Subject: Daniel Hannan MEP speaks on the Magna Carta
From: Veronica
Date: 20/11/13 5:19 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

(From Mark): Lots of interesting facts & figures:

Of course, you can belly-laugh at Hannan's interpretation of the "enforcement" of "the law-of-the-land" ... as "Parliaments" (and "Congresses", of course)!

When the "enforcement" is right there, in the immediately preceding text, as "the jury of one's peers"!

There's the "enforcement", Sunbeam!

And the idea that "Parliaments" somehow owe their "legality" to Magna Carta 1215 ?!?

There is absolutely ZERO mention of any "Parliament" (or "Congress" ... or "Senate") in the Great Charter.

Funny that, isn't it?

After all, our 1215 ancestors knew all about that kind of thing ... having been subservient to a Roman version for about 400 years.

Little wonder "Parliament", "Congress", "Senate" not mentioned as "enforcement" doncha think?

And then, of course the very first thing "a Parliament" did, once it had wheedled it way into recognition, was to try to water it down ... eventually resulting in THREE clauses today (two of which are totally irrelevant ... the first two he mentions ... being totally counter-productive) ... the THIRD still being fully-relevant, but notice no Article 61/Lawful Rebellion clause from the 1215 TREATY!

Of course, the mention of a "Free Press" put me rolling on the floor laughing at Hannan's utter naivety!!!

Hannan's problem ... clever - and as full of facts as he may be - is that he is still fundamentally brainwashed. Well ... MEP  ... Member of the European Parliament ...says it all, of course! (Overall, what Daniel Hannan displays, is a  fundamental argument for never voting, of course!)

And he omits to mention the ultimate strength of the Magna Carta 1215. It wasn't a Parliamentary Statute ... that could be repealed (as they have tried to do with most of it).

It was a TREATY, pre-dating ALL Parliaments (after the Roman version had eventually collapsed under it's own weight).

A TREATY between the Monarch and the People of England.

A TREATY that - for once and for all - took "Law" out of the hands of a Monarch (via "dictats", based on some "plucked-out-of-their-arses-Divine-Right"), and placed it firmly into the hands of The People ... via Juries.

And the only way a TREATY can be annulled is if both Parties get together again, and mutually agree on an annullment.

Otherwise it remains a Lawful Contract, until such a time as the Parties get back together.

So ... whatever any "Parliament" does - or tries to do ... all that ever happens is this:

1. If a "Parliamentary Act" supports the Magna Carta 1215 ... the Act is irrelevant ... because we have the TREATY which suffices as The Common Law ("the law-of0the-land").

2. If a "Parliamentary Act" contravenes the Magna Carta 1215 ... the Act is irrelevant ... because the TREATY has already rendered that Act null & void.

Conclusion: There cannot be any relevance whatsoever to Acts of "Parliament" or "Congress" ... which can only create a "Legal" ... being the EXACT OPPOSITE of "Law" (by definition).

So ... it really doesn't matter what they do. Article 61 of the TREATY still stands ... and Lawful Rebellion is everyone's Right AND DUTY (DUTY to our descendants).

(And it doesn't matter how many times they call "Legals" Laws. It doesn't matter. A falsehood does NOT become the truth, just by mere - and constant - repetition).

(I explained all of this in my book, of course)

(It would be nice if Larken Rose got his head around all this ... but he does so well, it's kinda hard to criticise ...)