Page 3 of 3

Re: Tax by Consent

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:24 pm
by bustachemtrails
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.

Definition of aforesaid in English:
Line breaks: afore|said
Pronunciation: /əˈfɔːsɛd


another term for aforementioned.

Whereas the Oxford English dictionary actually states the above definition, which is contrary to your definition, please provide a link.
evidentially I was correct by the evidence I present. However it is referring to Article 61 rather than the whole charter it seems, there is an oath at the end that covers the whole charter (63).

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?

As above, you are clearly wrong. I will change my thinking when evidence proves that my thinking requires changing, naturaly.

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

As above....

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.

As proven I was correct, except "the effect" may refer to the single Artcle 61 and not the whole charter as said.

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.

Agreed I misunderstood your argument. As we both agree on the meaning its of little importance though.

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.

Again agreed. I took the effect of the same to mean those unwilling would be subject to the same distress we must impose on the monarch.
I was correct that " there are clearly constraints proposed on any that do not!" As it appears to read:

" 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."

"we" meaning we of the whole realm, shall by our command compel......

"Definition of compel in English:
Line breaks: com¦pel
Pronunciation: /kəmˈpɛl

verb (compels, compelling, compelled)
[with object and infinitive]

1. Force or oblige (someone) to do something: a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions"

or force "the same" (the unwilling) "to swear to the effect foresaid" (to swear to the distressing etc aforementioned, which was my error).

It seems I was wrong to state that we can take your property but we must force you by law to stand with us clearly.

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

Agreed. As above.

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

We were both wrong.

It sems that you were wrong.....although I do admit to misinterpreting your thinking that you meant foresaid to mean 'after' rather than are now totally wrong according to your latest definition of the word aforedaid however.

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.

We will have to disagree again, although I am prone to misunderstanding things like the next man, I do provide evidenc of my claims and, amswer ALL of the points raised. Even when I am wrong. Yes insults are not necessary agreed. Unless the other will not accept evidential facts of course.

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:

agreed with the Websters quote and merely referred to the fact that you used Blacks to get your information previously. The oxford English definition of consttution is as follows:

"Definition of constitution in English:
Line breaks: con|sti|tu¦tion
Pronunciation: /kɒnstɪˈtjuːʃ(ə)n


1A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed: Britain lacks a codified constitution"


Definition of codify in English:
Line breaks: co¦dify
Pronunciation: /ˈkəʊdɪfʌɪ

verb (codifies, codifying, codified)
[with object]

1Arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code: the statutes have codified certain branches of common law (as adjective codified) in the United Kingdom there is no codified constitution"

There is no criterior that I am aware of that demands a constitution to be codified to be lawful. Just making that point assume you would agree?

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?

As defined above: "A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed:"

a state infers applying to all. From the same source as above:

"A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government: we are all subject to the law"

The constitution must apply to all it is only logical, if we are all equal under the law (consttution).

I think I have written enough on this and wont go round and round the same things. At the end of the day Dreadlock, I trust that you can see that, by not standing by the barons whilst the invoked article 61 stands, is unconsttutional and that you must be forced to adhere (compelled). I don't know what the hang up is to be frank? I mean, we have a remedy supported by the constitution, which protects us and could potentially bring an end the EU occupation, as well as the many criminal acts of those imposters in government. All it takes is numbers I have demonstrated its validity yet that fact is totally ignored.

We are running out of time here people....defend the constitution by using it or accept your fate....My input on this matter ends here. Peace.


Re: Tax by Consent

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:35 pm
by treeman
Thread locked, nuff said.