October 27, 2011


Tomorrow, 75% of the denizens of Ranty Barracks will decamp.

We are leaving No 1 son in charge of the house, the two dogs and the cat. With a fair wind, the barracks may still be intact when we come back.

We trudge south, to the heady delights and temptations of Manchester to celebrate the 50th birthday of Ma Ranty's oldest chum.

I have this particular milestone to look forward to in January.

All of the above is my way of saying that blogging will be anorexic until we return next week. Please treat this as an open thread to discuss worldly matters of great import anything you damn well please. Mi casa is zu casa and all that.

Couple of updates:

1. That speeding thing.

Nothing. Nothing at all. The alleged "offence" ocurred on 23 September. Their paperwork arrived 5 days later and it was explicit: the whole thing will be over within 30 days. Tomorrow is day 30. Apart from that Saturday morning visit by Bodie and Doyle, nothing else has happened. I fully expected to have a summons delivered to me. No joy.

2. That Sky/DCA thing

Those leeches at the DCA said that they would "acknowledge receipt of my email within an hour". That was 14 days ago. They did attempt to call me but when I answered the phone, all I heard was some ridiculous automated voice asking me if I was Reeeantyiearghoohow. The robot seriously mangled my surname and then asked me to pick one of three options, the third of which was "Press 3 if you do not recognise this name". I genuinely didn't, so I pressed 3 and hung up. No letters or calls since then. They may not yet have gotten the message that for them, the well is dry. If they call me again my fee schedule kicks in.

3. That energy scam thing.

I showed you all the letter wot I wrote. They have since sent three missives: the first apologised for the long delay in replying, the second was much longer but said nothing and did not answer any of the questions I had asked, and the third (received today) was to inform me that they had revised the estimate. Upwards. They now want just over £2,900 off me between now and this time next year. They have so far declined to check the accuracy of the meter. I may get it checked independently. Something is seriously amiss here. The national average, (for those on electric only) is somewhere around £1,100 per year. Which indicates that I am paying for two other families to heat and light their homes. It may be that the Greeks have tapped into my supply. I must check the cabling....

So, that's me. Play nice while I am away. If I get access to a PC or laptop in Manchester I will chip in. If not, spend some quality time checking out the Awkward Sods on the right hand side. That should keep your blood boiling nicely until we troop north again.

Yer old pal,


October 25, 2011

Want Your World Rocked?

Then read on.

This is one of the most jawdropping accounts I have read of a court case involving a Freeman and a judge.

The report speaks for itself (quite literally-look for the link to the audio below) but I wanted to point out the most devastating comment from Judge Cadbury. This is what we Freemen have been saying for the last few years.


One of the important bits is when (remember Cadbury has read up on the entire situation, and knows what has happened) he admits “This is probably all due to the crossed-wires that occurred when the Courts started to see Freemen-on-the-Land. And the Courts did not know how to react. And are slowly coming to terms with Freemen”.

If you want to read the original write-up and following comments, please pop over to FMOTL and have a gander.

Strap in-this is an exciting ride:

"Hereford Magistrates Court – 17th October, 2011

This was a continuation of the previous adjournments – with added flavourings.

Guy had lodged two complaints:

1. Against Herefordshire Council for taking him all the way to potential bankruptcy – be charging him on land he did not own – and then withdrawing at the very last minute … but leaving behind a trail of shit comprising Solicitor’s costs to be paid, and the claim by Michael Horne/Tim Robinson. Guy was charging the Council with “irregular distress”

2. Against County Court Judge Nadeem Khan for rubber-stamping everything that led up to the Bankruptcy Petition, even when having been told that the charge was a fraudulent demand.

As usual, the Court tried to dump a curved ball at the outset. British Gas suddenly appeared on the scene, talking about an unpaid Electricity Bill for Bodenham Manor.

The problem with this Electricity Bill was that is was based on Business Rates, on the assumption that business was still being conducted at Bodenham Manor.

Unfortunately (for British Gas) no ‘business’ has been carried on at Bodenham since 2005. Consequently only a Domestic Rate Tariff is applicable on those apartments that remain inhabited.

When appraised of this … prior to the actual Court Hearing … British Gas withdrew their application, and realised that they actually owed Guy THOUSANDS … because (until recently) he’s been paying Business Rate Tariffs (since 2005).

So, after that matter had been cleared up (and the British Gas Representative went on his way – tail between legs) we actually got called into the Court.

It was a new Judge. One we had not seen before (Judge Cadbury).

We recorded the whole thing on a Dictaphone. At the moment this is only available in full – as a WAV File – 

via http://www.fmotl.com/Hearing17OCT2011HerefordMagistratesCourt.wav

I intend – as soon as possible - to shorten it to the salient points, and to explain what happened.

As a foretaste we can state that:

1. Judge Cadbury had spent the previous weekend reading everything (he actually says so), and was pretty conversant with the whole situation. For this reason he was able to cut the Hereford Council’s Barrister to shreds at various times (much to our delight, of course!). (There is a delicious moment where she waffles & drones on … for what seems like ages … and Judge Cadbury says “Yes … but in the end, he [Guy] was right, and you were wrong … is that not so?”. She is unable to disagree).

2. There are a number of ‘tasty bits’, which cause one’s mouth to water. Not least of which when Cadbury – having heard the quotation from Halsbury’s Laws of England … to the effect that his Court – and all the others are entirely UNLAWFUL … when he says “Is that in Halbury’s?”. Guy says “Yes”, and Cadbury responds “I can see that throwing up a few problems!”. (Surely the masterful understatement of the century?).

3. One of the important bits is when (remember Cadbury has read up on the entire situation, and knows what has happened) he admits “This is probably all due to the crossed-wires that occurred when the Courts started to see Freemen-on-the-Land. And the Courts did not know how to react. And are slowly coming to terms with Freemen”. (That’s paraphrasing, not a direct quote … but that’s more-or-less what he said).

4. Another tasty bit is when he tells Guy that he is going to refuse Guy’s application to have Nadeem Khan summonsed. It has been explained to Cadbury that, if he refuses to ‘do his duty’, then he [Cadbury] leaves himself open to prosecution. He says “I may go to prison for this, but I’m going to have to refuse this application … at this time. However, I do understand that – at a different time – you [Guy] may very well be right. I feel you should appeal my decision, because it would make quite a good Test Case”. (Once again, paraphrasing, listen to it yourself … at the end).
Breathtaking stuff. And there were other bits, which I’ll remember when I analyse the recording properly. (It’s very long … nearly 2 hours, including the 20-minute ‘retirement’ in between).

The matters dealt with were (in order):

A. The so-called ‘motoring offence’. Result: Adjournment due to the fact that the Witness Statement starts: “On the 11th January, 2012 …”. There is a delicious moment when Cadbury reads this out, and says “Oh … that’s a good start!”. The Police Constable who wrote that statement will now have to appear in person. Guy is looking forward – with considerable glee – to this. (We were told, by the Inspector, that this Constable’s hair started falling out when Guy sent him a bill for £1,000 for the original arrest!)

B. The failed Bankruptcy Petition .vs. Guy’s application for Irregular Distress. Guy says that – since the Council withdrew at the last moment, Guy is prepared to withdraw his petition. Result: All costs ‘mirrored’ … so no-one pays anyone anything (But Note: GUY HAS A LIEN ON THE BARRISTER!). There is quite a delicious moment when the Barrister has waffled on about her costs, and how Guy wasn’t ‘distressed’ because they didn’t send Bailiffs … just went straight for bankruptcy (in her little world that, presumably, doesn’t count as distressful) and Cadbury turns to Guy and says “Well, Guy, you must have had costs, as well, surely …”

C. The Old Railway Sidings (the bit Guy still owns): Result: The Council told to re-value & re-bill. The Barrister’s costs were dismissed.

D. Bodenham Manor Restaurant … which hasn’t been a restaurant for years, and for which the Council are claiming Business Rates. Result: Subject to Appeal on actual Rateable Value (domestic … affectively just floor space).

E. Judge Cadbury was given chapter & verse on why this Court – and ALL Administrative Courts – carry no authority/force of Law. He didn’t really argue, except to say that he considered his Oath of Office entitled him to BOTH Common Law & Statute jurisdiction (BUT HE ADMITTED HE MIGHT BE WRONG!). Interestingly, Cadbury did ‘twig’ that – having declared the Court invalid, Guy then attempted to utilise it. Cadbury said “It seems you are happy to consider this Court lawful, when it suits you”. This was, of course, very astute, and very true. Guy’s response was equally valid, astute, and true: “You, yourselves, utilise this Court when it suits you, and then dip straight into Common Law when it suits you – by threatening Contempt of Court – which is a Common Law misdemeanour. So I’m only doing what you do!”. Judge Cadbury had no answer to that, and seemed content to carry on with the situation being described thereafter as ‘hybrid’.
During this hearing, Cadbury called Guy “Guy” … never once calling him “Mr. Taylor” (this Judge had obviously been prepped by Roger Harris, the Clerk of the Court!).

During the Hearing, Guy swigged from a bottle of Coca-Cola, and no-one said a word.

During the Hearing, the Barrister continually tried to bring up/mention the “Common Law Liens” … hoping (one presumes) to get a reaction from the Judge. (Guy has one against her, personally). Not once did the Judge react in the matter of the Liens. He treated it totally matter-of-fact. Presumably she was trying to prod Judge Cadbury to say that Guy’s Lien against her carries no force in Law (she obviously doesn’t know). To her obvious disappointment, he didn’t say a word."

Freemen (and ultimately, everyone else) owe a huge debt of thanks to Guy, and to Veronica: Chapman. These brave souls are pioneers and as we all know, pioneering is not the safest occupation. We lose more than we win, but once Judge Cadbury starts to promulgate his findings in this case, the judiciary in the UK will be rudely awoken, possibly for the first time ever.

This is an earth-shattering advancement for Freemen. My mission, if I am lucky enough to end up in a court, is to do for Lawful Rebellion what Guy did for Freemen.

Please let me know your thoughts.


October 24, 2011

Realisation Dawns.....UPDATED

Tonight, 68% of the electorate will finally realise that we live in a dictatorship.

The other 32% will be glued to the X Factor.

100% of us are fucked.

Updated 24 October

Just watched the debate (some six hours of it) only to learn that we have:

111 patriots

483 traitors

56 I couldn't give a fucks.

Still, Hansard tomorrow will help us to clearly identify the enemies of Britain.

We will not forgive. We will not forget. We are coming.

Expect us.


October 23, 2011

Democracy In Action?

I don't think so.

I have long said that MPs are infantile. No surprise there, considering that they live entirely in a world of their own, with no responsible adult supervising them.

Like infants, when they don't get their own way, they have tantrums.

Read this piece on the bullies in Westmonster and tell me I'm wrong.

A snippet:

"Amid reports that up to 100 rebel Conservative MPs may defy the Prime Minister, there were claims that some had been subjected to a number of threats by Mr McLoughlin to make them toe the line. 

According to one MP, ex-miner  Mr McLoughlin was overheard shouting at a rebel MP: ‘This is not the f****** Oxford Union. This is  not some f****** sixth-form debating society. This is the bloody House of Commons.’

Other threats allegedly included:
  • Banning MPs having extra time off at Christmas.
  • Giving their seat to a rival MP.
  • A four-year veto on becoming  a Minister.
The alleged threats were revealed as David Cameron faced his most serious Commons revolt since winning the Election. 

He is expected to win tomorrow’s Commons vote on whether to let the public decide on staying in the EU. But he may pay a heavy price."

How, in their world, are they acting in the best interests of those that put them in these well paid jobs?

Read the whole thing and weep, as you learn what the EU has cost us in money alone. Forget the plethora of new legislation, thousands of regulations, and the loss of sovereignty, but wonder instead, at the stupidity of those we elected that allowed this to happen.

Pathetic. Criminal. Unforgivable.


October 21, 2011

Cameron Demands EU Referendum

He demanded it right up to the time he moved into No 10. A couple of slaps from the true wielders of power, and he changed his tune.

He is a liar.

Liar! Liar! Liar!

You may want to chant that on Monday 24th October.

You may want to remind his spineless fellow party members just who they report to.

You may want to voice your disgust, your contempt, and your outrage.

You may want to shame him into keeping his promise.

Details on how you can do ALL of that are below.


"The vote in Parliament on a European Union referendum was scheduled to happen next Thursday 27th October. However the government has now switched the date of the vote to this Monday 24th October after ministers were worried about the huge number of people the People’s Pledge would be able to mobilise to lobby Parliament.This is an outrageous attempt to stifle debate and peaceful protest. Not only does the government not want to have a referendum on the EU, but they want to shut down the debate altogether.
We need you to contact your MP again. MPs from all parties are being pressured by their whips to toe the party line and oppose a referendum. They need your support to combat party pressure and must hear from you in the next 48 hours. Please act now.
What you can do.

STEP 1: Ring your MP

Call your MP on 0207 219 3000 - This is the House of Commons switchboard. Please ask to speak to your MP about the EU referendum vote. Tell your MP that you have signed the People’s Pledge and that you want them to vote in favour of an EU referendum.  Inform them that, through the People’s Pledge website, you will watch how they have voted and will take this into account at the next general election.

STEP 2: Email your MP

Even if you have already done so, do it again.
Tell them how annoyed you are that the day of the vote has now changed and that the parties are forcing their MPs to vote against the EU referendum that polls show a majority of people want. Remember you must give your name and address so that your MP can respond. Please forward to us any responses that you get.

Contact your MP here
STEP 3 : Join us in lobbying Parliament on the new date Monday 24th October.

The People’s Pledge are holding an official lobby of Parliament on the 24th of Octoberand we would like you to attend. We have secured permission to hold a group lobby of MPs in person before the vote in Parliament. To do this you must arrive at 2pm at St Stephen’s Entrance where supporters will start to queue to lobby their MPs.
The next 4 days are vital and we need as many of you to get involved as possible. To generate maximum pressure on MPs don’t just complete one of these steps; please do all three, and forward this email as widely as possible. 
The People’s Pledge Team"

Re-blogged from here with the greatest of pleasure.


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.


October 19, 2011

Action Stations!!

Good citizens of Blogworld, lend me your eyes.

If, like me, you think the EU is a festering corpse into which we repeatedly inject massive amounts of money for almost no return (apart from industrial amounts of stupidity), then I need to ask a favour.

Please write a letter/email to your MP/MSP/Assembly Member. Their details can be found here.

The template for your letter/email, can be found here.

It looks like this:
I note with great interest that the members of the Backbench Business Committee have scheduled a debate on the question of a motion surrounding a referendum on our EU membership for October 27th.

As a constituent, I am writing to you to ask how you intend to vote following this debate, and to put forward my argument as to why a referendum must be given.

I could write about how I, and millions upon millions like me, have never had the opportunity to express an opinion on our membership, either by dint of not being born or not being at the age of majority at the time of the last referendum, and how the Prime Minister’s statement that we have already had a say is akin to basing a policy on the internet after inspecting one of Babbage’s difference engines.

I could point out the fact that the EU has failed to have its accounts signed off for almost two decades now, how whilst the nation states of Europe are reduced to penury, the EU votes itself ever larget budgets, about how the pattern of abuse of the expenses system by some MEP’s is well documented, how their fiscal projects have put a number of nations into bankruptcy, crippled with debt repayments unprecedented in history, that this has been done against their own laws and has almost dragged us down with them.

I could state that their behaviour and duplicity when the Constitution/Lisbon treaty was being steamrollered through is anti-democratic at best and the actions of a Stalinist Soviet at worst.
I could draw attention to the practices of adhering to the regulations as set out by the EU makes life very difficult for businesses, especially small businesses – the life blood of our economy, and in many cases financially impossible.

I could highlight the costs of our membership, both in terms of taxation taken from the public and the expense of complying with ever more intrusive and complex edicts and directives from the EU.

Whilst I believe all these points are important, I think the matter comes down to a basic and vital question; Are we sovereign?

Ever closer union has only one logical outcome – a complete political union where the nation states are reduced to the level of federal states. It is all very well for Messers Cameron, Hague and Duncan-Smith to talk about re-negotiations, saying no or not allowing any further steps, but they are trying to negotiate a rebate on the lunch money the playground bully has taken from them, and I am not convinced that what is said at conference is said in Brussels.

[YOUR MPs NAME HERE], the question of the UK’s continued existence as an independent and sovereign state is at stake here, and the citizens of the UK must be allowed to deliver a binding verdict on the subject, it cannot be signed away on the strength of the cabinet at the time knowing ‘what is best’, and that verdict must be allowed to be delivered without fear of retribution or sanction from the EU if Parliament or the electorate return the ‘wrong’ decision in the eyes of the EU.

You will no doubt not be surprised to read that in any such referendum I would vote for our withdrawal, favouring as I do a pure free trade model as espoused by Lord Tebbit. However, those who hold a contrary view to mine simply must be able to express it to get this issue sorted once and for all.

I look forward to your response.

All clear?

If you need to be reminded why we do not need this vampire constantly at our throats, please do go and read this.

Will your letter/email have any effect? I have no idea. I just know that I felt better for sending mine off.

Even if your representative is a dyed-in-the-wool Europhile, you will have noted your feelings on the matter with him/her.

You have nothing to lose.


October 18, 2011

Dislodge. Disconnect. Let Go. UNGRIP.

This is a remarkable film.

For those of you that may have stumbled here, and wondered just WTF I am on about, watch the movie. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It will inform you in 1 hour and 11 minutes. Left to me, it would take 1 year and 11 months. Hell, it has taken that long to get some of my articles out so that you can read, reflect, and decide for yourselves whether or not I am wired directly to the moon.

For those of you that have perservered with me, a lot of this movie just reinforces what I have been banging on about, and it is nice to have it affirmed from a different source. (It doesn't all go my way, as you will notice around 30 minutes in). Still, this movie kind of says what I would have said if I had made it. I face similar battles in the days ahead. Films like this, and the determination of those in them, spurs me ever onwards.

I hope you enjoy it, and learn from it, as much as I did.


October 13, 2011

Even More Fun With Debt Collectors

Regulars may recall my spat with a debt collector last year. The piece is here if you want to refresh your memories.

This morning I received a letter from a different debt collection agency.

The letter is headed, in big, bold orange lettering "AUTHORISED DOORSTEP COLLECTORS VISIT"

They say they have been "authorised" to collect £31.00 on behalf of Sky Subscribers Services Limited. How nice for them.

They then go on to say unless I pay them that they will "authorise" Meritforce Limited to "proceed with a visit to my property".

I have responded thusly, via email:

I have received a letter from you today with reference to a spurious claim for £31.00.

Who are you?

I have never heard of you. If I have never heard of you it is therefore impossible for me to owe you anything.

It may be that I signed a contract with you but I cannot recall that event. Please send me the contract containing two wet signatures, mine and yours. This is required by law for a contract to be in place between two parties. It may however, have been a verbal contract. If so, please send me the date and time I made this verbal contract and the full details of the other party.

When I have had sight of the contract we can discuss what is owed and by whom.

Another thing you may want to bear in mind is that Sky had some other bottom-feeding DCA contact me. They did not have a contract with me either. They did not collect £31.00. They went away after one phone call. That was 18 months ago.

As a result of that communication I contacted Sky who told me that the matter was resolved. They did not want to pursue this alleged debt. The debt never existed. I was required, under my contract with Sky, to give them 30 days cancellation notice. I gave them 45 days notice. The matter is over.

Do not show up at my door. Ever.

You may write to me one more time to tell me that the matter is resolved. If you feel the urge to write to me about anything other than that I will counter-claim for five hundred (500) times the amount you are attempting to extort from me. I will pursue this in the Small Claims Court until I have satisfaction or until you have a CCJ registered against you. Do not test me on this. I have never lost a court battle yet, and I guarantee that you will lose.

Your choice.

Captain Ranty.

The letter says that my email will be receipted within 1 hour. The timestamp on my email to them says that I sent the email at 11: 52 on 13th October 2011.

They have not yet replied.

I'll post an update if/when they do reply.


Still Not Convinced?

I thought you would like to see an email I received this morning.


"I saw an interesting letter in the Portman Papers (Jan 99) about the status of the Queen vis a vis the C of E and Sovereignty. I think I can shed some light on the matter.

At the time just before the last (in both senses) election, I became very concerned about the Queen in Parliament no longer being 'Sovereign under God'. I was also very concerned about the fact that, as a clergyman in the Established Church, I have been required to take the Oath of Allegiance. I asked the question: "to whom do I owe this allegiance?" Not being very legally minded I put this matter initially to our Diocesan chancellor. He has no idea and so consulted the Registrar in Westminster. A day or so later he phoned me back with the following (verbal) reply, which I will now relay as accurately as I can.

"The question has been asked recently by someone else. The Registrar therefore consulted Buckingham Palace concerning the Oath. The Palace consulted Brussels, who replied that the Oath could stand as it was for the present."

After that I had to take the mental equivalent of a stiff brandy! The implication is quite clear: the Queen is a vassal of Brussels (or why consult them?) and those who have taken this Oath (such as the Police, MPs, Judges, Armed Forces, etc.) are liable to have this Oath called in by Brussels when it suits them. May God have mercy on us!

Philip Foster MA February 1999."

Now, are any of you still in any doubt that your monarch kow-tows to Brussels? Do any of you still disbelieve the evidence that your monarch has violated her oath to you?

Maybe this will make you realise why Cameron will never give us that referendum on Europe. Maybe this is why the monarch has wilfully ignored the 800,000 good men and women of Britain who have sent her their affidavits.

Maybe, just maybe, you will now all see that Lawful Rebellion is the only (peaceful) tool left in the box.

The monarch reigns at our pleasure. We gave her the Sovereignty she wields. We trusted her to defend us from foreign powers. Through her we give power to the MPs, to the armed forces, to the police service, to UKBA, HMRC and all the others. But here we discover that the "boss" is no longer the boss. She now reports to that unelected bunch of misfits and no-hopers in Brussels. In turn, that means that every single agent of the government also reports to the same power-hungry freaks in Brussels.

Is that what you want? Were you ever told that being "governed by consent" meant that you agreed absolutely with every shady deal the elected MPs signed up to? Was it explained to you in any of the queens speeches that she would one day hand our nation over to the EU?

Many people see the royals as remote, perhaps inbred, or worse, they think they are just ornamental. They may be all of those things but they (or she, at least) is meant to be an integral part of our tripartite system of rule. This new material clearly states that she is subservient to Brussels. So we don't really need her anymore. The MPs we need even less. Over 80% of new legislation comes from Brussels so we should at least reduce the number of "lawmakers" by 80% or reduce their salaries by 80%. I don't care which.

With an irrelevant monarch, and unrequired MPs, why don't we all just bow to Brussels.

The Queen is dead. Long live the EU.