tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post1391466473831938177..comments2023-09-10T16:35:32.651+01:00Comments on Captain Ranty-Lawful Rebel: Magna Carta And DuressCaptain Rantyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-2571785571912108922011-10-24T19:49:49.443+01:002011-10-24T19:49:49.443+01:00Bollixed, I agree, a peoples covenant is a great i...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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Going about it in a sensible manner, I really do think it's possible that that will change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-65575416621678296742011-10-21T22:36:16.882+01:002011-10-21T22:36:16.882+01:00Why must we rely on previous treaties and agreemen...Why must we rely on previous treaties and agreements? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />None of them fit our current problem. That is our problem.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />It would also serve to head off the nutters and lefties who are intent on hijacking/wrecking all the good work we are doing.<br /><br />This might be a good post idea CR?<br /><br />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??bollixednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-31127698012717256802011-10-21T22:13:50.719+01:002011-10-21T22:13:50.719+01:00Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948:
Extra...Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948:<br /><br />Extract from Preamble:<br />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,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!!<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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!bollixednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-16351334028534540512011-10-21T20:37:03.151+01:002011-10-21T20:37:03.151+01:00Interesting. It does beg the question that if Mag...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.<br /><br />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.Bill Stickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05285528897339442436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-17882099473525358732011-10-21T14:45:41.464+01:002011-10-21T14:45:41.464+01:00Hello Bill
They were "share" links to a...Hello Bill<br /><br />They were "share" links to a couple of videos from the AntiTerrorist.<br /><br />The shortened links start with "http://youtu.be/" and sometimes play nicer with Blogger than the full ones, whether hyperlinked or not.<br /><br />These are the longer ones which should be better - hopefully!<br /><br />Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49q3PGof2w<br />Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7kzcOsuGBk<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />TSLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-68798213976228008372011-10-21T13:37:14.013+01:002011-10-21T13:37:14.013+01:00> Sometimes, to take away you have to give firs...> Sometimes, to take away you have to give first.<br /><br />An interesting perspective; thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-7489269910721421352011-10-21T08:43:24.656+01:002011-10-21T08:43:24.656+01:00TSL
Went to look
the urls provided give a 404 err...TSL<br />Went to look <br />the urls provided give a 404 error presumably because you have an errant 'full stop' in youtube.<br /><br />Taking that out I get this<br />We're sorry, the page that you requested cannot be found. <br /><br />So sadly I cannot say if I've seen them or not.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-21312802086402844952011-10-21T00:23:30.920+01:002011-10-21T00:23:30.920+01:00@ Bill
Have you seen these?
http://youtu.be/c49q...@ Bill<br /><br />Have you seen these?<br /><br />http://youtu.be/c49q3PGof2w (Pt1)<br />http://youtu.be/D7kzcOsuGBk (Pt2)<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />TSLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-84192700555045241052011-10-21T00:07:18.546+01:002011-10-21T00:07:18.546+01:00PART THE SECOND:
At the time of Magna Carta signa...PART THE SECOND:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.). <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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: <br /><br /><i><b>Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989</b><br /><br />Section 1: Deeds and their execution<br /><br />(1) Any rule of law which - <br /><br /> (a) restricts the substances on which a deed may be written;<br /><br /> (b) requires a seal for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an indivudal; or<br /><br /> (c) requires authority by one person to another to deliver an instrument as a deed on his behalf to be given by deed,<br /><br />is abolished.</i><br /><br />Now they need to be witnessed.... ££££££££££<br /><br />"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"...)<br /><br />But then the abolition is contained in a statute, is it not? ;-)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />Thus is born the concept of parliamentary supremacy.<br /><br />Sir Edward Coke actually says (emphasis mine): "The power and jurisdiction of the parliament, <b>for making of laws in proceeding by bill</b>, it is so transcendant and absolute that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds." (4 Institutes 36)<br /><br />A bill is "a draft of an act of the legislature"...and becomes a statute once enacted. :-P<br /><br />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....<br /><br />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<br /><br />(I know the meaning then is not the same as the meaning now, but still...)<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />TSLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-50703900817386585212011-10-21T00:02:53.967+01:002011-10-21T00:02:53.967+01:00@James Higham
That is probably worthy of another ...@James Higham<br /><br />That is probably worthy of another subject on its own :-)<br /><br />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".<br /><br />In his (in)famous tome, Mr Black defines it thus:<br /><br />"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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Also:<br /><br />"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)<br /><br />The definitions in the current 9th edition are largely the same: <br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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. <br /><br />(END PART ONE :-P)<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />TSLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-29128953659216824152011-10-20T21:21:50.483+01:002011-10-20T21:21:50.483+01:00Magna Carta wasn't signed 'under duress...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!<br /><br />wv = reifuc, you get all the best wv's Cap'n!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-14789647046669403232011-10-20T18:28:29.217+01:002011-10-20T18:28:29.217+01:00Is an affixed seal binding in law these days?Is an affixed seal binding in law these days?James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-40191944604574392412011-10-20T16:04:54.497+01:002011-10-20T16:04:54.497+01:00I never signed up to be a member of the 'socie...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.<br />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.<br /><br />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?Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-86798275722644422112011-10-20T14:25:01.581+01:002011-10-20T14:25:01.581+01:00Going by that logic... signing a Last Will & T...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,,,<br /><br />I cannot think of one contract I have signed, that didn't involve some form of non-consent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-53924013729904968662011-10-20T13:59:52.230+01:002011-10-20T13:59:52.230+01:00I think that should be 40 percent of the wealth. ...I think that should be 40 percent of the wealth. Sorry.hangemallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-89549876694697411312011-10-20T13:41:51.294+01:002011-10-20T13:41:51.294+01:00Completely O/T but I thought you might like to loo...Completely O/T but I thought you might like to look at this, Captain.<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051008/Does-super-corporation-run-global-economy.html<br /><br />Loosely, it says that of all the 43,060 transnational corporations 147 control 44 percent of their wealth.<br /><br />I'm not particularly a subscriber to World domination theories but I'm greatly in favour of more "genetic diversity."<br /><br />The article says that the close connections could make the network vulnerable to collapse.<br /><br />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.htmlhangemallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-28931110687844672262011-10-20T13:37:44.823+01:002011-10-20T13:37:44.823+01:00Anon,
You are correct about your rights: they are...Anon,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Lawful Rebels need MC1215 because it enshrines that right.<br /><br />Nations without a Magna Carta resort to that other tool, the trusty AK-47.<br /><br />Our revolution needs nothing more than a mind that comprehends the wrongs committed against us, and a pen.<br /><br />Enough blood is spilled around the world without us needing to add to it.<br /><br />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"<br /><br />Sometimes, to take away you have to give first.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-43839714557581280432011-10-20T13:26:53.300+01:002011-10-20T13:26:53.300+01:00My biggest problem with using the Magna Carta to g...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Captain: I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com