October 20, 2011

Magna Carta And Duress

For some time now this humble blog has been graced with comments from the brilliant mind of TSL.

TSL's comments are almost always supported with evidential links which is one of the reasons reading them is so enlightening.

A couple of days ago I posted the movie UNGRIP for you to look at and in it, around the 30 minute mark, the chap says "Of course, MC1215 was signed under duress, and is therefore invalid".

This is a regular rebuff (to me) when I state that I am in Lawful Rebellion. How, I am asked, can you be in LR when the Treaty was annulled within days of its' signing? I have always struggled with the answer. I stiffly maintained that Treaties need (at least) two parties to create them and only the same two parties can annul them. "Yes", the detractors say, "But King John only signed the thing at the point of a knife. A contract signed under duress cannot be valid".

Enter TSL.

I received an email from TSL in which it is explained to me that ALL Treaties are signed under duress. And that is absolutely correct. Think about it this way: Treaties are signed (usually) after a war. In every war there are winners and losers. The winner gets to dictate the terms of the Treaty, and the loser never ever wants to sign the Treaty. Can anyone tell me that the losers of any particular war signed the peace accords with a broad smile? Of course they didn't. They were under duress. It is a natural state for the losing half.

Having planted that seed, I now turn you over to TSL.

Grab a cuppa, and feast your eyes on this:

"Hello Captain,

Prior to downloading Ungrip I saw your comment about the “30 minutes in” problem, and as I don’t necessarily wish to derail any comments that may turn up in respect of the film I thought I would drop you a line in respect of the bit you mention. (I haven't been back since so I imagine a few people may have mentioned some of the things below.)
You may have gathered from some of my comments that LR via Magna Carta is not something I have engaged in; as I have said there are a number of reasons for this which are distinct from any belief that it is or is not “the way”. In a recent comment I said that, to me at least, it can be argued to be a form of rescission but whether it is a valid one is unknown. Surely if it weren’t your affidavits would have been rebutted…?
We should always be careful not to cling to an idea to the bitter end, but I have seen the “duress” argument for Magna Carta's invalidity before and am not convinced that it stands. In fact I think one of my first utterances on your blog was along these lines.

As I see it the argument need not necessarily give you cause for concern for at least two reasons, and possibly more.

(If some of the following reads like a lecture I apologise, as it isn't meant to be...!)

1) King John had already broken the law

An argument can be made that King John was already acting unlawfully, as he had violated the older Charter of Liberties of Henry I by disrupting the King’s Peace in the first place (and there are several examples of how). Seen in this light the conflict with the Barons was them attempting to, in essence, “return” him to the laws that he himself was meant to uphold. As Henry said in the Charter, “I impose a strict peace upon my whole kingdom and command that it be maintained henceforth”.

The Charter of Liberties bound the King to the law, so if he disrupts his own peace he would be breaking that law. The first line reads thus: “Know that by the mercy of God and the common counsel of the barons of the whole kingdom of England I have been crowned king of said kingdom…”
Is that not the King stating that he is such only because of “common counsel” from his barons? One could possibly make a bit of a leap, via a more modern phrase, and say that the King ruled by “consent of the governed” – or, at least, a tiny elite part of the governed ;-). And in exchange for the counsel of his barons he agreed to bind himself (and successors?) to the law and to give peace to the kingdom forever.

Therefore, Magna Carta would stand even if signed “under duress”.

The Charter of Liberties also contained a promise to uphold the common law (albeit with William the Conqueror's “additions”): “I restore to you the law of King Edward with those amendments introduced into it by my father with the advice of his barons.”
There is not much mentioned about the Charter of Liberties but a few people think it quite important and I vaguely remember Dean Clifford mentioning it once or twice, possibly in one of the radio interviews he's done.
2) Peace treaties are always signed “under duress”

I think anyone who starts looking into this stuff will soon agree that Magna Carta is a Treaty of Peace. Peace treaties have, historically, always been signed “under duress” by the defeated party. You will find an argument for every peace treaty known to man having been signed “under duress” by those on the losing side and to whom the terms bring a disadvantage. And this is eventually used as an excuse to abrogate it and start fighting again. On this basis Magna Carta stands – provided the parties to the treaty were “able” to assent to it.
Whether “to the victor, the spoils” is right or wrong is for each person to determine according to their own values. Some writings on treaties and duress:

“In German protests of inability to carry out the Treaty, and their echoes in liberal circles here, there frequently recurs the complaint that Germany signed the Treaty under duress – ‘at the point of a revolver,’ a German leader remarked in the Tageblatt a day or two ago - with the implication that therefore Germany is excused from any obligation to carry out her promises. This is the sort of poor excuse which is worse than none. Most of the treaties that ended wars have been signed under duress by the defeated party; in some of them even the victors yielded to the duress of long and wearisome negotiations in an uncomfortable climate. But it is rather novel to hear this advanced as an excuse for nullifying the Treaty.
“Germany signed the armistice of November, 1918, under duress. The Germans preferred to disarm and yield the Rhine provinces to the Allies rather than risk what might happen if they kept on fighting. They signed the armistice rather than go down in a bloody, ruinous and irrevocable defeat in the field. To escape the loss of life, and of what Germans regard as honor, which that defeat would have entailed, they abandoned all hope of continuing the war. The Treaty of Versailles was similarly signed under duress. Germany took that Treaty with all its unwelcome provisions - all the loss of territory, all the reparations payments which the Treaty imposed - rather than take her chance on a renewed war. That war would have been fought on German soil; Germany would have suffered as France had already suffered. The Germans signed the Treaty and promised to pay the indemnity in order to escape invasion and devastation. Relying on that promise, the Allies allowed them to escape invasion, and now they refuse to pay the indemnity.
“The Germans have already obtained their money's worth for the indemnity which they have not paid, and apparently do not intend to pay. If they refuse to carry out their part of the bargain, the French are absolved from the other side of the contract. If the Germans want to preserve the immunity which they gained by fighting the war on French soil, they will have to pay for it; and it is more ordinary justice if the French insist that the Germans must either pay up according to promise or take the consequences. Mr. Briand has just observed that France has a rendezvous with Germany on May
1. If the French, and the world at large, are to begin to believe that this rendezvous will impress the Germans only if it is kept in Unter den Linden, that is the fault of the Germans who have shown themselves insensible to any argument but force.” New York Times, 14th April 1921

(Germany also accepted the reparations payments “under duress”. Such acceptance being helpful for a few political parties in the early 1930s, of course.)
I suspect the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would count as the most extreme form of duress ever witnessed.


Making Sense of Duress.

“A mugger catches you along in a dark alley and offers you a choice: Give him a hundred dollars or he kills you. You reply that your life is well worth the price, but unfortunately you are not carrying that much cash. He offers to take a check. When you get home, should you be free to stop payment? Should a contract made under duress be enforceable?
“The argument in favor of enforceability is that if the contract is not enforceable, the mugger will refuse your check - or accept it and then make sure you can't stop payment by killing you and cashing the check before news of your death reaches the bank. Seen from that perspective, it looks as though even a contract made under duress produces benefits for both parties and so should be enforceable. You prefer paying a hundred dollars to being killed, he prefers receiving a hundred dollars to killing you. Where's the problem?

“The problem is that making the contract enforceable makes offering people the choice between their money and their life a much more profitable business - most of us have more in our checking accounts than in our wallets. The gain from enforceability is a better chance, if you are mugged, to buy yourself free. It must be balanced against the higher probability of being mugged. It seems likely that the current legal rule, holding contracts made under duress unenforceable, is the efficient one.
“But that may not be true under all circumstances. A peace treaty is a contract made under duress - yet most of us think that a world where nations can sign peace treaties and be bound by them is better than a world where the victor must annihilate the vanquished before he can be sure the war is over. Similarly, on a smaller scale, for the transaction by which a prisoner of war gives his parole not to attempt to escape. Indeed, it used to be quite common for a prisoner to be released on parole and permitted to go home - having promised not to re-join his army until he had been exchanged for a prisoner of equal rank from the other side. The parole system made war somewhat less costly for both sides and so presumably increased the amount of war somewhat, but it seems unlikely that the effect was very great - and it substantially decreased the cost born by captive and captor.” If you would like a caveat for that viewpoint (I always do), it was written by David D. Friedman who, although known for being an anarcho-capitalist with libertarian leanings, happens to be the son of Milton Friedman. Not that that necessarily means anything…


3) Intent

In law, it is always the intent that is the key. This is true even of statute, for which it is recommended that the intent of legislators be taken as the most important aspect, and not necessarily the form.
Some maxims of law on intent:

Animus ad se omne jus ducit – “It is to the intention that all law applies”
Animus moninis est anima scripti – “The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument”
In conventibus contrahensium voluntatem potius quam verba spectari placuit – “In the agreements of the contracting parties, the rule is to regard the intention rather than the words”
Intentio caeca, mala – “A hidden intention is bad”

What was John's intent? Acceptance of defeat, to avoid a skewering, or to play for time? What was the intent of the Barons? To champion the liberties of England and uphold the common law in the face of the assault from civil law, or to humble a king and enhance their own position?

We are told by historians that the signing took place under duress, but there is no way to ascertain the veracity of this beyond all doubt unless one can invent a time machine. 800 years separates now from then. Historians draw upon sources (chief amongst which being Innocent III who annulled it on the basis of duress) and the reliability of these is the most important aspect. Tomorrow they may uncover a completely different source that tells the story wholly differently.
How are we to know that John did not sign it under pretence of duress, in the knowledge that he could then use this to continue the conflict and, hopefully, end it in his favour? “Look what those nasty Barons did to me! If you don’t help me fight them your barons could do it to you as well…” Granted, that would involve him looking like a bit of a weakling at the annual Monarchs' Dine & Disco, but still...
Total supposition with no evidence, I admit… Or is it? We know the Charter was reissued several times (all minus Article 61, but that's another issue). John's successor, Henry III, reissued it and then spent much of the rest of his reign squabbling with the Barons over it.
Of the reissue, Sir Edward Coke writes the following (all spellings taken from the text):

“Soon after the making of this great charter, the young king by evill counsell fell into great mislike with it, which Hubert de Burgo, summus justicarius Angliae perceiving...yet meaning to make this a step to his ambition (which ever rideth without reines), perswaded and humored the king that he might avoid the charter of his father king John by duress, and his own great charta, and Charta de Foresta also…”

Coke is saying that Henry III was manipulated by the chief justiciar of the time into voiding his own Magna Carta, and by extension that of John as well as the Charter of the Forest, by claiming that it was signed under duress. This must logically lead one to assume that it was not actually signed under duress in the first place, although this obviously may not necessarily apply to 1215. The intent behind Henry III voiding the charter is not “throwing off” duress but is the result of the political infighting going on at the time. Coke says of the original: “…king John in the 17 yeare of his raigne had granted the like, which also was called Magna Charta…”
“Granted”, not “forced to sign at sword tip”.

Similarly, what was the intent of the barons? Some writers follow what I mentioned above – the barons, in wondering what they would do with their turbulent king, at some point uncovered the older Charter of Liberties and saw that under it the King stated, for example, that he a) ruled by “common counsel”, b) swore to uphold “the law of King Edward” and c) imposed peace upon the kingdom “henceforth”. On the basis of these came Magna Carta, with extra provision for ensuring that the king would be held to the treaty.

Yet a strong monarch makes for weak barons, and vice versa. Muzzling the king would enhance their own position. And throw into that the conflict between common law and civil law that had been going on since the Norman invasion...
On the same basis, one could also argue that the Coronation Charter was issued just so that Henry could get on the throne; there was no intent on his part to abide by it. As there was no equivalent to Article 61 he was fairly safe to ignore it once he was firmly on the throne.

If you ascertain the intent of the parties you uncover to what extent their agreement stands. Or something along those lines.

Well, there are two reasons why it is valid and one that needs looking into, at least... And it makes a change from talking about the difference between a treaty and a statute!
Contrary to what many say, history is always in a state of flux, whether or not that is the result of a larger plan on the part of others. The vast majority of historical events that we have in our records are the result of spin; Magna Carta's signing makes for a great story but its resonance and its influence over the last eight centuries was probably completely unexpected at the time. For centuries the Roman Empire was replete with stelae telling the story of the life of Augustus, the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, but the vast majority of that is fictitious and was deliberately used for propaganda. "At the age of nineteen, on my own responsibility and at my own expense, I raised an army, with which I successfully championed the liberty of the republic when it was oppressed by the tyranny of faction." Er, not quite... Similarly, the work of the “father of history”, Herodotus, contains numerous post eventum prophecies, designed for propagandist reasons so that rulers could both legitimise their rule and impress their majesty upon history after the upheaval that accompanied them taking power. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
Many writers have referred to the Leges Edwardi Confessoris as apocryphal, or badly written, or the result of later revisions, or for any variety of reasons that lead to them being an unreliable source. Wearing a post-eventum prophecy hat for a moment, one could make the argument that the Laws of King Edward were revised much later than when they were written with the intent so as to use them as a means of legitimising later things like the Coronation Charter, or even Magna Carta, on the basis that the latter documents upheld laws that were already in existence – “look, we've found this old parchment that just so happens to legitimise what we're trying to do...”
All we can say with certainty is that Magna Carta exists – which is probably sufficient for your purposes!
The film made a mention of the treaty of 1213 where John “signed” England over to Pope Innocent III, the intent being to illustrate that as this treaty was in effect (and possibly still is) that Magna Carta cannot be valid. I have also heard this argument before and it probably warrants further investigation, however the older Coronation Charter (if you take it on face value) would seem to trump this – by “signing over” England (even if one accepts for the moment that he had a lawful power/ability/authority so to do), along with everything else he was up to, John perturbed the King's Peace. Therefore 1213 becomes invalid ab initio. I suspect it is something a constitutional expert – a proper one, not those of the Establishment – would need to look at if they have not already done so.
Others have looked at the 1213 treaty as the creation of a trust between the two parties – those being the Pope and the King – which could only be broken by either party, or the heirs thereof. Magna Carta represents the barons coming in as a third party which would be unlawful, and on that basis it is invalid and irrelevant. For example


Some of the “1213 school” say that John used a seal to approve Magna Carta because he was only the “tenant”, and could not sign as he was not the “owner”. Other more prevalent writings say that the seal was used because John was illiterate, which can be argued to be unlikely considering his parentage and other sources that refer to him having a large library. (Or, perhaps he merely liked the pictures...) The “mainstream” explanation of the seal is that this was done to make the document official, much in the same way as
documents are notarised today, and that John did actually sign Magna Carta.

Speaking of trusts, they do seem to be the thing to look into, as more people are saying. Dean Clifford’s work seems to explain this quite succinctly (and seems sufficiently kosher for the AntiTerrorist to refer to it) although the application of it is another question. In one of his radio interviews he muses that people in the UK have it easier because they are at “ground zero” in respect of the Corporation; I would argue that it is in fact harder over here for precisely that reason. He may have been referring to something else when he used this
phrase though. (I read somewhere that Clifford's material was based on or inspired by UCADIA.)

After watching the videos I tracked down one of the trust law books he mentions and they are a tad “involved”, shall we say. Whilst I don’t like to be accused of leeching off others I am looking forward to Bollixed’s guest post as he seems further down this road than some others.

Ironically it was looking at trusts and LLCs that got me into all this in the first place. Perhaps I should have stayed on them!



TSL, I cannot thank you enough for this. I count myself very lucky that I have you, and others like you, commenting here. I am as in the dark as the rest of you, and I learn as much, if not more, from the comments, as I learn from the original research.

As always, have at it in the comments.



Anonymous said...

My biggest problem with using the Magna Carta to give me my inalienable rights is that it assumes that those rights were King John's to give me. They were / are not - my rights are mine, de facto, by virtue of my existence. The King, Queen, Parliament or EU has no more right to give them to me as it does to take them away - the only way it can do so is to impose its will by force. In so far as I can assert my rights through my own force against theirs, they remain mine.

While I have a lot of time for Lawful Rebels, Freemen on the Land, and the like, and I thoroughly support their efforts to bring down the corrupt establishment, I can't help feeling that their philosophical underpinnings are fundamentally wrong. I give me my rights, not any king or treaty.

One reason I don't become a Lawful Rebel myself is that by doing so, I implicitly accept a system in which rights can be given by king or treaty, that my rights are limited only to those given to me in that particularly treaty, that King John was somehow special. I don't accept that Liz Windsor is any more special than I am, so why should King John be? He's no more relevant to me than any random african who died centuries ago.

Captain: I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Captain Ranty said...


You are correct about your rights: they are god given (or creator, if you prefer), what we can agree on, I hope, is that they are neither given by man, nor can they be taken away by man.

King John and the Barons in that Treaty gave you the right to rebel if he, or future monarchs, took the piss, or acted unlawfully.

Lawful Rebels need MC1215 because it enshrines that right.

Nations without a Magna Carta resort to that other tool, the trusty AK-47.

Our revolution needs nothing more than a mind that comprehends the wrongs committed against us, and a pen.

Enough blood is spilled around the world without us needing to add to it.

Your first affidavit to Brenda says "I recognise you as the Sovereign Lady", and goes on to say "If you do not honour the vow you took, you are no longer my Sovereign Lady"

Sometimes, to take away you have to give first.


hangemall said...

Completely O/T but I thought you might like to look at this, Captain.


Loosely, it says that of all the 43,060 transnational corporations 147 control 44 percent of their wealth.

I'm not particularly a subscriber to World domination theories but I'm greatly in favour of more "genetic diversity."

The article says that the close connections could make the network vulnerable to collapse.

It seems to be taken from a longer article at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

hangemall said...

I think that should be 40 percent of the wealth. Sorry.

Harry Hook said...

Going by that logic... signing a Last Will & Testiment could be seen as 'under duress' by the simple fact that you have to be dead to fulfil it... Marriage Contracts... Let's not go there,,,

I cannot think of one contract I have signed, that didn't involve some form of non-consent.

Anonymous said...

NOBODY signed the Magna Carta. Half the bastards could not write. However, seals were affixed.

John the Bastard.

Bill said...

I never signed up to be a member of the 'society' the political class talk about and yet I am expected to conform with whatever diktat they come out with on pain of fine or gaol.
They on the other hand are all but immune from those same penalties so they must have been given a different set of rules except I would never know because I haven't been given a set of rules to compare against theirs.

As far as I am aware my parents didn't sign me up 'on my behalf' although they did register a name so perhaps the birth register is the application form. So does one actually become a member of a society which is prevailing on whatever land they happen to be born on by accident. A society that one cannot walk away from unless they physically move to another land?

James Higham said...

Is an affixed seal binding in law these days?

nominedeus said...

Magna Carta wasn't signed 'under duress' unless being to broke to pay your mercenaries when faced with the risen population of the country counts as duress, I would think it was more just common sense, a bit like I will step out of the way of this steamroller travelling at 1/2 a mile an hour or it will flatten me, and I will promise never to get in its way again if you wil turn its engine off!

wv = reifuc, you get all the best wv's Cap'n!

Anonymous said...

@James Higham

That is probably worthy of another subject on its own :-)

A case can be made that at common law they are as valid as ever they have been. Blackstone covers seals when he discusses deeds and contracts. He says of them: "The common law definition of a seal, and the use of rings and signets for that purpose and by way of signature and authenticity, is corroborated by the usages and records of all antiquity, sacred and profane".

In his (in)famous tome, Mr Black defines it thus:

"SEAL. An impression upon wax, wafer, or some other tenacious substance capable of being impressed. A seal is a particular sign, made to attest, in the most formal manner, the execution of an instrument." (1st ed, 1891)

For any readers who don't think Black's Law Dictionary is applicable to the UK, I would point out that the first line in the above definition of a seal is pretty much taken straight from Blackstone's Commentaries.


"SEALED INSTRUMENT. An instrument of writing to which the party to be bound has affixed not only his name, but also his seal, or (in those jurisdictions where it is allowed) a scroll." (1st ed, 1891)

The definitions in the current 9th edition are largely the same:

"SEAL. (13c). 2. A piece of wax, a wafer, or some other substance affixed to the paper or other material on which a promise, release, or conveyance is written, together with a recital or expression of intention by which the promisor, releasor, or grantor manifests that a piece of wax, wafer, or other substance is a seal. The purpose of a seal is to secure or prove authenticity."

"SEALED INSTRUMENT. (17c) At common law and under some statutes, an instrument to which the bound party has affixed a personal seal, usu. recognized as providing indisputable evidence of the validity of the underlying obligations."

The proviso there is the "alteration" of the common law definition of a seal into..."A fastening that must be broken before access can be obtained". LOL, good try but no...

Over time, signatures began to be used in addition to seals. The phrase "signed, sealed and delivered" was originally just "sealed and delivered", for example, and appears thus in Blackstone's Commentaries, and he explains what it means.




Anonymous said...


At the time of Magna Carta signatures may also have been used as well but the seal seems to have been the primary method although it is possible to debate as to why over and above the regular explanations.

The use of seals ceased as a means of validating deeds only relatively recently although it had started to be "phased out" many centuries before (Blackstone refers to seals being "abolished" in parts of America in favour of a signature only and I think they are not required in the Uniform Commercial Code, at least in respect of exchanging goods or something.).

In fact AFAIK the common law prevailed up until as late as the 1980s in respect of individuals and deeds. All one had to do in order to execute a deed validly was to seal it.

Ever able to sense not just an opportunity to suppress the common law but also make a shitload of money at the same time, in stepped the Corporation:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Section 1: Deeds and their execution

(1) Any rule of law which -

(a) restricts the substances on which a deed may be written;

(b) requires a seal for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an indivudal; or

(c) requires authority by one person to another to deliver an instrument as a deed on his behalf to be given by deed,

is abolished.

Now they need to be witnessed.... ££££££££££

"Rule of law" has a specific definition: "A legal principle of general application, sanctioned by the recognition of authorities, and usually expressed in the form of a maxim or logical proposition." (Black's, 1st - 6th editions. In later ones, it quaintly replaces the main definition of "rule"...)

But then the abolition is contained in a statute, is it not? ;-)

Blackstone says: "The power and jurisdiction of parliament, says Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds." (Commentaries, Book 1 Ch2)

Thus is born the concept of parliamentary supremacy.

Sir Edward Coke actually says (emphasis mine): "The power and jurisdiction of the parliament, for making of laws in proceeding by bill, it is so transcendant and absolute that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds." (4 Institutes 36)

A bill is "a draft of an act of the legislature"...and becomes a statute once enacted. :-P

So I guess the upshot of all that is that seals would be extant at common law but ignored by statute. What else is new....

Apropos of nothing - Blackstone also says: "And in the reign of Edward I, every freeman, and even such of the more substantial villeins as were fit to be put upon juries, had their distinct particular seals." :-D

(I know the meaning then is not the same as the meaning now, but still...)



Anonymous said...

@ Bill

Have you seen these?

http://youtu.be/c49q3PGof2w (Pt1)
http://youtu.be/D7kzcOsuGBk (Pt2)



Bill said...

Went to look
the urls provided give a 404 error presumably because you have an errant 'full stop' in youtube.

Taking that out I get this
We're sorry, the page that you requested cannot be found.

So sadly I cannot say if I've seen them or not.

Anonymous said...

> Sometimes, to take away you have to give first.

An interesting perspective; thank you!

Anonymous said...

Hello Bill

They were "share" links to a couple of videos from the AntiTerrorist.

The shortened links start with "http://youtu.be/" and sometimes play nicer with Blogger than the full ones, whether hyperlinked or not.

These are the longer ones which should be better - hopefully!

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49q3PGof2w
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7kzcOsuGBk



Bill Sticker said...

Interesting. It does beg the question that if Magna Carta is invalid, so are all other treaties, because the oath of one signatory party (To wit: government in the shape of 'The Crown') has been invalidated by refusal to abide by the terms.

A contract (Treaty) must be upheld by all parties or it is no contract at all. To judge otherwise sets the ugly precedent that either party in any legally binding agreement may violate it at will.

bollixed said...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948:

Extract from Preamble:
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,

I am not aware that this Treaty (still binding) was signed under duress. I'll quote MC1215 all day but still use UDHR1948 as a backstop. We can be in Lawful Rebellion under one or t'other.

I interpret 'rebellion' as violent revolt. This indeed would be a last resort once all else has failed. Lawful Rebellion can be justified here as a reasonable interim escalation of rebellious disquiet against tyranny and oppression - especially where that tyranny and oppression has deliberately interfered with the whole concept of inalienable and fundamental rights for humans, to turn it into a tool of oppression rather than liberty from oppression. If they refuse us Lawful Rebellion then this is a breach of the most fundamental of 'uman rights and paves the way to full blown rebellion. We are simply providing them a choice of options with the spectre of MC1215 hanging in the background.

I also love to quote Cromwell's Speech of the Dissolution of the Long Parliament that is just as applicable today as it was back then. Removal of a corrupt Parliament by means of force. I urge people to google it. Makes me go wobbly at the knees just reading it. lol

Rule of Law is a very unclear concept as gubmint thinks it is whatever they say it is. This has caused an amount of concern among the judicial system and prompted Lord Bingham to publish this book just before he departed this mortal coyle last year. I've yet to read it but I understand he was intending this as a final word on the matter. Whether it is or not is for others to judge (excuse the pun). The comments on the Amazon page make for interesting reading though. I reckon he was a fence-sitter but I'll draw a more educated opinion once I've read it.

To be frank, I don't really care who said what hundreds of years ago to justify my being immensely pissed off at the scale of the scam that attempts to enslave us and future generations in a web of deceit and plunder. If I'm not happy I'll bloody well rebel and provide my own reasons for doing so!!

Why adapt a previous rebellion to fit a new and much more complex scenario when we can create our own perfectly good rebellion now - that is fit for purpose?

Time we created and impressed our seals upon our own, modern Common Law Covenant to announce the reasons for our own lawful rebellion and demands. No fucking lefty stuff though and no bloody planks of Communism. I'm in this for the liberty of the individual, much reduced state power and arrogance, and a complete rethink on the concept of 'corporation'. Might be an interesting blog post to invite discussion on CR?

The media is bleating that they don't know what we stand for. Let's bloody tell them in a solemn national Covenant affixed with tens of thousands of seals and signatures!! It'll also serve to outmanoeuvre the wild eyed lefties that are trying to hijack this phenomena to impose the exact opposite of what most of us actually stand for. More State!

bollixed said...

Why must we rely on previous treaties and agreements?

You can always quote Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 as that also warns of rebellion as a means of last resort BUT it also includes some crappy stuff too. It also doesn't define basic words and concepts and the wordsmiths have been busy doing that for us in the meantime....to our detriment, for those who haven't noticed. They also cherry picked the bits they like and dumped the bits they didn't like to create the current EU Human Rights bollocks and our very own 'uman Rights Act. And behind this is the completely untrustworthy modern version of the United Nations, intent on destroying our individual freedoms in the pursuit of their global cult of whatever the fuck they stand for now. I think they have global Communist ideals (have you read Agenda 21??) but am open to be convinced otherwise.

None of them fit our current problem. That is our problem.

For example, one of the biggest bugbears I have is the institutionalised abuse of the concept of 'the Corporation'. Isn't that why we are declaring ourselves as Freemen? As opposed to being a corporation? I can't see any previous Treaty mentioning this and we're in danger of losing it by quoting from past Treaties.

I suggest that what is needed is an end to all this MC1215 debate and we establish our own modern Covenant of the People. Signed and/or sealed by all rebels and those who support us. This Covenant deal is binding under Common Law I understand.

It would also serve to head off the corporate press who are taking advantage of our lack of a common voice. State our demands as freemen and sovereigns. I'm sure we are all roughly on the same page and could agree a basic wording?

It would also serve to head off the nutters and lefties who are intent on hijacking/wrecking all the good work we are doing.

This might be a good post idea CR?

Propose a Covenant of the People and invite discussion on the subject. Pass this onto, say, the British Constitution Group for draughting, conference, and final issuance for signature. Take copies to every town and city in the country for people to afix their mark or seal. THERE is our authority to fucking rebel! Who needs MC1215 when you have a document that is fit for purpose??

thesecretpeople said...

Bollixed, I agree, a peoples covenant is a great idea BUT it DOES have to be written by the people other wise, what's the point!? Past treaties and declarations WRITTEN FOR US are all well and good but we're living NOW and times have changed.

The way I see it you start from the very basic human needs, the finest quality food, water, shelter etc. Any other considerations that impact in any way on these basic requirements will have to be reconsidered and if no immediate solution found, put on the back burner until one is. Nothing should impact on the basics!

This is a great topic for discussion with a view to implementation and one that should at last be considered by anyone serious about self governance.

One of the things that really narks me is hearing people say "it's about time the power was BACK in the hands of the people". I'm really not sure that it ever has been.

Going about it in a sensible manner, I really do think it's possible that that will change.