It's All Beyond You

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby treeman » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:17 pm

You are correct as usual, I resign from this forum as of now. Good bye all. :peace:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby Freeman Stephen » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:00 pm

?
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby Freeman Stephen » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:44 am

Most are in it for material gain (even if that be avoidance of a material loss). I wont pretend Im not in this for personal gain myself but the gains I want are to live in a genuinely free society but Im starting to think so many deserve to be in chains because thats what they advocate for everyone else even if they do disengenuously support freedom when it suits them.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby woodman » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:59 pm

What was all that about then??
‘Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds’- Robert Nesta Marley (1945 - 1981)

‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’ - Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
User avatar
woodman
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Two Dogs Fightin'

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby bustachemtrails » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:44 pm

Are you serious Paul? mate you must be in deial!!....the Nice treaty comes into effect giving Europol powers above the English police in 4 months time....they have diplomatic immunity and guns. They (under the fascist EU constitution) will be able to arrest you and extradite YOU without any evidence whatsoever. The Lisbon treaty (EU constitution) has already been ratified.

The freeman concept was a necessary lie but is a distraction to the only remedy we have, lawful rebellion, I have been banging on about this for years. The barons committee are the highest constitutional authority in the land who make up the grand jury of the peoples court under common law. They need the army to arrive and will know we have once they start receiving the oaths. Without the army they wont be entering the battle ground and who can blame them? They did their bit and we have sat on our asses doing exactly what Article 61 says we have no lawful right to do....by using their corrupt courts and their treasonous legislation against them. Such double think is incredible. If we use their rules then we give them credulity. If we go when summonsed (even to deny jurisdiction) we consent and also they still get paid from the public purse...its clearly unconstitutional to do this!

Anyone who claims to support the common law but is not in lawful rebellion is a hypocrite. Article 61 is a common law tenet and has been invoked according to constitutional law. No excuse. Enough said Paul. Please Join us by using the constitution to defend it or by your own omission, aid the quislings by your tacit consent, its that simple really. Peace.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:53 pm

1829 translation here
http://www.bsswebsite.me.uk/History/MagnaCarta/magnacarta-1215.htm

And whoever of our land pleaseth, may swear, that he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, in accomplishing all the things aforesaid, and that with them he will harass us to the utmost of his power: and we publicly and freely give leave to every one to swear who is willing to swear; and we will never forbid any to swear. But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid.

1892 translation here
http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/magnacarta.html

And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress us as much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling of themselves and of their own accord to take an oath to the twenty-five barons to help them to distrain and distress us, we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command.

1989 British Library version
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.asp

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

1995 Constitution Society
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid.

One question for you Busta. When did Elizabeth II give the "command", mentioned in the aforementioned extracts of the MC? To my knowledge she has never issued such a command to compel (assuming she has the authority to do so - which I seriously doubt) and therefore those not in Lawful Rebellion are not breaking the law at all.

Lawful Rebellion is merely a procedure for defending the law. One procedure of many possible procedures. Just because it has been codified and acknowledged by successive monarchs does not in any way make it the ONLY possible procedure. This insistence that everyone declare Lawful Rebellion is reminiscent of the kind of dogma found within the various religions wherein, "OUR WAY IS THE WAY TO HEAVEN! NO OTHER WAY EXISTS AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WILL GO TO HELL!!"

I have no doubt that many people are doing their bit IN THEIR OWN WAY to fight the tyranny that is descending upon us all. To slight such people, indeed to criminalise them in the name of some 800 year old piece of paper, is ridiculous in the extreme! How wise is it to declare enemies where there could far more easily be allies? If people want to enter Lawful Rebellion good for them - they should not be discouraged from doing so, but neither should others be brow beaten for choosing another way.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby Freeman Stephen » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:11 am

woodman wrote:What was all that about then??

?
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby bustachemtrails » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:11 am

Magna Carta 1215 gives consent to the population standing in lawful rebellion. She has no authority to make any demands as she is not the reigning monarch.

The demand comes under the constitutional and common law tenet of Article 61 the 'security claue' as some call it. It is unconstitutional not to abide by the constitution that should be obvious. We all have the duty to protect the common law and there is no excuse or deferment from that fact. You just love to arue the toss whilst the constitution burns don't you Dreadlock!!

As said....it is unlawful not to stand by the constitution and that should be obvious. If we don't stand by it to protect it from the EU it will be lost forever. Those that ignore this will wake up in the nightmare of their own omission. You have no other solution to offer or you would have done already. Its pointless arguing with the likes of you. You have no other way!! and you it is the LAW that brow beats you into making this stand NOT ME!

You think Magna Carta and the constitution is just bits of paper do you? well those bits of paper provide protection against tyranny BUT only to those who uderstand it. You are no more than a shill and a traitor to the law and customs of the people of this country, shame on you Dreadlock!

You are a waste of energy!
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:48 pm

Rhetoric is easy. Now let's try a little logic shall we? According to your interpretation of the MC, which I disagree with, part of article 61 is stating that the people who are not in lawful rebellion MUST enter lawful rebellion, or be acting unlawfully. Agreed?

Now the four translations of the original clearly state, in their own ways, that the monarch may give a command to those not in lawful rebellion.

"we will compel them by our command" (1829)
"we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command." (1892)
"we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command." (1989)
"we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid." (1995)

To command is to act. I ask you again. When did Elizabeth II issue the command?
You say that she cannot make any demands, by which I assume you mean issue commands, because she is not the reigning monarch. Clearly she must be the reigning monarch otherwise aticle 61 becomes a nonsense. Why?

Because that article takes effect once Lawful Rebellion has been declared. If a declaration of Lawful Rebellion means that the monarch has been deposed, as you imply, then the command cannot be made. But clearly it can be made because article 61 clearly states to that effect. Therefore the mere declaration of Lawful Rebellion is not and cannot be enough to remove the monarch from office. It merely allows the monarch to be disobeyed without repercussion. Hardly the same thing!

Furthermore the MC goes on to state that once the issues resulting in Lawful Rebellion have been redressed, then the people shall go back to obeying the monarch. It says nothing about a new coronation ceremony!

If you disagree with this logic then please provide a quote from any translation of the MC which states that Lawful Rebellion deposes the monarch concerned.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: It's All Beyond You

Postby woodman » Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:51 pm

treeman wrote:You are correct as usual, I resign from this forum as of now. Good bye all. :peace:


My question was in response to Stan's comment, and mushasi's de-register request, rather than the Nice treaty which I am aware of.

:peace:
‘Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds’- Robert Nesta Marley (1945 - 1981)

‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’ - Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
User avatar
woodman
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Two Dogs Fightin'

Next

Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron