July 26, 2014, 07:45:19 AM Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 07:49:11 AM by M O'D
Hi, Laurence,


QuoteDo you think that the laws to which you refer could be a precursor to the eventual customs which came down to us and through use and agreement became the law of the land?

Exactly: it's in our blood, so to speak.

In the simplest of terms, and as demonstrated by the 300+ people who turned up in Nottingham to prevent Tom's eviction, it is the people who hold the power...

It is the people who, individually, are imbued with a keen sense of what is RIGHT and WRONG.

The judges et al, are hopelessly lost in the fog of the 'legal' system... too blind to see... at least for now...


QuoteSince Gods law rules the Royal prerogative and the royal prerogative translates to the judges discretion this discretion can only be used in harmony with Genesis ch 1 the Human Rights ECHR and the UDHR and in the various constitutional documents of which the most important in my view is the Magna Carta.

All well and good if the monarchy had any kind of legitimacy. They are fake.


QuoteI do not believe that invokiing the Magna Carta limits what should be possible. There are many entities referred to in the charter and Welshmen are particularised.

The principles may be valid but the document has fuck all to do with any of us - the Norman invaders stole the land by way of genocide. The resulting Plantagenet line was invalid ab initio because of that fact.  'Welsh' means 'foreigner' - Cymri is more accurate.


QuoteThe Telegraph is portrayed for what it always has been an organ of the Illuminati and the Freemasons along with the rest of main stream media. Using the article in any proceedings would be risible.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point but who was suggesting it should be used in proceedings?


QuoteThe laws to which you refer became the customs of the people and became the law of the land. Gods law cannot be abrogated and any law of and for the people must accord with love thy neighbor.

Again, we have covered this before. There is only Natural Law to which man is subject(God's Law) - it is superior, ipso facto, to the 'positive' laws of man - when the latter are out of step with Natural Law, there is imbalance and disharmony, tyranny and oppression.

QuoteI do not believe you have addressed whether or not the charter is a trust document or the articles included for Welshmen.

From what I understand, if it was anything at all, it was a contract signed at the point of a sword by a criminal usurper at the behest of a group of land-owning invading 'Barons' who were fucked off with John's rule. Not being from a line of Anglo-Saxons or Normans, I fail to see how it has any relevance to me, other than as an interesting record of a particular juncture in the history of the fake monarchy.

As to whether it is a trust document, who is the Trustee and who are the beneficiaries? What is the res?


It's like me asking you if you think the Balfour Declaration is a trust document... if it is, it is certainly not binding on any of us unless we are the beneficiaries. But again, i have to ask, how and why do you believe it has any thing to do with the indigenous peoples of Britain when it was so palpably an invalid contract, notwithstanding some of its true principles?


Baron

baron |?bar(?)n|
noun
a member of the lowest order of the British nobility. The term "Baron" is not used as a form of address in Britain, barons usually being referred to as "Lord."
• a similar member of a foreign nobility.
• historical a person who held lands or property from the sovereign or a powerful overlord.
• [with adj. ] an important or powerful person in a specified business or industry : a press baron.
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French, from medieval Latin baro, baron- 'man, warrior,' probably of Germanic origin.



cheers
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Hi All

For the people to demonstrate their collective authority a peaceful assembly of people can appoint a jury and start there, what is stopping this ?

Everyone can understand the general concept of the jury, what is not easily understood is the political concept of authority and how the peoples political authority has been hijacked by the Illuminati and the Freemasons.

The political system of government by democracy has been subverted by the amount of stolen money/currency that is created when a loan note is used in the credit/debit system of International Finance. When the people understand that all loans are multiplied by the banks at a rate of 10 to 1 or more, giving themselves £1.3million for every £100k applied
for then that fact alone, which is easily understandable could become the motivation needed to form a jury.

The vast majority of the people do not know or care how money is created and stolen from them. With too many confusing messages put out by well meaning people clarity of thought and action becomes impossible for most.

The judges are not lost in the legal system, they know only too well the power of the spoken word which is why they need to protect the record when switched on. Oaths are spoken when taken because we live, by consent, in a Common Law jurisdiction which ties all the oaths and constitutional documents together.

The judges operate in statute but can be obligated, by accepting the oath of office to apply the Common Law rule. This is the test of reasonableness. The law of the land encapsulates this test as does Gods Law. It is the law of the land that is mentioned in Magna Carta.

The donor/grantee is King John, the trustees the 25 barons and the beneficiaries the various entities included by reference. The relevant actions between king John and the other entities, confirmed by the charter, being the corpus. The Declaration of Independence written into existence by the Freemasons another trust document brilliantly explained by the late Bernice Speakman in the Legacy series.

King John did not seal the document at sword point. This sealing in Runnymead came about as the result of lengthy negotiations between the parties. The Magna Carta is in the nature of a conditional contract and it was in the contemplation of the parties that it would endure and was sealed as such.

The principles, contained in the document are all reasonable and easily pass this test. Is the Common Law the same as the law of the land ? similar in principle but Judge made by precedent and procedure so not the same and involving titles. There are no titles in a legal sense under Gods law or the law of the land.

There is in my view little or no procedure in presenting a case under the law of the land to the man who occupys the office of judge. He is sworn to protect the people and so is QEll. Legalese does not cross to this jurisdiction and the spoken word and interpretation must accord with the understanding of the average man. This obviously denies to the system the advantages which make it so difficult to plead against.

Rather than 300 people turning up and stopping an eviction, an action I applaud and a good way to demonstrate via peaceful assembly, surely an order from a peoples court formed on that day and handed to the constables would have an effect.  This could then produce an action to defend the eviction from a different perspective.

As we both agree the power to govern belongs to the people and reasserting this first principle can be done. The courts know all about the right of self determination but when is it claimed correctly ?

Peace through Love.







#8 July 27, 2014, 02:47:46 PM Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 06:22:58 PM by M O'D
In all honesty, Laurence, i couldn't give a fuck as to whether the Magna Carta is a trust document, a void contract signed under duress or an English constitutional document. This is made on the basis that:

1. I'm an anarchist who does not believe in the false religion of the state.
2. 'England' is a fake brand used to claim the lands that have been stolen.
3. I do not recognise any pope, politician or prelate as having any legitimacy.
4. The Monarchy is an inbred collection of Rothschild sired spineless nonentities who i similarly do not recognise other than as a psychological parasite that needs expunging.
5. There is no such thing as democracy because there is no and never has been any legitimacy to government.
6. No one is bound by a fake treaty entered into by the latest in a long line of genocidal invaders who butchered thousands to death as they stole the land.
7. It matters not what you or i believe - only the truth stands:

That which is


Any one who continues to promote the state sponsored view of history is part of the problem, not the solution and, in all honesty, it is a waste of my time right now to dance round and round the garden of repeated lessons..

as I have attempted to convey on numerous occasions, that is how and why I no longer have any time for discourse with avowed statists and whether or not they are aware of their religious belief in the phony state is of no consequence at all...

Notwithstanding the above listed items, the time for the formation of Grand Juries is indeed drawing near.

cheers
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Hi All,

Quite.

Cheers

Peace through Love.