OATH TO THE LORDS

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby pedawson » Tue May 31, 2011 8:42 pm

holy vehm wrote:Where can one find more - a most interesting read.

I will go and dust off the noose :yes:

Here are 3 links I think it may be all you need.
http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Tribute%20to%20Elisabeth%20Beckett.htm
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25830
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=6828&hilit=+beckett
The last one is by myself on this forum, you must have missed that one :grin:
The first on is a tribute to her.


Namaste, phil;
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
pedawson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby holy vehm » Tue May 31, 2011 8:50 pm

Thanks phil, i sent a pm before i read this :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 treeman » Tue May 31, 2011 8:51 pm

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA

21 January 2009

Madam

Unconstitutional reign


Giving careful consideration to the mode of address in this letter, although in courtesy I have addressed it in conventional manner, it is clear that having, in effect, abdicated by failure to perform your coronation oath you leave the people of this nation without effective titular head to whom we may address our petitions. I write to you only in your pre-eminence in Common Law.
I write on Edmund Burke's remark that for evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.
At your coronation you swore on oath to rule this country according to our laws and customs. This contract with us was written clearly in Magna Carta and replicated by Edward I in 1274. After saying that he would give no such oath, the archbishops, bishops, barons and freemen said that, in this case, they would get another king.

In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this oath then chapter 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.

I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.
In other words, the 1911 claim, is incorrect and the monarch's assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent - as in the Northern Ireland Bill.

Despite all the long years of your reign this method of agreement, either forced on you, or under "automatic assent" nevertheless cannot be upheld as lawful.

Many people who have written to you on constitutional matters have received replies from your secretary (most recently, Sonia Bonici) saying that their letter had been forwarded to the government department misleadingly called the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Ministry of Justice. Your compliance with this has permitted the judiciary under these government departments to claim, as in the Chagos Archipelago appeal, that our fundamental liberties do not exist and that the peoples of these islands have no rights under our law.

I am old and now seriously ill. I cannot die without making clear to you that you have broken your oath to us your people.

The 1911 act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is against our constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of 1627. The most serious instance of this is the use of our taxes to fund the banking system of this country: this is being explained to the electorate as a step which will in some way make us rich, whilst in fact it is not only unlawful, but a most serious abrogation of our rights and your duties under our constitution.


Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.

Yours Faithfully,


Elisabeth Beckett



Copy to:
The Archbishop of Canterbury

Needed highlighting. Cheers Rev for the link :shake: :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: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby treeman » Tue May 31, 2011 8:52 pm

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA

21 January 2009

Madam

Unconstitutional reign


Giving careful consideration to the mode of address in this letter, although in courtesy I have addressed it in conventional manner, it is clear that having, in effect, abdicated by failure to perform your coronation oath you leave the people of this nation without effective titular head to whom we may address our petitions. I write to you only in your pre-eminence in Common Law.
I write on Edmund Burke's remark that for evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.
At your coronation you swore on oath to rule this country according to our laws and customs. This contract with us was written clearly in Magna Carta and replicated by Edward I in 1274. After saying that he would give no such oath, the archbishops, bishops, barons and freemen said that, in this case, they would get another king.

In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this oath then chapter 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.

I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.
In other words, the 1911 claim, is incorrect and the monarch's assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent - as in the Northern Ireland Bill.

Despite all the long years of your reign this method of agreement, either forced on you, or under "automatic assent" nevertheless cannot be upheld as lawful.

Many people who have written to you on constitutional matters have received replies from your secretary (most recently, Sonia Bonici) saying that their letter had been forwarded to the government department misleadingly called the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Ministry of Justice. Your compliance with this has permitted the judiciary under these government departments to claim, as in the Chagos Archipelago appeal, that our fundamental liberties do not exist and that the peoples of these islands have no rights under our law.

I am old and now seriously ill. I cannot die without making clear to you that you have broken your oath to us your people.

The 1911 act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is against our constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of 1627. The most serious instance of this is the use of our taxes to fund the banking system of this country: this is being explained to the electorate as a step which will in some way make us rich, whilst in fact it is not only unlawful, but a most serious abrogation of our rights and your duties under our constitution.


Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.

Yours Faithfully,


Elisabeth Beckett



Copy to:
The Archbishop of Canterbury

Needed highlighting. Cheers Rev for the link :shake: :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: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby chomerly » Tue May 31, 2011 9:26 pm

treeman wrote:Her Majesty The Queen

I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.
In other words, the 1911 claim, is incorrect and the monarch's assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent - as in the Northern Ireland Bill.


Could you point us in the direction of these bills and also the bill sent by Edward VII.
I ask as i think it will be highly important to those, like me, who are looking to serve notice, that we have any and all credible information to backup our claims and also deny the Fabian followers the ability to argue that what has been stated is false.

I think it is important in everything we do to fight the system that we have all, undeniable literature available as our weapons are pens and spoken words. And we all know too well what are their weapons.
User avatar
chomerly
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby pedawson » Tue May 31, 2011 9:38 pm

Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
pedawson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby treeman » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:05 pm

Bump.
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: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby treeman » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:22 pm

The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael wrote:No man can truly be free when his actions are dependent upon the authority of another. Therefore, at least in my own reckoning, a Freeman is simply a man who denies or revokes his consent to be governed. The right to self-determination is even enshrined by international law, under the Decalaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Since it is clear that reliance upon the Magna Carta for remedy is dependent upon the subjects' allegiance to the Crown, a Freeman can only rely upon the inalienable and ancient rights described therein, such clauses 39 and 40, which describe the rights to due process and a fair trial, irrespective of allegiance to the Crown.

However, it is my contention that the entire British legal system is predicated on a fraud of the grandest magnitude, and as such, can be rendered null and void by a properly convened Grand Jury, following a fair trial of all the available evidence. It also seems evident that the monarch has fatally breached her contract with the people of these lands, which her family has exploited for their own private gain for almost a millennium. It might now be worth re-reading article 61...

[61] Since, moreover, for God and the betterment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the discord that has arisen between us and our barons we have granted all these things aforesaid, wishing them to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we give and grant them the under-written security, namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe, hold and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in any way against anyone or transgress any of the articles of the peace or the security and the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us, or to our justiciar if we are out of the kingdom, and, laying the transgression before us, shall petition us to have that transgression corrected without delay. And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days, reckoning from the time it was brought to our notice or to that of our justiciar if we were out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons together with the community of the whole land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely, by seizing castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can, saving our person and the persons of our queen and our children, until, in their opinion, amends have been made; and when amends have been made, they shall obey us as they did before. 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. And if any of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country or is in any other way prevented from carrying out the things aforesaid, the rest of the aforesaid twenty-five barons shall choose as they think fit another one in his place, and he shall take the oath like the rest. In all matters the execution of which is committed to these twenty-five barons, if it should happen that these twenty-five are present yet disagree among themselves about anything, or if some of those summoned will not or cannot be present, that shall be held as fixed and established which the majority of those present ordained or commanded, exactly as if all the twenty-five had consented to it; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the things aforesaid and will do all they can to get them observed. And we will procure nothing from anyone, either personally or through anyone else, whereby any of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing is procured, let it be void and null, and we will never use it either personally or through another.


If the Barons are unable to address the crimes against the people under constitutional law, it is time for the Freemen of these lands to step forward and bring the necessary actions, by any lawful and non-violent means necessary.

Peace

: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: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby tattooman » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:47 pm

if the queen has broken her coronation oath which she has on several occasions. where does this leave the lords. it can be argued in court that the queen or any agents of her have no lawfull authority as she is a fraude if you are charged with a victimless crime
tattooman
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby chomerly » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:20 am

You'll find that the lords are in as deep as their necks as much as any other titular figure.

To be honest, the way the whole system has been infiltrated and corrupted means the only way out would be to completely collapse the whole system and start again from scratch.
That means the Monarchy, Parliament, the House of Lords, the Ministry of Justice and all other related "government" departments and officials would have to be removed.

Either that or Common Law would have to be taught to every man, woman and child so as to understand that it supersedes Statute Law and that the laws of treason would have to be made an absolute clear and fundamental in every decision process regarding the UK and it's people.
User avatar
chomerly
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

PreviousNext

Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest