Tax by Consent

[Dreadlock]

Amazing how quickly people resort to personal attacks when their beliefs are threatened. Are we adults here or children?

@Busta
I simply stated the facts as I see them and asked a question. At no point did I actually state my position, so I'm not sure how you came to the conclusions you did about what I think or how I act.

You WRONGLY claim that "Similarly Parliament is sovereign."...which is not true. Only treasonous criminals would attempt to usurp the sovereignty of the people. THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN! not parliament.

The sovereignty of the people is invested in Parliament with their consent (theoretically) so no I'm not wrong. The two are essentially identical (I'm not saying I believe this! This is theory!).

You also state "BY LAW NONE OF US are constrained by the MC unless we consent to it." I agree absolutely with that statement and I DO consent to it without hesitation.

Good. Now answer this, how can anyone not consenting to or acting upon the terms in the MC, either in part or in its entirety, become a criminal simply by refusing to do so? (Not including the monarch).

As you rightly pointed out, the Queen did consent and renew the promise (I believe I was wrong to call it a contract) but no one else did and get this - NO ONE ELSE HAS TO. The purpose of a constitution is to restrain GOVERNMENT. Constitutions define what government can and cannot do hence only the Queen, as head of state, need renew the promise. The MC is a mere subset of the common law. It applies only to the government. It states the remedies the people have IF THEY CHOOSE TO ACT. Tell me where in the MC it states that the people MUST ENFORCE THEIR REMEDIES?

You summarise with 2 points at the end which are but a guide to your ignorance.

1). We have inalienable rights and also, rights and customs that our forefathers/mothers already fought and died for! (LEST WE FORGET).
2). Everyone has equal rights under the law if the rule of law has not been usurped.

From a theoretical perspective I agree with your two points. I was clearly being pragmatic when I made my two closing points and I stand by them. Ignorance doesn't even come into it.
When a psychopath has a gun pointed to your head are you going to wait for your inalienable rights and the customs of your forefathers to save you?
Are you expecting the MC to leap up and shield you from those bullets?

So Dreadlock.....it appears that you do not stand under common law and are unwilling to abide by the rule of law. In point of fact that makes you a criminal sir! You are aiding and abetting the destruction of national sovereignty by your acquiescence sir! thank you for your confession...sir!

Really? Are you Wannabefree in disguise? I honestly don't want another slanging match with someone on this forum. Try to keep this intellectual. That goes for you too Musashi.

[musashi]

I extended no invitation to a slanging match - and nor do I extend one now.
I merely excercised my right to observe and comment.

This second response has been made necessary by the charge concealed in the veiled insult contained in your comment - "Try to keep this intellectual."

The inference here in this veiled attack is that I have not been intellectual in my original comment. This inference is, of course, the covert though not very subtle invitation to defend myself and be drawn into diversion and distraction. I am disinclined to acquiesce to the request.

Understanding this, by the way, is the result of my application of intellect.

My input ends here.

Musashi.

[bustachemtrails]

Problem with you dreadlock is that you are not observing the facts and then as a result don't make rational comments. I sincerely apologise if that truth appears to be an attack on you that is the truth as it appears to me for example:

Amazing how quickly people resort to personal attacks when their beliefs are threatened. Are we adults here or children?

Firstly, if what I write appears as a personal attack then I do apologise in advance. I being human and a little frustrated by those who espouse unresearched responses to rational and evidential information that I can produce (but research for yourself is better), feel that it is time to be blunt with people instead of playing to their ego's, I will be.

Secondly I don't use beliefs. I have written facts of which you can research for yourself. I am feeling threatened by the unlawful behaviour of many of my fellow countrymen and women who deny Article 61 and in doing so, the rule of law. Our constitution is worth fighting for folks!

@Busta
I simply stated the facts as I see them and asked a question. At no point did I actually state my position, so I'm not sure how you came to the conclusions you did about what I think or how I act.

Your post betrays your intention and is fraught with faults (my honest opinion).

You WRONGLY claim that "Similarly Parliament is sovereign."...which is not true. Only treasonous criminals would attempt to usurp the sovereignty of the people. THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN! not parliament.


The sovereignty of the people is invested in Parliament with their consent (theoretically) so no I'm not wrong. The two are essentially identical (I'm not saying I believe this! This is theory!).

The sovereignty at this time is back with the people by default of the holder of the office of sovereign. This occurred the very first time the Coronation Oath and contract was breached. Yes the treasonous quisling preach that they hold the sovereignty but do you really think that can be true whilst treason goes on unabated? OK well that is your theory or your belief. I see. Beliefs are dangerous things.

You also state "BY LAW NONE OF US are constrained by the MC unless we consent to it." I agree absolutely with that statement and I DO consent to it without hesitation.


Good. Now answer this, how can anyone not consenting to or acting upon the terms in the MC, either in part or in its entirety, become a criminal simply by refusing to do so? (Not including the monarch).

As you rightly pointed out, the Queen did consent and renew the promise (I believe I was wrong to call it a contract) but no one else did and get this - NO ONE ELSE HAS TO. The purpose of a constitution is to restrain GOVERNMENT. Constitutions define what government can and cannot do hence only the Queen, as head of state, need renew the promise. The MC is a mere subset of the common law. It applies only to the government. It states the remedies the people have IF THEY CHOOSE TO ACT. Tell me where in the MC it states that the people MUST ENFORCE THEIR REMEDIES?

To answer your first question: it is a criminal offence not to uphold the constitution in times of treason. I would expect you to know this to be frank. Magna Carta 1215 states that the barons "along with the whole realm" (paraphrasing - take a look) "must disress and distrain us by ceasing our castles etc.... therfore WE ALL must reject the regime (according to law not my opinion or judgement ok?) and give no aid and comfort to those working under a usurped authority. It is treason not to back Article 61. It goes on to say we must give no aid or comfort to our fellow man/woman until they stand under the law.

(The first line of the second paragraph makes no sense to me so I cant respond to it.)

The constitution binds not only the governemt and the people but also the monarch, evidently by Article 61 MC 1215. And Elizabeth II breached the promise so not sure what your saying? The MC is a major factor of the common law especially in times of institutionalised treason. Article 61 gives us redress YES US THE PEOPLE but obviously the people have to use it. MC applies to ALL of the realm not just government as said. It is treason to deny the constitution its really that simple Dreadlock.

You summarise with 2 points at the end which are but a guide to your ignorance.

1). We have inalienable rights and also, rights and customs that our forefathers/mothers already fought and died for! (LEST WE FORGET).
2). Everyone has equal rights under the law if the rule of law has not been usurped.



From a theoretical perspective I agree with your two points. I was clearly being pragmatic when I made my two closing points and I stand by them. Ignorance doesn't even come into it.
When a psychopath has a gun pointed to your head are you going to wait for your inalienable rights and the customs of your forefathers to save you?
Are you expecting the MC to leap up and shield you from those bullets?

Your answer betrays your ignorance. IT IS ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO JUMP UP ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. WHEN WE ALL WAKE UP TO THIS FACT WE WILL DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION AND SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AS A RESULT. I HAVE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PROCESS THAT IS LAWFUL REBELLION WORKS.

So Dreadlock.....it appears that you do not stand under common law and are unwilling to abide by the rule of law. In point of fact that makes you a criminal sir! You are aiding and abetting the destruction of national sovereignty by your acquiescence sir! thank you for your confession...sir!



Really? Are you Wannabefree in disguise? I honestly don't want another slanging match with someone on this forum. Try to keep this intellectual. That goes for you too Musashi.

If you cant take my honest opinion then that is your problem mate not mine. I dont wear disguises by the way. I would rather not have a slanging match either its not very constructive. I have kept my arguement intillectual and factual. And what you wrote in reply to my post was exactly what my honourable friend Musashi said.

I prefer the words complete and utter hogwash....every offence intended with that one. If you are not in lawful rebellion then you are not my allie by law. You are by definition of law my enemy.

[Dreadlock]

@musashi

What a load of mackintosh!

Musashi

Yup, real intellectual.

@busta

M8, I have no problem with being corrected on facts, I welcome it. If I'm irrational or illogical I welcome correction on those points also. What I don't appreciate is straw-man building in an attempt to belittle me, which is how much of your post came across. I don't think there is any need for me to quote the relevant parts. Let's move on.

I'm going to be very clear. There are, it seems, two main points where my opinion differs from yours. Firstly You claim:

...it is a criminal offence not to uphold the constitution in times of treason.

You also believe that:

WE ALL must reject the regime (according to law not my opinion or judgement ok?)

In actual fact you are incorrect. Article 61 states:

...and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways... until redress has been obtained as they deem fit...

AS THEY DEEM FIT. Some people my think that distrain is not required. Note also the use of the word "shall" not "must". It goes on to state:

And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons...

LET... WHOEVER DESIRES IT. It is not mandatory for everyone to declare lawful rebellion - but those who desire it may do so. It goes on to state that the monarch will not forbid anyone from so swearing and that he forbids those who do not entire lawful rebellion from preventing such an oath.

It is clear that entering lawful rebellion is optional and not mandatory. It is no crime at all not to enter lawful rebellion.

Secondly, you think the constitution applies to everyone, including the people.

The constitution binds not only the governemt and the people but also the monarch,

It is my contention that constitutions bind only governments and not the people. Black's 2nd Ed.

CONSTITUTION. In public law • . The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict; as the Novel Constitutions of Justinian ; the Constitutions of Clarendon.

In American law. The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union or of a particulate state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void.

Thus, it is treasonous for governments to break their constitutions, but not treasonous for the people to let them. Stupid maybe, but not treasonous or criminal.

[pitano1]

personally,i feel that,their is a real,and present danger,when we allow
the scriveners,to do our thinking for us.

ie..if you,are not in lawful rebellion....your my enemy.

how about...rebelling lawfully.?

1215...runnymead...king john.[the selfish cunt] signs the MC...UNDER DURESS.

did,that stop,or change the circumstances of the common man.?

1953..Q.E.2 the head of the biggest criminal enterprise on earth,signs an oath.
WHICH IS ONLY,A BIT OF FUCKING PAPER...two dimensional...not of this earth.

1979..she `probably used it to wipe her arse`...

you wanna send her...notices....knock yourself out.!

i have the greatest respect,and consider any` in lawful rebelion,as a brother or
sister,and i certainly would ignore any scrivener,that tried to alter my thinking.

i`m a lawful rebel,but not in lawful rebellion...why.?

BECAUSE....nothing will change,until, WE...change our....MINDS.!
AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXIST.

except,by violence,and cohersion.
this being,that,some thieving,upper class fucker,has more authority,than us.!.????

ooh please come and help...your SUBJECTS....your majesty,i`m telling you i`m
gonna do this..your majesty.

the old cunt chucked,the fuckin lot..in a draw...for years....she realy cares...eh.


FACTS.
the royal`s have been,and still are,a bunch of inbred murdering fuckers.
they could not give a flying fuck,about...their..`so called subjects`
they just yearn for peace...a.piece...of everything.

THE DIVINE RIGHT TO RULE...absolute bollox.

[MY MEN ARE BIGGER THAN YOU,and they are going to knock you
about the head,until you agree...you scrote..]

THE LAW.
sorry,not really our policy,how could we get away,with things,if
we followed the law..`except when it suits us of course.
[see banking]..for confirmation`
we can do force...does,that help..

the way i see it.
or...let me put it differently...with a question.

WHATS THE DIFFERENCE...BETWEEN VOTING,AND LAWFUL REBELLION.?

both place their allegiance,and reliance on others.

this is not written,to insult....i respect the views of others,its just...MY..thoughts
you think..what you want..
kind regards.
pitano1

[bustachemtrails]

The very basic points are as follows:

The common law/constitutional law provides us a lawful remedy under it. It does not mean that we support the monarch far from it, we have taken away any presumed allegiance to the crown. And we stand by the very law we must defend if we value our lives.

This means that we have a possibly peaceful remedy when enough of use this remedy. Which being lawful and evidential and powerful, cannot be defended against by those individuals within the regime, unless they want to commit high treason (when the paper work is done correctly it evidences the fact/crime), which they appear not to want to do.

We ALL have a duty to ourselves and loved ones let alone the law, to stand by the constitution/common law in order to protect our right to choose to live under the common law.

It appears to you that you are free to choose not defend our sovereignty but you are evidently mistaken, Magna Carta also states that those of us who are defending our right to self determination can give NO aid nor comfort to who are not. That does not make them my allie in these dangerous times, and by their acquiescence not to stand by common law in defence of it and my sovereignty, they are the enemy! FOR WITHOUT OUR SOVEREIGNTY THERE IS BUT SLAVERY!

It is logically sound is it not, to state that, to NOT stand by the law you are trying to defend (especially whilst intitutionalised treason is being committed) is illogical? WHY WOULD YOU DENY COMMON LAW AND NOT DEFEND THE REMEDY IT PROVIDES!!?

"and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children"

Furthermore.

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.

http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

"We shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid." I think that its clear enough, that to not adhere to the invocation of Artcle 61 is not to be tolerated don't you?

You also believe that:

WE ALL must reject the regime (according to law not my opinion or judgement ok?)

I dont act on beliefs with the law. That would be foolish. There is no plea of ignorance in law.

In actual fact you are incorrect. Article 61 states:

...and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways... until redress has been obtained as they deem fit...


AS THEY DEEM FIT. Some people my think that distrain is not required. Note also the use of the word "shall" not "must". It goes on to state:[quote

In fact he correct wording is as follows:

"and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit"

You are not obseving common sense which is the spirit of the law. Some people dont know their arse from their elbow and must be blind to see no need to "distrain" an imposter/deposed/suubverted monarch destroying our freedom and even our health!! "Shall" along with "command", would seem to suggest its not a request! "AS THEY DEEM FIT" i.e. the retraction of the Nice treaty in particular as a minimun requirement = "redress"

"we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid."

Secondly, you think the constitution applies to everyone, including the people.

The constitution binds not only the governemt and the people but also the monarch,

Of course! IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL NOT TO STAND BY ARTICLE 61 (i,e, unlawful) do it or get no help from your fellow countrymen we must cease your castle, laands, etc etc....under the law, not my 'belief' of it OK?

It is my contention that constitutions bind only governments and not the people. Black's 2nd Ed.

Do me a favour! Quoting from their treasonous RULE BOOKS instead of observing the common law is double think freemen bs Dreadlock.

Thus, it is treasonous for governments to break their constitutions, but not treasonous for the people to let them. Stupid maybe, but not treasonous or criminal.

That is simply your 'belief'.




Pitano....you gotta stop smoking that weed man!

personally,i feel that,their is a real,and present danger,when we allow
the scriveners,to do our thinking for us.

ie..if you,are not in lawful rebellion....your my enemy.

By not defending the law YOU are the danger. No one is asking you to do your thinking for you. I have proven what I worte to be correct that is all. If you wish to hold onto beliefs then that is not my fault mate....."scriveners"?

scrivener
ˈskrɪv(ə)nə/
noun
historical
plural noun: scriveners

1.
a clerk, scribe, or notary.
2.
a person who invested money at interest for clients and lent funds to those who wanted to raise money on security.

Hmmm???

ie..if you,are not in lawful rebellion....your my enemy.

As the common law clearly states under article 61. YES.

how about...rebelling lawfully.?

We are. How about joining us?

1215...runnymead...king john.[the selfish cunt] signs the MC...UNDER DURESS.

It protects the people from tyranny...it seems you are well anti-constitution to me Pitano! He signed not with a blade at his throat but under duress of losing his leadership... i.e. "stop being a tyrant or we get another king".

did,that stop,or change the circumstances of the common man.?

Well obviously....it took away the 'divine right of kings' and brought the monarch under the law. And redress of a tyrant for the people under Article 61!

1953..Q.E.2 the head of the biggest criminal enterprise on earth,signs an oath.
WHICH IS ONLY,A BIT OF FUCKING PAPER...two dimensional...not of this earth.

It was a contract and oath. Which she breached and is not the holder of the office of sovereign. WE ARE!

i have the greatest respect,and consider any` in lawful rebelion,as a brother or
sister,and i certainly would ignore any scrivener,that tried to alter my thinking.

I think that is a bit arrogant and hypocritical to be frank, as you oppose the common law by not standing in lawful rebellion. You are no brother of mine until you do.

i`m a lawful rebel,but not in lawful rebellion...why.?

Because you are self confessed hypocrit by that statement...sorry just a statement of fact.

BECAUSE....nothing will change,until, WE...change our....MINDS.!
AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXIST.

And we act according to common law TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW. Cops with guns exist! Chemtrails exist! Poisonous food air and water exists and so, although authority doesn't exist (except for the fact we we all possess it under common law), a real and present danger does exist! It needs to stop!

except,by violence,and cohersion.
this being,that,some thieving,upper class fucker,has more authority,than us.!.????

Agreed.

ooh please come and help...your SUBJECTS....your majesty,i`m telling you i`m
gonna do this..your majesty.

the old cunt chucked,the fuckin lot..in a draw...for years....she realy cares...eh.

Lol...is that next comment supposed to be what the lawful rebels say? when we have rejected anything to do with her?.... of course she doean't care your just stating the bleedin obvious.

WHATS THE DIFFERENCE...BETWEEN VOTING,AND LAWFUL REBELLION.?

both place their allegiance,and reliance on others.

Absolute hogwash! I place my allegiance to the common law via the barons. You think we give up everything to the barons by offering our oaths? WE GIVE OUR ALLEGIANCE TO THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 61....BY OUR OWN FREE WILL TO A COMMITTEE OF BARONS WHOM INVOKED IT. Nothing more except act according to article 61, distress them etc... if we get redress and the barons inform us ots over, then we will have our common law back, revoke our allegiance to them and again to a constitutional monarch....whilst Elizardbreath is swinging in the gallows.

this is not written,to insult....i respect the views of others,its just...MY..thoughts
you think..what you want..
kind regards.
pitano1

when you cease to just think them and then draft them in such a way as to cause offense, then it is offensive. I will waste no more time on people that wish to live in denial of facts and have no guts to stand up for their lives.

I have answered ALL of your questions and corrected your wrong thinking factually and without ill intent (maybe a bit sarcasticly at times but ffs!) Whereas my earlier valid, evidential points of law have mostly been ignored as per usual, I will waste no more time among hypocritical, ignorant freemen. pffft.

[Dreadlock]

I'm only going to reply to those two points I mentioned previously.

"We shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid." I think that its clear enough, that to not adhere to the invocation of Artcle 61 is not to be tolerated don't you?

No I don't. You are misinterpreting the words "...to the effect foresaid."
What is the "effect foresaid"? The immediately previously stated effect is to be found in the previous subsentence:

"...;and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear."

The effect is that of granting leave. Notice the singular use of the verb "effect" rather than the plural, "effects". Clearly the whole of article 61 contains many effects, some of which follow the statement of command and are therefore clearly not "foresaid". Furthermore, if the command did apply to all the effects of article 61 it would make a farce of the entire article by way of contradiction. The contradiction being on the one hand the clear statements of choice and self-determination expressed earlier in the article:

"...until redress has been obtained as they deem fit"

and

"...let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey..."

Which would be in clear contradiction to the phrase: ".. we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid." If and only if that phrase is given your interpretation of meaning that the statement of command applies to all the effects in Article 61 as opposed to just the immediately preceding one. Including those effects In Article 61 which follow the phrase, despite the fact that its states "forsesaid", makes the phrase contradictory in and of itself!

Thus I'm afraid your interpretation must be wrong. Either that or whoever drafted the Magna Carta confused the plural and singular of "effect" and used the word "foresaid" without much thought to that which was to follow. Highly unlikely!

Lastly you stated, In response to my quote of the definition of "constitution" from Black's Law dictionary 2nd Ed 1910, that:

Quoting from their treasonous RULE BOOKS instead of observing the common law is double think freemen bs Dreadlock.

It is your definition of what the law, in particular the constitution, is and to whom it applies that is being debated here. Therefore you are putting the cart before the horse by inferring that I am not observing the common law simply by using a dictionary to support my statements. You are in effect saying "I am right because I say I am right and any evidence you supply which contradicts me must be wrong or deceitful!"

CONSTITUTION, Webster's 1828:

4. The established form of government in a state, kingdom or country ; a system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances for the government of a state or nation. In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power ; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.

Yes I know, just another rule book and more double-think yes? Albeit from 82 years earlier. I noticed that you yourself used a dictionary for the word scrivener...

How about you provide evidence from an independent source that supports YOUR definition of the word "constitution".

I have answered ALL of your questions and corrected your wrong thinking factually

I'm afraid you haven't. You have attempted to ignore evidence that your understanding of what a constitution is, is fundementally flawed - and belive me I can quote from many many dictionaries which contradict your belief and yes it is just a belief. Furthermore, and I'm sorry to have to say this, you have demonstrated a poor understanding of what is written in the Magna Carta.

Pitano,

[bustachemtrails]

Why am I wasting my time?

I'm only going to reply to those two points I mentioned previously.

Obviously, as the other points cannot be argues as they are irrefutable.

e shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid." I think that its clear enough, that to not adhere to the invocation of Artcle 61 is not to be tolerated don't you?


No I don't. You are misinterpreting the words "...to the effect foresaid."
What is the "effect foresaid"? The immediately previously stated effect is to be found in the previous subsentence:

No I am not you are. "What is the "effect foresaid"?" All that is aforsaid in the charter of course, it does not mean " The immediately previously stated effect" or it would have stated the word 'immediately'...obvously.

"...;and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear."



The effect is that of granting leave. Notice the singular use of the verb "effect" rather than the plural, "effects". Clearly the whole of article 61 contains many effects, some of which follow the statement of command and are therefore clearly not "foresaid". Furthermore, if the command did apply to all the effects of article 61 it would make a farce of the entire article by way of contradiction. The contradiction being on the one hand the clear statements of choice and self-determination expressed earlier in the article:

The effect refers to the whole charter you are not acknowledging the spirit of the law. The written word was used differently in those days demonstrated well by the use of the word "foresaid", as today we would normaly use the word aforesaid.

You also seem to like to misinterpret the context in which "'leave' is granted" ALL have leave to back the barons committee not the other way around ....obviously.

...let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey..."

Again in the same context as stated above. No-one will be denied their right to obey the barons. But there are clearly constraints proposed on any that do not!....ceasing their castles, lands and distressing them and the like.,...obviously.

Which would be in clear contradiction to the phrase: ".. we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid." If and only if that phrase is given your interpretation of meaning that the statement of command applies to all the effects in Article 61 as opposed to just the immediately preceding one. Including those effects In Article 61 which follow the phrase, despite the fact that its states "forsesaid", makes the phrase contradictory in and of itself!

Thus I'm afraid your interpretation must be wrong. Either that or whoever drafted the Magna Carta confused the plural and singular of "effect" and used the word "foresaid" without much thought to that which was to follow. Highly unlikely!

Your thinking is conttradictory to logic Dreadlock.... So my being wrong is founded purely on your misinterpretation or 'belief' is it ok? ..lol ...the foresaid means 'as said before' not what is about to be said....you are really clutching at straws now mate.

Lastly you stated, In response to my quote of the definition of "constitution" from Black's Law dictionary 2nd Ed 1910, that:

Quoting from their treasonous RULE BOOKS instead of observing the common law is double think freemen bs Dreadlock.



It is your definition of what the law, in particular the constitution, is and to whom it applies that is being debated here. Therefore you are putting the cart before the horse by inferring that I am not observing the common law simply by using a dictionary to support my statements. You are in effect saying "I am right because I say I am right and any evidence you supply which contradicts me must be wrong or deceitful!"

No Dreadlock. The Article is clear enough to a clever man. The definitions and spirit of the charter are obvious. By quoting from Blacks you are using their book of rules which does not comply with common law, its quite simple. Any statement you may quote from their rule book does not evidence any lawful facts ...obviously!

CONSTITUTION, Webster's 1828:

4. The established form of government in a state, kingdom or country ; a system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances for the government of a state or nation. In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power ; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.


Yes I know, just another rule book and more double-think yes? Albeit from 82 years earlier. I noticed that you yourself used a dictionary for the word scrivener...

How about you provide evidence from an independent source that supports YOUR definition of the word "constitution".

I don't need to as you just provided a perfect example. Only problem being your backward thinking that the above article refers to anything but the rules, principles and ordances of common law and the constitution. Blacks law is merely the rules of a corrupt legal system...that mate is common knowledge. Its akin to other double think perceptions, like Acts and Statutes are all unlawful....only the ones created by a usurped constitution are unlawful the rest stand as law.

Oh you got me!! I used a dictonary term for a word, it wasn't from Blacks though was it, so what are you on about? are all dictionarys somehow wrong?.....lol

I have answered ALL of your questions and corrected your wrong thinking factually


I'm afraid you haven't. You have attempted to ignore evidence that your understanding of what a constitution is, is fundementally flawed - and belive me I can quote from many many dictionaries which contradict your belief and yes it is just a belief. Furthermore, and I'm sorry to have to say this, you have demonstrated a poor understanding of what is written in the Magna Carta.

I disagree entirely. Your ego wont allow you to face the facts. I haven't ignored a single point made unlike you you dishonurable shill... I dont have "beliefs" I know or I do not. I've never met such an arrogant man as you... I'm sorry to say. Clearly it s your understanding that is faulty in just about everything you espouse on this site, which is poorly researched double think and written to insight discord. You are obviously a troll.

Pitano,

You make a lovely couple.

Well I said I wouldn't bother responding again but for the benefit of others, again I have corrected your incorrect beliefs and double think nonsense. Please ..have the last word I know your ego requires it...

[Dreadlock]

No I am not you are. "What is the "effect foresaid"?" All that is aforsaid in the charter of course, it does not mean " The immediately previously stated effect" or it would have stated the word 'immediately'...obvously.

In actual fact we are both in error. "Forsaid" is the simple past tense and past participle of "forsay". Forsay means to forbid, renounce, deny etc.

So the "effect foresaid" is in this case that of never forbidding. Taken together the sentences are stating that those who are unwilling to swear to the barons are commanded not to prevent those who wish to swear to the barons, from doing so.

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.

I was correct in thinking that what was being said applied only to the preceding sentence, but for the wrong reason. You were totally incorrect. My reading of the Magna Carta has thus changed but only in a minor way as my error was minor. Has your reading of it now changed?

Now let's look at the word "aforesaid". This actually means what we both thought "foresaid" meant - "spoken of earlier" or "previously mentioned".

The effect refers to the whole charter you are not acknowledging the spirit of the law. The written word was used differently in those days demonstrated well by the use of the word "foresaid", as today we would normaly use the word aforesaid.

So you are wrong again.

You also seem to like to misinterpret the context in which "'leave' is granted" ALL have leave to back the barons committee not the other way around ....obviously.

I have no idea where you pulled that from. Of course leave is granted to everyone. I never said otherwise, nor did you quote me.

But there are clearly constraints proposed on any that do not!....ceasing their castles, lands and distressing them and the like.,...obviously.

You are wrong. The part you are paraphrasing refers only to property belonging to the monarch, not to that of others.

...and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit,...

The royal "we" is being used, as is customary for monarchs in this country. Hence "us" means "me" and "our" means "my".

Your thinking is conttradictory to logic Dreadlock.... So my being wrong is founded purely on your misinterpretation or 'belief' is it ok? ..lol ...the foresaid means 'as said before' not what is about to be said....you are really clutching at straws now mate.

We were both wrong.

No Dreadlock. The Article is clear enough to a clever man. The definitions and spirit of the charter are obvious. By quoting from Blacks you are using their book of rules which does not comply with common law, its quite simple. Any statement you may quote from their rule book does not evidence any lawful facts ...obviously!

Apparently neither of us are particularly clever, though I am smart enough to look for evidence that proves me right - or wrong, rather than just assuming I'm right and insulting anyone who disagrees with me.

Blacks law is merely the rules of a corrupt legal system...that mate is common knowledge. Its akin to other double think perceptions, like Acts and Statutes are all unlawful....only the ones created by a usurped constitution are unlawful the rest stand as law.

Oh you got me!! I used a dictonary term for a word, it wasn't from Blacks though was it, so what are you on about? are all dictionarys somehow wrong?.....lol

It seems you quoted me without actually reading the quote. The second dictionary quote I used was from Webster's 1828, as I clearly stated, not Black's. Both dictionaries are in agreement as are many more that I could quote.
So again, please provide me with a source that supports your definition of the word "constitution" as stated earlier by yourself:

The constitution binds not only the governemt and the people but also the monarch,

This is not the first time I've had to admit to being wrong. It won't be the last. Are you man enough to do the same?

[Dreadlock]

Well well well. I was jut watching UK Column live and as luck would have it the Magna Carta was quoted, article 61 no less. Here is the quote taken from http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html

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.

This is not the version of the Magna Carta that I use! The same passage taken from http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm reads:

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.

THESE TWO PASSAGES, SUPPOSEDLY BOTH FROM THE MAGNA CARTA, HAVE VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS!!

No wonder people are confused. The first quote supports Busta's position that everyone MUST enter Lawful Rebellion.

The second quote supports my position that it is optional.

Which quote is more accurate? Well I don't bloody well know to be honest. Anyone here speak good Latin? My money is on the second quote as frankly the first sounds more modern and dumbed down.
Furthermore the second version is in harmony with the proper definition of a constitution, which is to say that it restrains government and not the people.