June 13, 2011

Magna Carta Dead? Never Think It.

I received this email from a friend. The only details I have changed is my name, his, and the name of the lady who sent it.

"Dear Captain,


XXXX asked me to forward these details of a recent court case, with profound implications, where the judge quoted chapter 29 of Magna Carta in his summation 

– Best Wishes, 

P...


The link below relates to a Court of Protection unlawful Deprivation of liberty case London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary & Anor [2011] EWHC 1377 (COP) which quotes the Magna Carta freedom rules at paragraph 23. I have snipped the section below, and included the principle that Justice Jackson claimed it refers to:

  1. The second central principle concerns cases of disagreement. The ordinary powers of a local authority are limited to investigating, providing support services, and where appropriate referring the matter to the court. If a local authority seeks to regulate, control, compel, restrain, confine or coerce it must, except in an emergency, point to specific statutory authority for what it is doing or else obtain the appropriate sanction of the court: again see Re A and C (above) and the authorities referred to therein.  
  2. The origin of this basic legal principle is to be found in an era long before the invention of local authorities as we know them. Chapter 29 of Magna Carta 1297 provides that:  


    "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."
It was also reported in The Times, 9th June 2011, because the Judge lifted reporting restrictions. "

The full ruling can be found here. 

I was not going to run this story because Ms Raccoon did a fantastic write-up on it. 

If anyone, and I mean anyone, tells you that the Great Charter is just a piece of yellowed parchment with no relevance today, tell them to eat shit and bark at the moon. This ruling is dated 9th June 2011. 

I repeat: this ruling is dated the 9th of June, two thousand and eleven.

Use this great document or don't. But do not ever underestimate its validity.

They want you to think it is useless.

They want you to believe it was/is a statute. It isn't. It's a Treaty. When did you ever hear of Treaties* being amended or deleted? 

You never have because by their very nature they are unamendable. Undeleteable. They stand for all time.

*other than wanky treaties like Nice, Maastricht, Rome and Lisbon, that is. Now they are useless. 


But the dear old Magna Carta is as useful today as the day it was signed.


M'kay?

CR.

44 comments:

FrankC said...

Bravo to Justice Jackson.

Captain Ranty said...

Seconded.

A hero in a field of cowards.

CR.

hangemall said...

Nice to see, Captain. Let's hope the Constitution rather than controlling, money-grubbing statutes comes to the front of ever more people's minds.

Angry Exile said...

Playing Devil's Advocate here, Captain.

"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

This is Clause 29 covering the right to due process, and is one of three clauses whose currant validity is not disputed. It's claimed that apart from these three all the other clauses have been repealed by and/or the rights absorbed into subsequent legislation, mostly in the C19th. If you want to prove that the whole document is still in force, and you know I hope to Christ it is, then finding a judgement confirming one - and only one - of the very few clauses that all agree are in force is barely making a start. You may be right that MC1297 is a treaty and cannot be amended but the men with the guns say otherwise, and so it seems necessary either to find contemporary judgements confirming the validity of the other 34 or bring, and more importantly win, cases using those other clauses. Accomplish that and I'd say you've nailed the bastards to the door with big, rusty nails. Until then all we've got is confirmation that one particular bit of MC1297 is still in force today, but nobody one either side was saying it wasn't.

Captain Ranty said...

Hangem,

Agreed. The more people that use these ancient rights, the better for all of us.

Our forebears did not write these things for fun.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

AE,

I hear you.

But in 2001 84 Peers decided that Clause 61 was very much alive and well. If they are convinced that it is still valid, then so am I.

I'll test it for myself if/when I go to court against UKBA. I am hoping that the Writ arrived whilst I was here in West Africa.

I'll let you know on Thursday when I get home.

CR.

Angry Exile said...

Yes, understood, but not quite the point I was making. What I'm saying is that finding a ruling confirming that MC1297 Clause 29 is still valid has absolutely no bearing on whether or not MC1215 Clause 61 is also alive and kicking. You and the Peers may be in the right re MC1215 Clause 61, but I'd bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that that ruling does not prove it. It's a legal and logical non sequitur, like trying to decide whether the requirement for a minimum tread depth on a car's tyres is in force by finding a judgement that confirms that the car should have an indicator light on each corner, doubly so when everyone agrees about the indicator lights to begin with. In effect I'm saying that I don't think finding this ruling from last week does you any favours - even if you plan to use Clause 29 as well the ruling is irrelevant since the validity of Clause 29 isn't in dispute to begin with.

Captain Ranty said...

AE,

Agreed.

The post was about the validity of Clause 29. It proves that that clause is alive and well.

I am not taking Clause 29 into court.

I aim to show that Clause 61 is alive and well too.

CR.

Anonymous said...

If the Magna Carta is not valid, would that not nullify Parliament?

And if it is valid, would that also nullify Parliament on the grounds of treason regarding the surrendering of sovereignty to the EU?

On another note, I see Mandelson was sniffing around the Bilderburg meeting last week. Does that mean the odious cunt is going to have another comeback?

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

Correct on all three counts.

Although Magna Carta pre-dates the first parliament (de Montforts parliament was formed in 1265) it was used as a foundation piece for the forming of parliament. Without it they, and the monarch, are nothing.

Yes, there have been many instances of treason committed over hundreds of years. Most of these acts of treason were carried out in living memory though. Have a butchers at the site of Albert Burgess. (A Case For Treason).

Lastly, did slimy Mandy ever slither off the stage? I think the fucker is a growth we can't seem to rid ourselves of.

CR.

Harry Hook said...

Some people seem to be saying that... "of course Chapter 29 of Magna Carta 1297 is still valid"... I say "then why is it so often ignored?"... especially in cases such as these, when local authorities take no notice of an individual's rights and wishes... It took a sympathetic judge to make that bold decision... one that you don't see very often.

You can't assume Chapter 29 will always be there... you have to fight for it.

Angry Exile said...

"The post was about the validity of Clause 29. It proves that that clause is alive and well."

Exactly. As far as I know nobody on any side is arguing that Clause 29 is not valid. You don't need to prove anything about Clause 29 because that's one place where everyone agrees anyway. But since it doesn't alter anything as regards Clause 61, and only a case involving Clause 61 will, it's a red herring.

"I aim to show that Clause 61 is alive and well too."

And I hope you do. The ruling that everyone will need to know will then be Some Bastard vs Ranty, July 2011, not the one in the email you were sent.

"If the Magna Carta is not valid, would that not nullify Parliament?"

Anon, you're thinking in terms of either the whole thing is valid or the whole thing is not valid. What you're up against is the contention (by the men with all the guns, no less) that some parts of it were never valid, while other parts have subsequently been repealed by and the various rights absorbed into subsequent legislation, and some parts are still in force. The big one is probably Clause 61 (I mean, who gives a fuck about, say, the bit saying you can't put a fish weir on the river) since Captain Ranty and others need it for Lawful Rebellion to work. Depending on who you ask depends on the answer you get - some say yes, and others say it was in force for about a fortnight nearly 800 years ago and has never been in force since. To determine the correct answer it's going to have to be tested in court, as the Cap'n plans to do next month. Until someone tests it I'd say it's officially a grey area.

Found A Voice said...

AE,

The first point is that it proves that the document is still alive (i.e. that it cannot be disregarded as obsolete).

The second point is that it reaffirms C29 and which is powerful protection against the state that is ever increasing it's unlawful powers to detain without charge, to remove juries, etc. These are things that have happened in earnest over the last 15 years.

As an aside, this could be very powerful against a European Arrest Warrant.

The third point is, that given that the clause is not obsolete (which is not a valid repeal of a right / law / statue anyway) and given that the Govt has been passing legislation in contravention of it, it then lends power to the defense that OTHER such clauses have been over-ridden unlawfully in a similar manner.

I would be very interested to know the last time previous to this it that it was quoted by a Judge in his closing. The longer before the better (gives weight to non-obsolesence).

The devil's advocate is important for us to play if we are to nail down holes and understand sources of threats.

Cheers
FAV

Angry Exile said...

"The first point is that it proves that the document is still alive..."

No, it just proves that clause is alive. It says nothing about the validity of any other part. And as I keep saying, since Clause 29 is not and has never been in contention anyway it's like proving that a cow is not a cat. I don't see it advances your cause to prove a point nobody disputes.

"The second point is that it reaffirms C29 and which is powerful protection against the state ...."

Again, no reaffirmation is necessary as the validity of Clause 29 is not in question. But read it again before you get too excited about its power. I've recently noticed something that makes me think it can be neutered as easily as some of BoR 1689 (as I argued here a while back) - "No freeman blahblahblah but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land". First, it says judgement of peers or by the law of the land, not just judgement of peers. That allows for summary offences, i.e. no juries, if the law of the land allows it. Second, It does not say that the law of the land may not be altered. I don't want to piss on anyone's chips but personally I'm much less enthusiastic about MC than I was.

"The third point is, that given that the clause is not obsolete ... and given that the Govt has been passing legislation in contravention of it, it then lends power to the defense that OTHER such clauses have been over-ridden unlawfully in a similar manner."

No it doesn't. If it there had been an attempt to repeal Clause 29 and a judge had then ruled that actually it was still in force anyway then it certainly would raise doubt over the status of all the rest of it. However, Clause 29 is valid simply because it has never been touched. Various acts have repealed various bits over the C19th and 20th but Clause 29 was never one of them. There's no magic, no special power that makes it legally bulletproof - it's just never faced a legal bullet. It's law because nobody has ever written anything that repeals it, that's all.

Any legislation passed that contravenes Clause 29 is void anyway unless it specifically says that Clause 29 is repealed (and of course nothing does say that). But someone still needs to challenge it in court and point out how it contravenes Clause 29. My two concerns here is that Clause 29 itself, while important, has a pretty narrow range. And then there's that pesky "or by the law of the land" bit...

"I would be very interested to know the last time previous to this it that it was quoted by a Judge in his closing. The longer before the better (gives weight to non-obsolesence)."

You don't need to look up rulings that add weight to non-obsolence because the idea that Clause 29 is obsolete has no weight. I feel efforts would be better spent looking for rulings that say that clauses that are supposedly obsolete are in fact valid after all. What I'm trying to get at here is that there seems to be a lot of mental energy being expended on strawmen, proving that a particular piece of law is still in force when nobody on any side has ever said otherwise, and which doesn't prove that an entirely different piece is still in force.

"The devil's advocate is important for us to play if we are to nail down holes and understand sources of threats."

Glad you see it that way. Don't get me wrong, I want you guys to win, I really really do. For one thing it'll make the UK worth coming back to one day despite the shithouse weather. Look at this as destruct testing your arguments - better an ally does it now so that you can refine them than an enemy does it in court later.

Angry Exile said...

Harry Hook, where it's ignored it's because the powers that be are probably hoping that the people affected are either too busy, too lazy or don't realise that there's something there that could prevent whatever's being done to them. However, as I said above Clause 29 says only that punishments must be by judgement of peers or - small but very important word - or by the law of the land. Doesn't say the law of the land must be immutable and unchanging, just that punishments and sentences must comply with it. Now imagine the Cobbleition pass a new law that says the mandatory sentence for speeding is to be viciously sodomised in a public place on the first snowy day of the year. Does that go against Clause 29? The spirit of Clause 29, yes, but the wording? The law of the land would be saying buggery is the sentence for speeding and Clause 29 is satisfied, no? That's not to say you couldn't find another piece of law saying that forced buggery may not be used as a sanction, just that Clause 29 ain't it.

Anonymous said...

Magna Carta isn't the panacea for our problems that people think it is. All it does is enshrine - in legal terms - our bonded (via birth registration), positions as 'slaves' - workers to be be milked for tax so they continue with their global financial games.

Magna Carta was to the advantage of the elite (freemen), and did nothing for the slaves and 'villains', which is essentially what most of us still are, having had our land and goods stolen from us by the Normans. You need to look way back beyoned MC to English Common Law (Natural Law - God's Law), to find the roots of our freedom. Buying in to the whole MC thing locks you into the whole Legal Personality crap that our charade of a system is based on. Magna Carta does not create free men from slaves.

David

I am Stan said...

Yo Captain,

I`ll av some a that Magana Crata, and I don`t need no panacea for my problems David, I`ve got steroid cream for that.

See friends us villains need whatever we can get to keep the boot out of our faces, noooo Capitan no forced buggery for this slave, I`ll clench up and snap the fcuker hahahahaha.

Not like Cleggover, that gimp`s gaping like a rent boy at a Tory party conference hotel bedroom.

OH! and don`t let Harbybaby poo poo the MC`s validity with one of his deranged ten page rants, he`s sulking at the minute, I think he`s had his benefits cut but he`ll be back, not like Arnie, like a zombie on steroids...;)

Just say NOOOOOOOOO!

God bless y`all

James Higham said...

And slowly, this will seep out by word of mouth. "Oh did you realize that ...."

Anonymous said...

Captain,

A ramble from one who claims no in-depth knowledge and assumes Magna Carta is our friend:

With MC the question should be “what is it that Parliament has repealed?” There’s a difference between the Great Charter Act 1297 and Magna Carta 1215: 1215 is a treaty signed decades before Parliament came into existence, 1297 is an Act of Parliament. One is a statute, the other is not. MC1215 is the longest version; a number of clauses were removed in later ones, esp. MC1225 on which MC1297 was based. Chapter 29 of 1297 = Clauses 39 and 40 of 1215.

Has Parliament repealed sections of a statute or clauses of a treaty? If Parliament has repealed the clauses of a treaty that came into existence before it did, has it acted beyond its power? Does it have the authority? If it claims this authority who gave it in the first place? If Parliament does not have this power or is not operating ultra vires all it is doing is repealing its own statute. The treaty is intact and unaltered (and unalterable?).

Does Parliament have the right to mess with something that it had no part in making? If the answer is yes, then IMO we are fucked. If the answer is no, then the question becomes “which version of MC is valid?” Clause 61 is only in the first one. In all others it has been removed. Yet we know enough peers believe 1215 to be valid as they used Clause 61 to petition Brenda.

I also think (respectfully!) AE has it wrong with “law of the land” because in the post above this is equated to the rubbish that Parliament vomits out which is in fact statute law. The law of the land is the common law, not statute law. Black's Dictionary, even the recent "communitarianist" versions, says this; and says statutes themselves are not law, but are given the force of law. (This is partly where TPUC derives its definition of a statute from; while IMO the phrase often quoted in YouTube vids is not entirely accurate, the fact that statutes are NOT laws but are acts of legislatures that are given the FORCE of law is the key point.) More critically common law trumps statute law despite what our illustrious representatives would have us believe.

One theory says that statute law is the company policy of a corporation. Blackstone's Commentaries make it clear that "by-laws and private statutes" enacted by corporations apply only to the members thereof, they are "binding upon themselves, unless contrary to the laws of the land, and then they are void". That makes it quite plain that the law of the land is certainly not "by-laws and private statutes" and is superior.

Even if that theory is inaccurate, it is certain that MC1297 is a statute, an act of the legislature given the force of law. When people speak of it being “repealed” what they are speaking of IMO is Parliament repealing its own statute. What Parliament likes to do is incorporate things it has no part in or power over into statute law and then repeal them. They obtain via fraud an exchange of rights for privileges and obligations; privileges can be withdrawn. However the common law stands. They like to think that they can change it and some of their "laws" say that this or that "common law right" is "replaced" or "repealed"; but in truth they can't because it exists above them and predates them. But things are so corrupted that if one were to try to tackle this in court the psychopath on the bench will rule against you, entirely unlawfully but by their rules completely legally.

But the second you step into a court you’ve lost unless it’s trial by jury or you are able to establish your standing. It should also be remembered that MC1215 came not long after the Oleron Laws began to be introduced in the late 12thC.

This could also be complete bollocks; we are travelling on an indeterminate route down a foggy and bumpy road to a destination we hope is there, with no assistance from the satnav.

Apologies for any waffle!

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

The point about the case is that the judge has set a binding precedent that a man, irrespective to his disability, has a natural human right to freedom of choosing where he wants to live. Justice Jackson has substantiated his precedent by referring to the Magna Carta. He did not have to do this. He had discretion to not realise the Magna Carta significance. The fact that he has properly applied medieval law is a measure of his integrity as a judge. The Law Commission has recommended that the Poor Laws that enslaved the imbeciles and vagrants to the local authorities (on whom imbeciles relied for care provision and welfare rights), should be officially repealed because the National Assistance Act 1948 and relevant successor laws have given disabled people equal freedom as per Magna Carta.

There is still a chance that Hillingdon v Neary will advance through the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and if the LA appeal the judgment could be overturned. However by using Magna Carta the judge has made the judicial position very clear; eight centuries of a man’s natural human rights is not easily challenged, but challenging under European Convention on Human Rights would have been easier for the Local Authority.

Historically disabled people have not been given equality within human rights law, unlike criminals etc. The principles of the Nazi holocaust which served to treat disabled people with eugenics, just as much as it tried to eliminate Jews, gypsies and black people, has been an unspoken hidden agenda. Mengele experimented with genetics on twins and disabled people. The cost of giving disabled people true freedom has always been cited as balance in public interest.

The case of Holly Grieg has many undertones of human indifference and prejudice beyond paedophilia abuse and protecting those who have power but act criminally .

Angry Exile said...

TSL,

Has Parliament repealed sections of a statute or clauses of a treaty?

The former, I reckon. As I understand it MC1297 is what's been largely repealed and we agree that it's a statute.

If Parliament does not have this power or is not operating ultra vires all it is doing is repealing its own statute. The treaty is intact and unaltered (and unalterable?).

Hmm, not sure. Seems like MC1215 was in tatters long before the first parliament formed. John agreed under duress and began to ignore it almost as soon as the Barons left, stopping only when he dropped dead. You've then got a couple of rebooted versions under Henry - minus Clause 61 among others - the second of which, MC1225, did become law. It was the first one an adult monarch agreed to without being forced, so fair enough. This was later confirmed "in perpetuity", which sounds like it might be valuable if perpetuity means what it says on the tin. If it means for the life of Henry III then, well, meh. I feel that finding the answer to that is worth far more than continually re-proving that a completely different clause is still valid when nobody ever said otherwise.

Point about the unalterability or not of treaties. A treaty that cannot be altered seems to go against the principle that no parliament may be bound by its predecessors. Again in DA mode, if MC1215 is valid despite being agreed under duress (hardly unique and I don't claim that invalidates it - you could say the same about the Treaty of Versailles and nobody thinks that was iffy) is it right that it binds future parliaments 80 years before the first one sat? It might be desirable for MC1215 to be so but I'm uncomfortable with the principle. What if it had confirmed feudalism and serfdom in perpetuity? We'd be kicking that fucker under the rug and hoping like hell nobody ever looks.

The law of the land is the common law, not statute law. Black's Dictionary, even the recent "communitarianist" versions, says this...

I don't have a copy for reference and can only go on what I've been told/read elsewhere. My info is that the law of the land encompasses both common and statute law. As an aside is Black's relevant in the UK? It's a US law dictionary, right? I'm sure it refers to many terms and concepts with English/British origins but presumably it's defining them in an American context? Don't know, just asking.

What Parliament likes to do is incorporate things it has no part in or power over into statute law and then repeal them. They obtain via fraud an exchange of rights for privileges and obligations; privileges can be withdrawn. However the common law stands.

Yes, sneaky shower of shits. That's a much more worthy weapon IMO. Except...

... if one were to try to tackle this in court the psychopath on the bench will rule against you, entirely unlawfully but by their rules completely legally.

And here we have the elephant in the room. We're picking away to find out how many angels are dancing on the head of the pin, but in reality the men with the guns have the ability to say "The answer is what we say it is. And give us that pin."

Anonymous said...

TSL - great comment and very informative. 'Force of law' still seems to be a grey area. How do you interpret this? If it by consent of the governed (and is it written anywhere?) then we can indeed withdraw it, although I'm still unsure of how - unless it IS by entering into Lawful Rebellion by invoking Article 61.

David

Captain Ranty said...

Terrific comments from all (both for and against).

Good to see healthy debate.

As old Albert once said, and I paraphrase: "It matters not that 999 people agreed with me, if even one disagrees I need to rethink my position".

Not that I AM rethinking, but it is good to hear the counter-arguments before testing this in a courtroom.

I am heading home today. Should be back in the yUK sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, be well.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Fair voyage t’ye, Cap’n.

Hi AE (sorry for length)

I think we agree that caution may be needed!

“As an aside is Black's relevant in the UK? It's a US law dictionary, right?”

This is often levelled at Black's but what is rarely mentioned is its old title: "A Law Dictionary containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern". (2nd Ed 1910). Mr B himself said the aim was "to prepare a concise and yet comprehensive book of definitions of the terms, phrases, and maxims used in American and English law" (1st Ed 1891). Yet by the time of the 7th it was simply "Black's Law Dictionary". Go figure. A lot of changes occurred after the 6th, more than can be explained by changes in language and the emergence of new concepts, yet the recent ones are certainly not without value. Bouvier's is the one that contains terms adapted for the US.

The definition of "law of the land" and how it has changed is interesting. 9th Ed: "The law in effect in a country and applicable to its members, whether the law is statutory, administrative, or case-made." Certainly this is as you say above.

2nd Ed (emphasis mine): "Due process of law (q.v.) By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not the law of the land. Sedg. St. & Const Law, (2d Ed) 475. When first used in Magna Charta, the phrase "the law of the land" probably meant the established law of the kingdom, in opposition to the civil or Roman law, which was about being introduced. It is now generally regarded as meaning general public laws binding on all members of the community, in contra-distinction from partial or private laws."

Here the original meaning of law of the land at the time of MC1215 was the "established law of the kingdom", which evolved from the customs thereof, and that is the common law, which cannot be changed because it just is. Further: "In its historical origin the term common law (jus commune) was identical in meaning with the term general law .... The jus commune was the general law of the land - the lex terrae - as opposed to jus speciale. By a process of historical development, however, the common law has now become, not the entire general law, but only the residue of that law after deducting equity and statute law. It is no longer possible, therefore, to use the expression common law and general law as synonymous." (John Salmond, Jurisprudence 97, via the 9th).

Even accepting the last bit it seems clear (to me) that the two are different. The 2nd specifically says an “enactment” is not the “law of the land” and part of the definition of “enact” is “part of a statute…that serves to identify it as an act of legislation”. It also says common law should be “distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures”. With the "process of historical development" the question is how did this occur, and did those involved have authority? If they did, who gave it to them and when? If they did not, does the original stand?

Which of today’s statutes "hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial"? “Offences” (not crimes, as there is no victim) are heard in courts de facto with no juries and no trials. They are places of business; that being the removal of money from your wallet and the placing of it in the state's. And soon we’ll be able to see it all on TV! A situation that could only be cooked up by the men with guns, most certainly!

The AntiTerrorist on Government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrW-ZU3X-zU

TSL

Anonymous said...

Sorry for above;

Part 2:

"A treaty that cannot be altered seems to go against the principle that no parliament may be bound by its predecessors"

Treaties are either international agreements between states/sovereigns or a private “discussion of terms which immediately precedes the conclusion of a contract” (2nd Ed, not in the 9th). They may be debated by legislatures but are not signed by them. There is also a Treaty of Peace. This is “an agreement or contract made by belligerent powers, in which they agree to lay down their arms, and by which they stipulate the conditions of peace and regulate the manner in which it is to be restored and supported.” (2nd Ed, not in the 9th). Whichever, with MC no legislature was involved in or party to it and therefore it cannot lawfully change the terms of a contract it was not a signatory of.

If MC1215 is a Treaty of Peace, a contract, with specific clauses about protecting rights, it involves two parties: sovereign and subjects, and can only be breached by either one which is the point of Clause 61 as it provides a remedy. Now as you say, duress was involved. Might this void the contract? Then maybe; today no, as Black’s now says: “the consent [to a contract] is none the less 'genuine' and 'real,' even though it be induced by fraud, mistake, or duress.” (9th – not in the 2nd!) Moral? Keep your fucking wits about you at all times.

Yet if full consideration and due disclosure were made then surely it was valid. I don’t know if that is the case or not. Taking it further any subsequent version may a variation of the original contract; the issue then comes full circle: which of the variations is the right one, or more accurately the valid one, if any can be said to be? Would it be the original or the last variation prior to the Great Charter Act, in other words 1225, which does not include Clause 61? I think the debate may never be resolved, as the men with guns won’t want it to get that far. More: http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/magnacarta/introduction.html.

On treaties and Parliament: Blackstone’s says something like the monarch can make a treaty that binds the nation irrespective of Parliament, and all Parliament can do is call ministers to account but can’t actually change it. The principle of “Parliamentary Supremacy” (Acts of Parliament being the highest source of law) is relatively recent (19thC IIRC); and again does this mean statute law or other law, if it is a distinct thing? If Parliament can only deal with statute law, and if statute law is distinct from the laws of the land (my opinion is that it is, but as I say I may be wrong and IANAL), then this "no-binding" only applies to statute law and not other types of law and certainly not contracts.

IMO this is given credence by the existence of other laws predating Parliament that are still in effect, so Parliament either has not tried to change them OR cannot change them (which one, I know not). E.g. the Laws of Oleron, as I mentioned above; around 1000 years old, its introduction in England beginning only a few years before the events leading to Magna Carta (coincidence?). Another: the Maxims of Commerce, which depending on where you read are above all forms of law save natural law, and derive from Babylon via the Mosaic Law. “All are equal under the law” being one, and “an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce” being a second. Both important for the LR process irrespective of MC. And, for the good Captain’s efforts, a third: “he who leaves the field of battle first loses by default”.

”What if it had confirmed feudalism and serfdom in perpetuity?”

True, but we can only deal with what we’ve been given. There are many other laws still around that are worse: e.g. Unam Sanctam, which may never have been repealed (depends who you read though). That reads like a cop-out but it isn’t meant to be...

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

Hi David,

As I see it – CAUTION!!! - it is the “force of law” because it is a rule of a society, and society is a fiction created by human beings joining together by mutual consent for the pursuit of common goals. (This applies to both “society” in a generic sense and a specific “club”). Societies have rules that are specific and applicable only to them and the members thereof, whereas actual laws are more “universal” in concept. The sense being, perhaps, that of a society was the only thing in existence then its rules would be laws because that was all there was.

Or something. Grey area, indeed. Put it this way (I’m borrowing from Veronica: Chapman here): take away money, religion, politics and legalese and what happens? Will the human race perish? Or will it carry on, using common sense, like every other species on Earth?

You join societies voluntarily and you leave them voluntarily. By leaving you can no longer access the benefits, but at the same time you cease being liable for the obligations. Now the key issues are:
- When did you consent to join the society of the UNITED KINGDOM? (Answer: you didn’t, your membership was obtained via fraud when you were born and reinforced several times since. The legal fiction/strawman argument stuff if you ascribe to it.)
- What are the society’s common goals? Where are they published? (Answer: no idea; they aren’t)
- What are the benefits of the society? (That’s obvious)
- What are the duties and obligations? (TAXES and LICENCES and STATUTES, bending over on demand?)
- What is the process by which you can leave the society? (No one knows, as yet, though LR / Clause 61 / NOUICORs may or may not be the way; “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth…”.)

No one knows because TPTB don’t want you to leave, because you are their chattel. They don’t want the cows leaving the farm, do they? Think of the inconvenience we’d be causing. There’s a thread on TPUC about writing to your MP asking them how you withdraw consent to be governed, and Old Holborn did an article about it recently. If they answer “you can’t”, then we are indeed slaves, are we not? And the only other option is that they must tell us how, or lie.

Lex semper dabit remedium; the law always gives a remedy. It has been hidden from us, and we must find it. In the UK things are obfuscated whilst there is greater success in other common law countries (Canada and the US). IIRC a recent Rob Menard video says the remedy over there is contained within the Criminal Code of Canada. There is no “Criminal Code of England” (though one has been attempted). C61 and LR may be the way out, or it may not. It is being tried, slowly, and TPTB have a shitfreak whenever it goes public (Birkenhead disappearing from YouTube being a prime example, though whether what happened there is correct or not is IMO open to interpretation).

John Hemming MP stated on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago that the law in this country developed over hundreds of years “with the consent of the people”, or something like that (I have audio somewhere, but not video). Consent is a huge issue. “Express consent is that directly given, either viva voce or in writing. Implied consent is that manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.” Captain Ranty is quite right to keep telling us to say “no” because we are showing that we don’t consent; we are disaffirming, revoking a consent once given (express or implied).

The state also tricks, fraudulently manufacturing consent to contracts. As I mentioned above in my response to Angry Exile this is no longer considered a barrier to the validity of the contract (if it ever was?). Consent is also manufactured via a host of foul means; threats, bribes, the Hegelian Dialectic or simple barefaced lies.

There has to be a way out somewhere.

I’ll hand back the Captain’s comment feed now…

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

(PART 1)
Who cares if it’s MC 1215 treaty or the 1297 statute. The required action is getting such policies legally acknowledged within common law if we believe in them.

Common/natural laws existed from ancient times of evolution. A freeman is the man governed by common law – natural law of conscience between him, his neighbour, and “God”/philosophy. The sovereign governs their realm and issues its laws in that realm. Our sovereign gave its role to Parliament. Parliament supposedly creates a group of elected freeman representatives to write the code by which we as freeman choose to live – that involves corporations and legal personality rights and obligations.

To put MC 1297 ch. 29 into context. MC 1215 is a sovereign’s declaration that the sovereign’s people have freemen liberty. It has to be ratified into statutes to be recognised by the freemen themselves. Statutes are supposedly created by Parliament, which is made up of the peoples representatives. How well they do that is arguable.

The position on treaties and statutes explained in modern terms might help. We have the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1950 – an agreement between nations (treaty). Then we have European Convention of Human Rights – Europe’s spin on how Europeans should interpret the UDHR. As a signed up EU “state” we are obliged to bring ECHR into a ratified statute - the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 that rules how UK citizens live under UK and EU law.

In good old MC 1215 times, a declaration was made by King John that he gave his people freeman status; but in natural law terms, we had that birth-right already as freemen of our conscience. He just officially renounced his hereditary power over us by granting us liberty in the land where we were born.

Common law existed pre 1215. For example the Golden Rule judges use to determine common law cases became law in Alfred the Greats time. To become ratified into law by the freeman people MC 1215 clause 39 & 40 has taken maybe until 9th June 2011. Bits of MC were ratified (or not) into statutes by the hereditary Kings, Queens, Lords etc. who ruled their people in 1297 but who also created the Poor Laws. Neither MC 1215 nor MC 1297 nor Poor Laws is really us having natural freeman law.

Harry Hook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

MC 1215, only becomes valid when the freemen choose to live by it – supposedly by creating the statutes and common laws. If the elected Parliament don’t meet their obligation to us by writing law we wish to live by, the judiciary is supposed to step in and uphold the common law. Of course the potential to act corruptly by not recognising natural law is always there

Judge Jackson is saying ‘I recognise as legally binding common law, the statements in MC 1215 clauses 39 and 40, as defined in MC 1297 ch.29 and applied to Hillingdon v Neary’. Such statements are used to decide on other similar cases, or based on case differences, develop/alter existing legally binding common law. If the judge recognises MC 1215 clauses 39 and 40, they are there in common law until repealed by common law or Parliament. JJ has overridden the Poor Laws of enslavery for imbeciles and vagrants and reinstated disabled peoples freeman Magna Carta 1215 clauses 39 and 40 equality. He has married the Equality Act 2010 with Magna Carta 1215.

What is important, is that 1215 clause 39 and 40 are live natural laws as of 9th June 2011. We all are freeman to live by our consciences every day. It’s how our neighbours perceive us that makes our values in life right and wrong and upheld by law.

The same Local Authorities who had power over the disabled also ask us to pay Council Tax etc. Whether their power/ownership in other areas holds requires common law challenges. If you believe in clause 61, prove that other common men believe in it and live by it too. Prove it is at the heart of an Englishman’s sense of right and wrong. Don’t get hung up on MC1215, what you hold as right might go back further than that. Supporters of MC1215 are not automatically speaking the full language of the freeman.

Anonymous said...

(PART 2)
MC 1215, only becomes valid when the freemen choose to live by it – supposedly by creating the statutes and common laws. If the elected Parliament don’t meet their obligation to us by writing law we wish to live by, the judiciary is supposed to step in and uphold the common law. Of course the potential to act corruptly by not recognising natural law is always there

Judge Jackson is saying ‘I recognise as legally binding common law, the statements in MC 1215 clauses 39 and 40, as defined in MC 1297 ch.29 and applied to Hillingdon v Neary’. Such statements are used to decide on other similar cases, or based on case differences, develop/alter existing legally binding common law. If the judge recognises MC 1215 clauses 39 and 40, they are there in common law until repealed by common law or Parliament. JJ has overridden the Poor Laws of enslavery for imbeciles and vagrants and reinstated disabled peoples freeman Magna Carta 1215 clauses 39 and 40 equality. He has married the Equality Act 2010 with Magna Carta 1215.

What is important, is that 1215 clause 39 and 40 are live natural laws as of 9th June 2011. We all are freeman to live by our consciences every day. It’s how our neighbours perceive us that makes our values in life right and wrong and upheld by law.

The same Local Authorities who had power over the disabled also ask us to pay Council Tax etc. Whether their power/ownership in other areas holds requires common law challenges. If you believe in clause 61, prove that other common men believe in it and live by it too. Prove it is at the heart of an Englishman’s sense of right and wrong. Don’t get hung up on MC1215, what you hold as right might go back further than that. Supporters of MC1215 are not automatically speaking the full language of the freeman.

Angry Exile said...

TSL, an enormous plate of work is arriving today so I don't have the time to go too deeply into what you've said. Short version, it does sound a tad like you're having your cake and eating it there. Among other things we want to chuck away there are treaties we want declared invalid on the grounds that an 800 year old treaty says we can, and that 800 year old treaty is still in force because treaties cannot be altered or annulled. Is this not circular logic?

"... duress was involved. Might this void the contract? Then maybe; today no..."

Then this is important. If the use of duress did void MC1215 at the time then that's that. It cannot come to life subsequently. We surely can't claim that any contracts down the centuries that were worthless at the time because they were signed at sword point suddenly became valid when the 9th edition of Blacks came out, can we? Talk about visiting the sins of the fathers on their sons.

"Yet if full consideration and due disclosure were made then surely it was valid."

"Sign this or I'll cut your fucking balls off" is kind of due disclosure and if something like it was said to John presumably he considered life with a mutilated joy department and reached for the pen. If bullying someone into signing a contract makes it kosher I feel we're in big trouble. Sign here that you agree with everything I say or I come round your house with the Beretta: ____________ ;-)

See what I mean? So can we claim relief from things we didn't consent to or have been forced to acquiesce to by waving MC1215, something John probably did not consent to and was forced to acquiesce to, and which, if duress voided such things in the C13th, may never have been valid in the first place even though it would be if it happened today?

Re: "Law of the land" - since we're taking that phrase from MC1297 rather than MC1215 I think we should be looking for what was meant in 1297, not 1215. Since we agree that MC1297 is a statute it seems reasonable to me that it may have meant the whole shooting match.

... which of the variations is the right one, or more accurately the valid one, if any can be said to be? ...I think the debate may never be resolved, as the men with guns won’t want it to get that far.

Indeed, the elephant in the room I mentioned earlier. Whatever we think the answer should be doesn't matter much when the state has a monopoly on force. The "correct" version of MC, if there is one at all, will be whatever most suits it rather than us. I hope events prove otherwise but I expect courts to rule that MC1215 was never valid, or if it was it was annulled even before MC1216, and there goes Clause 61. Disagree? Tell it to the men over there with the submachine guns.

I'm beginning to believe that for the individual wannabe freeman it will come down to four options: putting up with it, going somewhere else, bloody rebellion, or waiting for the whole sorry mess to self destruct and starting a free society from the wreckage.

Angry Exile said...

One more question (I forgot it) before I attack this project: can we say that the definitions of terms used, such as "law of the land", should be the ones intended at the time, but what determines whether its valid should be our modern interpretation? Surely it should be one or the other?

Anonymous said...

Hi AE,

"It does sound a tad like you're having your cake and eating it {snip} Is this not circular logic?"

It may be, I grant you. I’m feeling this out a bit, really.

What I'm getting at is whether a treaty - if still valid, and if definable as a contract; both debatable - created without Parliament being a party to it voids or does not void the statutes of that Parliament if and when those statutes are being used to trample on a right affirmed or granted by said treaty. As we both say, if 1215 is invalid - for whatever reason - then C61 won't work and by extension neither can LR. The Maxims of Commerce certainly exist; a NOUICOR under these in affidavit form, if unrebutted, would stand as truth. But as I think we have both concluded it would not be effective if those with guns ignore it, which they probably would.

As we've said 1297 is the statute that's been largely repealed and did not include C61. 1215 may or may not be a contractual arrangement between sovereign and subject, which was then varied several times (removing C61 immediately), the last variation of which (1225) informed the statute that Parliament created. As I said, it seems to me that it is a contract but the exact terms are “up for grabs”.

A connected issue is the relationship, if one exists, between treaties and statutes. To my mind, and as I mean above, treaties exist “outside” Parliament and it then restates them in statute form so it can fiddle with the resulting Act afterwards. The Treaty of Union could be another; it was incorporated into statute law with the two Acts of Union (1706/7), but does this negate the original treaty if that treaty existed “outside” Parliament? The Declaration of Right may be another, if you follow the British Constitution Group’s thesis that it is a contract; it gets “statutised” in the Bill of Rights. I don’t know near enough about the DoR/BoR to comment on them; I have always assumed that the DoR was a petition from Parliament to William & Mary but I suppose it could be said to be "offering terms".

BCG quotes the Ministry of Justice as saying: "Magna Carta is Primary legislation and has the same status as any other legislation and is not immune from repeal or amendment. The same applies to the Bill of Rights which was an ordinary Act of Parliament passed in the ordinary way". With MC this is again the statute and not the treaty. The BCG site goes on to say that the MoJ is following a specific agenda and is deliberately falsifying the situation. I cannot find the quote on the MoJ site, and searching for it brings up no hits on any .gov.uk site. (Not saying that it was "made up", I can quite believe the MoJ would have removed it). However it has been stated elsewhere in case law (metric martyrs IIRC) that there is a difference between a constitutional Act which can't be repealed and an ordinary Act which can, and MC1297 and BoR are the former. Either the judge in that case was wrong or the MoJ is wrong.

So if I understand correctly, in respect of Acts of Parliament the judiciary recognises a distinction between statutes that are ordinary Acts and those that are constitutional Acts, the latter of which in the minds of our learned friends cannot be repealed. If so Parliament is not as supreme as it likes to think it is. Only three parts of the 1297 constitutional Act remain in force and the rest have been repealed. Are they there just so that the MC1297 constitutional Act is still on the rolls and Parliament can say "look, we haven't repealed it?" Or is MC1297 not a constitutional Act on the basis that huge swathes of it have been repealed and/or the MoJ says it’s an ordinary Act?

Or maybe it’s a “statutised” form of a treaty that exists outside Parliament and remains in effect – the exact content of which we’re trying to work out! :-)

Was John stalling? (Can we ascertain his thoughts?)

TSL

Anonymous said...

"If bullying someone into signing a contract makes it kosher I feel we're in big trouble."

(And the "sword point" line!) We are in big trouble because this is IMO how TPTB behave now - or at least are more openly behaving. That particular quote about duress not being a barrier is not in the early version of Blacks. This is what I meant by "keep your wits about you" because these days when encountering agents of the corporate state we can walk into a contractual situation without being aware of it, and this doesn't invalidate said contract. They try to contract us at every turn, and we need to be aware when they do. It's all about the money. Don't confirm your details; don't accept paperwork. No law says you must. Their statutes may “require” it, but if they have no confirmed name they cannot charge you. You may need to be prepared to sit in a cell for a few hours to safeguard your privacy. It's wrong, but that's the way things are now. You must always ask and never answer, that way they can't get you into contract either voluntarily or under duress. Who is the master and who is the servant?

A colleague told me yesterday about how she had been "accosted" by a ticketing agent on a train, because she had committed the heinous offence of falling asleep and missing her stop. The ticket collector then began demanding she pay (I think) £150 for not having a valid ticket (the equivalent price would have been about £6 if she had bought one) and further demanded that she supply her name and address for the subsequent "court action" if she were unable to pay on the spot. The collector then went further overboard by involving a policeman who, by what my friend said, seems to have stood as a peace officer and not a policyman, knowing the meaning of his oath and standing under it at the time; he basically told the collector to stop being an arse and defused the situation. But my colleague told me she did gave her name and address, and when I said to her "what obliged you to do so" she paused for a moment before realisation dawned that in reality the ticket collector had no lawful authority to ask. She had unwittingly contracted firstly by giving her name and secondly by making a counter-offer to the ticket collector to pay the £6 ticket price.

Yet one can argue two further things in this situation:
- Should my colleague ensure she is being responsible for her actions, e.g. by accepting the penalty for missing her stop? Or is the penalty unreasonable?
- Should she have been aware that by merely getting on the train in the first place she could be said to have contracted with the operator, even though she may not have been aware she was doing so (in her mind as in most people’s she was just travelling on a train). Ignorantia neminem excusat – ignorance excuses no one. Tough, if you don’t know all the rules; you’ve contracted anyway. For example it does state clearly what the penalties are for smoking on board!

"I'm beginning to believe that for the individual wannabe freeman it will come down to four options..."

Indeed. Given the behaviour of the modern-day PTB, which in countries of the supposed "free" is far more excessive, unreasonable and draconian than has ever been, those options would appear to be all that's left. Unless the Captain's efforts show otherwise. Or we find a way to use their own weapons against them.

TSL

Anonymous said...

Lastly, on definitions:

I think it depends on which particular weighty tome is used by (or informs) the legal system or the judiciary at this time. This is unfortunately something that may not be unanswerable as TPTB won’t want anyone to know anyway. It is commonly said that Black’s is a secondary authority in the US and I have also heard it said that the 5th is used in US courtrooms; one example (no idea as to author’s background, so hugely insufficient to establish veracity, I admit): http://www.dherbs.com/articles/blacks-law-dictionary-287.html. Equally there are others who claim the 3rd is used in the UK, at least for legalese; I’m sure I’ve seen this on a video somewhere but for the life of me I can’t remember where. Annoying, as that does not help us.

In addition to the 2nd, 8th and 9th I also have the revised 4th (orig. 1951, rev. 1968) and parts of the 3rd (1933 – interesting year, if you’re a follower of the “world bankruptcy” theory) and 5th (1979). The L-O-T-L definition is the same as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th. The first part is the same in the 5th. Where the 5th differs is with the “Magna Charta” [sic] part, which it does not include. Which would lend less support to what I said above at least in the sense of Black’s. (I am willing to concede that people prefer the elder ones perhaps not for the reasons said but because the modern ones may make their arguments “less stable”, or may disagree with their perceived notions. Equally willing to concede I may be doing the same.)

There is an argument to be had over whether it applies in the UK, but its title and intent indicate that it is meant to be a compendium of terms used in both American and English law systems, yet one written and published in America.

Then again it could all be bollocks:<
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread363550/pg1
http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=146

I am hesitant to quote Bouvier because it is specifically for the US (and some say the republic, not the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that they believe we have today). Nevertheless it says the English common law “has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing…” To that I suppose we may need to add “in America”, as Bouvier goes on to say that English common law “is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation”. The LOTL phrase pops up but has no separate definition; it’s there in the definition of the US constitution which said to be the LOTL. It also pops up in the definition of “charter”: “A grant made by the sovereign either to the whole people or to a portion of them, securing to them the enjoyment of certain rights…a charter differs from a constitution in this, that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the latter is established by the people themselves: both are the fundamental law of the land”.

That’s probably not an answer is it? Argh.

I have probably missed a few things too.

Regards,

TSL

Anonymous said...

Lastly, on definitions:

I think it depends on which particular weighty tome is used by (or informs) the legal system or the judiciary at this time. This is unfortunately something that may be unanswerable as TPTB won’t want anyone to know anyway. It is commonly said that Black’s is a secondary authority in the US and I have also heard it said that the 5th is used in US courtrooms; one example (no idea as to author’s background, so hugely insufficient to establish veracity, I admit): http://www.dherbs.com/articles/blacks-law-dictionary-287.html. Equally there are others who claim the 3rd is used in the UK, at least for legalese; I’m sure I’ve seen this on a video somewhere but for the life of me I can’t remember where. Annoying, as that does not help us.

In addition to the 2nd, 8th and 9th I also have the revised 4th (orig. 1951, rev. 1968) and parts of the 3rd (1933 – interesting year, if you’re a follower of the “world bankruptcy” theory) and 5th (1979). The L-O-T-L definition is the same as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th. The first part is the same in the 5th. Where the 5th differs is with the “Magna Charta” [sic] part, which it does not include. Which would lend less support to what I said above at least in the sense of Black’s. (I am willing to concede that people prefer the elder ones perhaps not for the reasons said but because the modern ones may make their arguments “less stable”, or may disagree with their perceived notions. Equally willing to concede I may be doing the same.)

There is an argument to be had over whether it applies in the UK, but its title and intent indicate that it is meant to be a compendium of terms used in both American and English law systems, yet one written and published in America.

Then again it could all be bollocks:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread363550/pg1
http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=146

I am hesitant to quote Bouvier because it is specifically for the US (and some say the republic, not the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that they believe we have today). Nevertheless it says the English common law “has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing…” To that I suppose we may need to add “in America”, as Bouvier goes on to say that English common law “is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation”. The LOTL phrase pops up but has no separate definition; it’s there in the definition of the US constitution which said to be the LOTL. It also pops up in the definition of “charter”: “A grant made by the sovereign either to the whole people or to a portion of them, securing to them the enjoyment of certain rights…a charter differs from a constitution in this, that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the latter is established by the people themselves: both are the fundamental law of the land”.

That’s probably not an answer is it? Argh.

I have probably missed a few things too.

Regards,

TSL

Angry Exile said...

TSL, just a quick one before I crack on today. Yes, you're right about the Metric Martyrs case (Thoburn vs Sunderland 2002 - it's in my bookmarks as it happens) ruling that there's a difference between constitutional statutes and the common or garden variety. However, it did not find that constitutional statutes cannot be repealed, it just found that they cannot be impliedly repealed - that is if a law was created tomorrow which contradicted MC1291 Clause 29, which everyone agrees is still in force, then Clause 29 overrules and invalidates the brand new law, which is the opposite of what happens with ordinary statutes. But the ruling still allows constitutional statutes to be repealed specifically, so that if the hypothetical new law actually said "this repeals Clause 29 of MC1297" or something then Clause 29 is gone. This is one reason why I think it's worth looking at the laws which are claimed to have repealed those large chunks of MC1297 to see if they really did. If they relied on implied repeal to undo those bits of MC1297 then Thoburn vs Sunderland tells us that in fact they did not do so and all such clauses remain valid after all. Strikes me that this may be useful and more worth looking into than proving the validity of the three clauses which aren't disputed.

Re: the other stuff - aaaaargh, no time to do more than scan it to mull over later this w/e. Paying work is sitting here, and the sooner it's completed the sooner it does actually pay. Shite - this is more interesting. :-(

Angry Exile said...

Duh, obviously MC1291 should read MC1297.

Bollixed said...

"As I see it – CAUTION!!! - it is the “force of law” because it is a rule of a society, and society is a fiction created by human beings joining together by mutual consent for the pursuit of common goals. "

The Declaration of Human Rights 1948 makes interesting reading on the subject of 'society'. I quote:

"Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
"

"Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
"

"Article 16.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
"

"Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
"

"Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
"

"Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
"

"Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
"

"Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
"


I have looked at the whole Magna Carta issue and see a leaky boat we are all trying desperately to hang onto. The Declaration of Human Rights 1948 however is an international modern instrument that is the reason for much of today's EUSSR and national legislation. Quite how the Declaration has been interpreted into 'laws' that do the contrary to what they were established to do is a separate matter but some, like the Human Rights Act do not 'does what it says on the tin'. These interpretations are often used to beat us about the head to criminalise anyone who dares to express themselves freely or challenge gubmint orthodoxy.

Personally, I see our movement gathering more steam if we ditched, at least partly, the problematic Magna Carta Treaty obtained under duress in England and used the Declaration of HR 1948 instead. My final quote is from the preamble of the DHR 1948:

Bollixed said...

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, "

My 'rights' (hate that word!) are not protected by rule of law. They are being eroded and replaced with something far more sinister in design. In effect I consider that I am also in rebellion against the very architects of the Declaration...the UN. This Declaration empowers me to rebel against tyranny and oppression whether its in the UK, the EUSSR, the UN, or whatever.

We don't need Magna Carta to enter into Lawful Rebellion. The DHR 1948 offers us this option and it wasn't signed under duress and is a primary international treaty.

Any thoughts? I don't plan on getting arrested but if I ever am I will more happily, as a sovereign human being and not a FMOTL, quote the DHR 1948 to policy officers and any judiciary as it will be much more difficult for them to dismiss that Treaty out of hand.

I'm interested to hear what others have to say on this....

This was done in a rush so apologies for typos etc. :)

Bollixed said...

Is everyone aware that The Name is nothing more than an allegatory Name or Title?

I have this confirmed in a letter from the General Registry Office of Scotland (applied just the same elsewhere in the UK). I've posted this all over the place and it is a low risk, passive, and effective way to score wins and assert yourselves as sovereign and free human beings.

It is an allegatory Name therefore you stop bloody consenting by stopping using it.

Contract Law requires full disclosure. Disclose that the Name you are contracting (or have been contracting in) is an alleged Name for you have no way to prove it and to accept it is to accept hearsay as being fact. Huge problems for our self-appointed overlords and their armies of self-important drones!

No-one can prove you are the Name. This is the crux of the matter. The Birth Registration process is meaningless and entirely based on hearsay. You aren't even allowed to inspect the original entry in the register but must rely on a third party to confirm what is written. Funny that, eh? As if they have something written there that they don't want unauthorised people seeing? Hmmm....make you wonder doesn't it...

Use the Batman approach. Passively present them with a problem and ask for their help is resolving it. No-one can resolve it. You go forwards as an alleged identity or as a free sovereign human being, or you can't go forward at all if you (as said free human being) don't consent.

Its fun. Its dead easy. Its entirely zero to low risk. Doesn't need extensive knowledge to do. And it reasserts your dominance over your own life.

And it works. I'm doing it and so far I've left a wake of 'officials' scratching their heads with my polite letters presenting them with a problem. Hasn't even gone as far as court with any of them as I make it clear that I can't swear under oath or affirmation as the Name as this may be perjury using a Name I can't prove is mine.

The Declaration of Human Rights 1948 confirms that:

"Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
"

So even without Magna Carta we are born free and only lose this freedom by consenting to be the Name. Who'd have thunk it? Withdraw consent based on the actual legal/ contractual problems with using the allegatory Name and you can claim protection for you as a free human being within society under the Declaration.

Simple and effective. Just what we need to bring more people on board. The simpler the solution the more people will join us.

Hope this is useful to folks and that you pass it on.

Anonymous said...

Hi AE,

This is indeed much more interesting than "real life", and for the same reasons as you I've been elsewhere since last w/e and this posting is on Page 3 already! Is it "bad form" to continue to comment on an old post?! I'll do so anyway - Captain, if this is bad form, then just say... :-)

"…it's worth looking at the laws which are claimed to have repealed those large chunks of MC1297 to see if they really did"

Thanks for the clarification on constitutional vs "ordinary" - I remember reading about that case a while back so thanks for the link to it. In respect of the quote, the following statutes "repealed" sections of 1297:
- Statute Law Revision Act 1863 - the main one
- Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879
- Sheriffs Act 1887
- Administration of Estates Act 1925
- Offences Agains the Person Act 1928
- Crown Proceedings Act 1947
- Statute Law Revision Act 1948
- Criminal Law Act 1967
- Statute Law Repeals Act 1969

(I think that's all of them...)

Now, curiously none of the Statute Law Acts have "found their way" onto Legislation.gov.uk. The ones that are there are the Sheriffs Act, the Estates Act, the Crown Proceedings Act and the Criminal Law Act. (To quote Garak: "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences...") I assume one can see the SLR Acts in a library, assuming any are left open after this year…

Of the Sheriffs Act the repeal is in Section 39. However part D of the preamble says that the repeal "shall not affect any such right, power, privilege, obligation, liability, or duty of any sheriff or office of a sheriff as exists by common law at the passing of this Act". Now, could this be argued that the Sheriffs Act actually hasn't repealed anything, as it is stating that any of their powers extant in common law are unaffected by it? Is this "disclaimer" of sorts in there precisely because Parliament does not have the power to repeal common law rights and powers? (That's a first reading by me, open to debate, naturally.) It would be hugely illustrative to see some of the Statute Law Revision Acts to see if there are similar disclaimers in any of them, stating that common law rights/powers/privileges etc are not affected by statutes at all. If they do, things get massively interesting, don't they? :-) Yet saying that, the Criminal Law Act does specifically repeal "common law offences" as specified in MC Article 14, on the grounds of obsolescence. Good lord it's complicated!

Just one more on the earlier LOTL/CL issue: By chance there is a lengthy thread on TPUC right now on the issue of LOTL/CL, with a bit of traditional forum mudslinging. One poster does, however, reference Lysander Spooner's "Trial by Jury" (1852), which is available at Project Gutenberg; there is a whole section on "The Language of Magna Carta" in which it is stated pretty conclusively of LOTL that "All writers agree that this means the common law"; moreover that the common law "did not include any statutes or laws enacted by the king himself, the legislative power of the nation". If I'm reading correctly, Spooner is not just saying that in his opinion LOTL=CL but that “all writers” (at least up to the mid 19thC) hold this opinion. At the very least it's a "non-law dictionary" viewpoint! :-)

Tis a tangled web, but it certainly seems to me that things are not as clear cut as TPTB would prefer them to be.

One last: Here's Lord Renton on Magna Carta, saying that all Parliament can amend is the statute!

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

Hi Bollixed,

Interesting comments, especially your last one about names. Certainly something to ponder! I believe under common law you can use any name you want provided you're not doing so for “nefarious” purposes? I agree the “name” is certainly not the human being. Change it by deed poll and does the human change? Of course not! And of course when we, as you say, "passively present them with a problem and ask for their help in resolving it" we are staying in honour, are we not? :-)

Birth registration has been argued to be an adhesion contract ("A contract that is drafted unilaterally by the dominant party and then presented on a take it or leave it basis to the weaker party, who has no real opportunity to bargain about its terms", Ballentine's); if true, morally unacceptable but, legally, entirely enforceable unless it can be repudiated - duress/trickery etc. is no longer considered a barrier to the validity of a contract, conveniently for TPTB. There is no real penalty for not registering a birth; I think the fine is something like two quid (Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, IIRC). Of course one can then argue that by not registering one can't take the benefits. But at the same time one does not become liable for the obligations, either.

About the DHR, which is something on my “list” for more in-depth study: here's an alternative view and a debate, pro and anti, on TPUC from 2009.

In respect of your words “In effect I consider that I am also in rebellion against the very architects of the Declaration...the UN” look at Article 29: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"; i.e. you can have the "rights", as long as you agree with the UN and everything it stands for! So if you use the DHR to enter Lawful Rebellion, doing so on the basis that the UN is the tyranny you wish to escape from, then you lose any “rights” granted under the DHR because you are going "against the purposes and principles” of the UN by rebelling against it’s wonderful works in the first place!

Possibly a rather cack-handed reading on my part, but one of the things that may need looking at.

Captain Ranty's later post with the video of Gerard Batten mentioning Clause 61 in the EU parliament does imply that there are others beyond the 2001 barons' committee who believe Magna Carta 1215 to be valid today. Caveat: its validity would help the cause of those who believe it so and it is therefore important for them to mention it, and some are not in a position where they have to test it. After all if Batten was in LR he wouldn't be in the EU parliament and therefore could not make comment on it! (That is not meant in a derogatory way, it is just meant to highlight a possible issue).

Yet as AE and I have both said, it’s the view of the guys with the guns that may ultimately decide this issue, if it gets far enough.

Regards

TSL

Angry because I'm too fucking busy Exile said...

Now, curiously none of the Statute Law Acts have "found their way" onto Legislation.gov.uk.

That's extremely interesting. Shame I'm too fucking buy to say or think more about it, but I have a similar view on coincidence. Again, bears investigation by the LR folk, I feel.