OATH TO THE LORDS

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby John H. » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:34 pm

musashi wrote:As said before, the procedure of article 61 requires us to transfer our allegiance from the queen to the lords. Rebellion without this transfer is not lawful. It is simple treason.

I rarely counsel others in great matters, but this matter is too great not to. If you want to act in lawful rebellion then you must make oath to the barons and transfer your allegiance.
The oath I sent is in the attachment. Use it or not, but make one you must.
Musashi


Musahi,
I agree about the necessity of swearing alleigance to the Barons Committe being essential before Chapter 61 comes into effect for the willing individual. It would be prudent to do it in public and have witnesses and documentation.

As you no doubt know, the wording of Chapter 61 is as follows:

"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.....".

The second sentence is arguably more important because it imposes a postive obligation on the unwilling. The police who were involved in the Birkenhead Event should have been on board. Ignorance is no excuse as they say.

Here is the wording of the 2001 Petition:

"WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty

• to withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval;

• to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953....".

The Barons orders were therefore to uphold common law rights, freedoms and customs. Actions that those police constables have taken since then which are contrary to those principles are ultra vires and actionable under Chapter 61 now for misconduct in office or public nuisance.

Regards, John Hurst.
John H.
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:37 am

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby John H. » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:45 pm

holy vehm wrote:Some very interesting thoughts and points raised there.

If lawful rebellion is to be used as it was intended, then the barons need to step upto the plate now, they are the leaders in this, we are their soldiers. Next time a court is to be 'seized' then it should be with the barons not without. Otherwise lawful rebellion is meaningless. Without we are just a rabble of angry men. Without we may be acting unlawfully.....



Holy Vehm,
The important point in any legal judgment (which Magna Carta was because the Barons were the final court of appeal short of trial by combat) is the principles by which the Judgment was arrived at. In this case it was duress which to this day is a defence to all offences except treason and murder. And the legal principle of duress is that actions taken in self defence remove the "guilty mind" element of a crime. Some people may describe us as a rabble, but we are not acting unlawfully.

Regards, John: of the Hurst family.
John H.
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:37 am

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby newmannewy » Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:03 am

The magna carta 1215 was signed under duress by King John.. hence pope innocent declared it NULL & VOID!!.. Its null & void because it was signed UNDER DURESS!

The king already have a contract with the pope in 1213 to hand over all of his kingdom.. reducing king john to a vassal of the pope.. Now how could the Barons as third parties intervene with the contract between the King & the Pope ?.. Can a 3rd party intervene on a contract ? answer, NO.. they couldnt ! Hence it was DECLARED NULL & VOID!

Magna carta 1215 & lawful rebellion HOLD NO BASIS - from where I see it.. Im also convinced the barons who filled it do not understand that or are leading us all astray!!
http://www.thebigwakeup.co.uk - My own personal site dedicated to helping newbies wake up and see the bigger picture.
Feel free to pass comment, point out my failings & or generally critisice - (It's a working progress)
newmannewy
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby huntingross » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:14 pm

You might be right newman, but when did a little thing like duress ever stop the PTB from taking countries with invading armies at the tip of a sword or enforcing "contracts" that were "entered into" with the threat of force.

Apparently the "law is as law does" seems to be sufficient grounds....their modus operandi.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby newmannewy » Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:08 pm

huntingross wrote:You might be right newman, but when did a little thing like duress ever stop the PTB from taking countries with invading armies at the tip of a sword or enforcing "contracts" that were "entered into" with the threat of force..


Not only invading countries, but enforcing contracts against "us" too.. I fully understand what they do.. But where does it leave us ?.. As far as im aware lawful rebellion is null & void.. Swearing allegience to a Baron via magna carta is null & void because the contract between king john & the barons was never a lawful contract in the first place. And delcared so 6-7 days later!

As far as im aware common law courts do not exists in this land.. (maybe queens bench division on appeal - but very strict application). As decided in the 1615 where law & equity meet, equity prevails.. as far as im aware we have slave status in this world (i.e person, human being etc)..

So from my own understanding there are 2 worlds co-existing.. Natural/Man-made.. Natural being law of the jungle and anything goes.. Which the man-made world tends to descend into once every so often.. The other being man-made.. If its man-made it has not been made by our own hands, but by the hands of the cannonists.. Those claiming to be christ on earth!

So the only way I see to break free in any lawful or legal way is a) challenge the pope's claim to represent christ on earth and thus shattering his monopoly on assumed authority.. or b) changing our own status/capacity within the system in order to lift us out of slave status.

The only other alternatives to a & b from my own thinking involve a return back to natural law.. Where man refuses to accept his slave status where up on he destroys all that was built in order free himself.. Which to me looks like the way the world is going, because of the arrogance & narrow mindedness of the system itself, and of the pig-ignorance of those who control the system.
http://www.thebigwakeup.co.uk - My own personal site dedicated to helping newbies wake up and see the bigger picture.
Feel free to pass comment, point out my failings & or generally critisice - (It's a working progress)
newmannewy
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby musashi » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:32 pm

Magna Carta is as valid today as it was when it was signed. That is to say that it is law.
To say that it was signed under duress is perfectly correct – but so was the Versailles Treaty when it was signed by Germany to conclude the First World War. All such documents are signed under duress because they are signed by the losing side in any conflict and, naturally enough, they do not want to lose or sign any such instrument. When a nation, state, or institution of any kind is militarily defeated everything they do after that is done under duress. That is to say that they would not do these things in other, better, circumstances. To conclude that Magna Carta is invalid because it was signed in the same circumstances as every other peace treaty is to say that every other treaty is invalid, unlawful and wholly inapplicable. This is, palpably, nonsense.
Equally, to say that a foreign potentate – such as a pope – has the authority to negate or nullify a purely domestic agreement is foolish and based on a somewhat poor philosophical deduction from insufficient understanding and a paucity of verified information.
In the seventh century a certain pope produced a document known as the Donation of Constantine. This demonstrably (and several times proven) fraudulent document, purporting to be from the emperor Constantine, gave all earthly dominion to the Roman church and the self-appointed representative of god on earth – the pope. This pope claimed that he had the authority to appoint or remove every king on earth as a result of this gift. If this kind of claim went into court it would be struck from the lists amidst gales of laughter. The existence of any god is unprovable, and his representative would have a very hard time substantiating his case that an invisible, impalpable, immanent entity is his main and only witness. Claim struck out!
The reason why the pope thought he could nullify the Magna Carta was the previous Charter of 1213 (or the Treaty of Verona, if you like) in which John handed over all his earthly possessions to said pope in exchange for forgiveness and to escape hellfire. John did this in an effort to placate a wrathful pope who excommunicated John and threatened eternal damnation not just on him but on all his innocent family for several generations. John did this under duress, did he not? So the Charter of 1213 was obtained by duress and is unenforceable and any assumed authority is negated.
King John was known as ‘John Lackland’ – because he lacked land. What land, therefore, could he give to the pope even supposing it was voluntary and not under duress?
Kingship is from the people, and in the same way that David Cameron cannot hand the country, or political power to Bill MacGubligan from Connemara, John could not hand power, authority etc. to the pope. All he could do was to hand over his personal wealth and whatever other property he had – but not England!
So, a corrupt pope brings forth a fraudulent document giving him power. He frightens John into signing everything away, nullifies a domestic treaty on the basis of his fraud and claims that an invisible deity has conferred all earthly power and authority on him over the whole world - correction – over the whole of creation. Oh aye? And someone out there in the construct thinks that this is real?
Magna Carta stands, unsullied by Christian corruption, fraud, and the paralogism of fatal ignorance.
Musashi
The debate concerning the Magna Carta was put to bed some time ago and, just as when the children are put to bed, we adults should be getting on with necessary things of greater consequence.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby holy vehm » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:16 pm

Good and fair points raised musashi :yes:
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby John H. » Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:25 am

newmannewy wrote:The magna carta 1215 was signed under duress by King John.. hence pope innocent declared it NULL & VOID!!.. Its null & void because it was signed UNDER DURESS!.....

Magna carta 1215 & lawful rebellion HOLD NO BASIS - from where I see it.. Im also convinced the barons who filled it do not understand that or are leading us all astray!!


newmannewy,
You are overlooking two common law principles. The first is that the god of battles decides ownership of land. King John in 1215 was subject to force majeure, not duress.

The second is that the Barons were (and still are) are the final Court of Appeal:

"The barons appeared in London on the day appointed, and demanded of the King, that, in consequence of his own oath before the primate, as well as in deference to their just rights, he should grant them a renewal of Henry's charter, and a confirmation of the laws of St. Edward....".

http://www.historyoflaw.info/magna-carta-history-a.d.-1215.html

The modern Baron's reasoning is in their petition. Have you read it?

Regards, John H.
John H.
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:37 am

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby Hilary » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:52 pm

musashi wrote:Magna Carta is as valid today as it was when it was signed. That is to say that it is law.
To say that it was signed under duress is perfectly correct – but so was the Versailles Treaty when it was signed by Germany to conclude the First World War. All such documents are signed under duress because they are signed by the losing side in any conflict and, naturally enough, they do not want to lose or sign any such instrument. When a nation, state, or institution of any kind is militarily defeated everything they do after that is done under duress. That is to say that they would not do these things in other, better, circumstances. To conclude that Magna Carta is invalid because it was signed in the same circumstances as every other peace treaty is to say that every other treaty is invalid, unlawful and wholly inapplicable. This is, palpably, nonsense.
Equally, to say that a foreign potentate – such as a pope – has the authority to negate or nullify a purely domestic agreement is foolish and based on a somewhat poor philosophical deduction from insufficient understanding and a paucity of verified information.
In the seventh century a certain pope produced a document known as the Donation of Constantine. This demonstrably (and several times proven) fraudulent document, purporting to be from the emperor Constantine, gave all earthly dominion to the Roman church and the self-appointed representative of god on earth – the pope. This pope claimed that he had the authority to appoint or remove every king on earth as a result of this gift. If this kind of claim went into court it would be struck from the lists amidst gales of laughter. The existence of any god is unprovable, and his representative would have a very hard time substantiating his case that an invisible, impalpable, immanent entity is his main and only witness. Claim struck out!
The reason why the pope thought he could nullify the Magna Carta was the previous Charter of 1213 (or the Treaty of Verona, if you like) in which John handed over all his earthly possessions to said pope in exchange for forgiveness and to escape hellfire. John did this in an effort to placate a wrathful pope who excommunicated John and threatened eternal damnation not just on him but on all his innocent family for several generations. John did this under duress, did he not? So the Charter of 1213 was obtained by duress and is unenforceable and any assumed authority is negated.
King John was known as ‘John Lackland’ – because he lacked land. What land, therefore, could he give to the pope even supposing it was voluntary and not under duress?
Kingship is from the people, and in the same way that David Cameron cannot hand the country, or political power to Bill MacGubligan from Connemara, John could not hand power, authority etc. to the pope. All he could do was to hand over his personal wealth and whatever other property he had – but not England!
So, a corrupt pope brings forth a fraudulent document giving him power. He frightens John into signing everything away, nullifies a domestic treaty on the basis of his fraud and claims that an invisible deity has conferred all earthly power and authority on him over the whole world - correction – over the whole of creation. Oh aye? And someone out there in the construct thinks that this is real?
Magna Carta stands, unsullied by Christian corruption, fraud, and the paralogism of fatal ignorance.
Musashi
The debate concerning the Magna Carta was put to bed some time ago and, just as when the children are put to bed, we adults should be getting on with necessary things of greater consequence.


Yes, the pen is mightier than the sword!
'Mother Earth is about to give birth, become a star and ascend' George Kavassilas 2011.
User avatar
Hilary
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:10 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby shetlandwarrior » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:33 pm

huntingross wrote:Article 61 is to “better allay the discord arisen between us and our barons”

The “WE” and “US” referred to within Article 61 is expanded in paragraph 2 :

“if we, our chief justiciar, our bailiffs or any of our officials”

Should WE

“offend in any respect against any man, or break any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is notified to four of the said twenty-five barons, the four shall come to us”

This is where the 40 days comes in to remedy the transgression and failure to do so

“the four barons mentioned before shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons. Together with the community of the whole land, they shall then distrain and distress us in every way possible, namely by seizing castles” etc.

So the barons WITH the community of the whole land, THEY [the barons] shall then distrain…..

“Whoever in the country wants to, may take an oath to obey the orders of the twenty-five barons for the execution of all the previously mentioned matters and, with the barons, to distress us to the utmost of his power. We publicly and freely give permission to every one who wishes to take this oath, and we shall never forbid any one from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling to this oath, we shall by our command compel them to swear to it.”

You may take an oath to obey the orders of the 25 barons [the WE/US publicly and freely give permission to….and shall never forbid anyone from taking it] and, WITH the barons distress US to the utmost of HIS [is this the barons or any baron] power.

If you are unwilling to take this oath, WE shall compel THEM [whoever in the country / community] to swear it.

So with regard to the oath, whether you have been asked to swear, want to swear or are unwilling to swear, you will be compelled to swear.

The distrain and distress in every possible way by seizure of property is by the Barons WITH the community….it IS NOT the community acting without the Barons.

Property so seized is only returned once the barons are satisfied that “redress has been obtain in their opinion”……” And when amends have been made, they shall obey us as before.”



shet :-seems to me to suggest , you have to petition 4 of the 25 barons to make this work according to article 61 not sure how many signitures makes a petition, petitioning 1 probably dosent count less i miss read it
shetlandwarrior
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:39 am
Location: no fixed abode so northamptonshire today tommorrow where it takes me

PreviousNext

Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron