Magna Carta - Motives of Parties

[christophera]

A Yank thinks that history has completely misrepresented the Magna Carta and the motives of the parties and asks some Brits what they think.

Basis:

I see many here that believe, or more, ...... know that English common law gained its force of "being" somewhere, and they endeavor to understand its mechanisms, but where did it originate?

My premise is that common law originated with the same thing or time that compelled the signing of the Magna Carta. Oral histories carry another tale of those times and it doesn't figure into what history says was happening to my best understanding.

Some of my families Oral histories indicate the Robinhood story is a typification (robber barrons) included into written history to placate angry and aging Chieftans of forest clans who resented the charter being signed and completed then placed in a box rather than positioned next to other social contracts immediately.

What do the people of the Isles think, English, Scotch and Irish? How about the Welsh the Normans, Saxons and the Celt?

[yozhik]

Personally, I think the Magna Carta is part of "the system".
It was never intended for use my the common man.
The MC was a document protecting the interests of the social elite.

You need to look further back and see how law evolved.

The Norman Conquest over the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic People of England in 1066 is vastly under-rated in its significance for understanding modern models of good government. From Rome, the "Norman Invasion" had the "Solemn Blessings of the Pope". This is shown in many citations, among which is the following:

"William had some difficulty in securing the help of his barons for his proposed invasion of England; it was necessary to convince them individually by threats and persuasions. Otherwise conditions were favorable. William secured the benevolent neutrality of the emperor Henry IV., and the expedition had the solemn approval of Pope Alexander II." Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol # 23, p.609; William 1: . . . Conquest of England . . .

The Pharisaical system of "Commercial Law", as codified in the "Babylonian Talmud"; was at that time Forcibly Imposed by the Romanistic-Normans over the previously Non-Romanized Christian/Common-Law Saxon-Anglo/English People. This is shown as follows:

"The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England . . . [or who financed and followed the invasion - Ed.] brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. . . Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement - shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. . . Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property, movable and immovable" was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding. . . . Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land." "Foootnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94 (1960) (Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class). Footnote 15: CF. 1 F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, supra note 3 at 469... (alien to English law for creditor not in possession of land to have rights in it)."

"The Shetar's Effect on English Law", The Georgetown Law Journal; V. 71, P 1179 - 1200); Judith A. Shapiro.

Here-under; the Pharisees worked with the Normans under the "Blessing of the Pope" of Rome. Here-under, Roman Civil/Municipal Codes were Forcibly Imposed over the Non-Romanized Christian/Common-Law People of England. As this Pharisee/Roman-Catholic Military Machine was Forcibly-Imposed, the above text makes clear (seemingly happily) that a "Weapon of Socio-Economic Change that Tore the Fabric" of the Society of the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Peoples. These ruthlessly shocking words are not composed by this author; but they are the words chosen by Ms Shapirro as they appear in her Georgetown Law Journal article. It seems that the aggressively warring nature of that Babylonian-Talmudian based Code of Pharisaical Conduct is not in question among that circle of scholars. It seems to clearly be a body of Master's Slave-Trading Codes, which are designed to "Tear at the Fabric" of any Society which it targets.

[The invading Jews established the Exchequer - Ed.].

[ snip ... ]

"The whole of equity jurisprudence prevailing in England and the United States is mainly based on the civil law". Boviers Law Dictionary; 1868.

"Civil Law" is from Rome. There was no "Equity Jurisprudence" in England prior to the Norman Conquest. The Norman Conquest had the "solemn approval of the Pope" of Rome according to the above-quoted Encyclopedia Britannica, and many other sources.

[ snip ... ]

This entire body of Roman "Civil-Law" is Designed to Centralize the "Decision-Making Authority" of the Entire Community in-to the Hands of a "Single Arbitrator". This is How All "Contracts" were En-Forced in the "Court of Equity". It was early incorporated into what was known as English "Law Merchant", which many fine scholars have confused as being a true part of the English "Common-Law". Such happened only after the corrupting influence of the "Norman Conquest".

SOURCE: Full Article (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/babelaw.htm)

[dreamweaver]

Personally, I think the Magna Carta is part of "the system".
It was never intended for use my the common man.
The MC was a document protecting the interests of the social elite.

You need to look further back and see how law evolved.

Well, Magna Carta was to serve the interest of the barons, who were fed up of an autocratic king and wanted to bind him to the rule of law.

I think you'll find "common law" wasn't intended for use by the common man either. It was law made by judges - and they always came from privileged classes in the UK. It seems absurd to me to dismiss Magna Carta and glorify common law as they are part of the same thing.

Statute law is closer to the rule of the common man, in a perverse way, because it is made by elected "representatives of the people". Of course it hasn't turned out that way because the system is rotten to the core.

Having read the passage you pasted above, you seem to be saying it all went wrong with the Norman conquest. I'm not sure how seriously I should take an article posted on a site called "Bible believers" in this context, but I'll go take a look at the full thing.

[yozhik]

Well, Magna Carta was to serve the interest of the barons, who were fed up of an autocratic king and wanted to bind him to the rule of law.

I think you'll find "common law" wasn't intended for use by the common man either. It was law made by judges - and they always came from privileged classes in the UK. It seems absurd to me to dismiss Magna Carta and glorify common law as they are part of the same thing.

Statute law is closer to the rule of the common man, in a perverse way, because it is made by elected "representatives of the people". Of course it hasn't turned out that way because the system is rotten to the core.

Having read the passage you pasted above, you seem to be saying it all went wrong with the Norman conquest. I'm not sure how seriously I should take an article posted on a site called "Bible believers" in this context, but I'll go take a look at the full thing.

Forget which site it came from ... all the quotes are cited.
OK ... so the article in its entirety probably serves a purpose for the site owner; but break it down into small parts and inspect each of the specific citations. :)

For example, I doubt that Judith A Shapiro sat down and wrote her article for The Georgetown Law Journal, hoping that it would be used as the backbone for a website called www.biblebelievers.org.

Similarly, I would find it difficult to believe that the publishers of Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary had an epiphany whilst looking into the same crystal ball, foretelling the use of their definitions to support a zealous, religious argument pertaining to civil law in the United Kingdom, over 100 years later!

:D

dreamweaver ... I had the exact concerns that you have expressed ... but I have to keep reminding myself that to dismiss the opinion of a source on the premise of my own prejudice, will merely produce a clone of that same prejudice.

[curtaincat]

I always thought that the magna carta was so the barons could do what they want. stuff royalty and the peasants

[alisa2]

dreamweaver wrote:
Statute law is closer to the rule of the common man, in a perverse way, because it is made by elected "representatives of the people". Of course it hasn't turned out that way because the system is rotten to the core.



Legislation began with King Edward I (1272-1307):

"To its original constituents, the great lords, both lay and clerical, Edward added definitely representatives of the other classes of his people who enjoyed political rights: the lesser barons, the knights of the shire and the citizens and burgesses of the towns."

So, legislative, or statute law, is the law for a certain class of the king's people: those who enjoy political rights. Today, all we have is this type of law. The common man's natural rights simple aren't recognized anymore- or won't be recognized if you don't use their statutes.

[christophera]

Well, Magna Carta was to serve the interest of the barons, who were fed up of an autocratic king and wanted to bind him to the rule of law.

History teaches what you say.

Then, ............... read the charter, it does not serve either parties you mention.

It seems that IF what I conclude is true, assertions I make about the force of common law following the charter have perhaps more credence. The issue of the actual charter and which parties it serves is directly what I refer to. Understanding what the parties gain and oblige will greatly influence our impression of the origins of common law at the level of force of acceptence at high judicial levels and recognition we might expect.

I agree, rotten. But, some bacterial organisims are good for cheese, then others for wine.

[christophera]

I always thought that the magna carta was so the barons could do what they want. stuff royalty and the peasants

Ultimately in some ways that I would accept as true. However, it makes the barons accountable for violations of the charter with a process for redress, why would they do that?

[christophera]

Am I to accept that no one has read the Magna Carta critically and will not?

The way I read it, and what research has brought me, is very empowering, ....... I wonder if there is a clue at HOW empowering and what it means for english common law.

Not only empowering for England but also for America. The Magna carta is recognized in America to be the beginning of a chain of social contracts that bind the Constitution and laws as made under it to common law or, ........... or pricciples of accountability by authority.

Common law certainly existed before the Magna Carta, but gained force with the Magna Carta and was integrated into it in some ways.

[1694]

Am I to accept that no one has read the Magna Carta critically and will not?

The way I read it, and what research has brought me, is very empowering, ....... I wonder if there is a clue at HOW empowering and what it means for english common law.

Not only empowering for England but also for America. The Magna carta is recognized in America to be the beginning of a chain of social contracts that bind the Constitution and laws as made under it to common law or, ........... or pricciples of accountability by authority.

Common law certainly existed before the Magna Carta, but gained force with the Magna Carta and was integrated into it in some ways.

The magna carta is a statute.

[yozhik]

The magna carta is a statute.

Wrong (again).

There are two Magna Carta.
The treaty of 1215 and the later, codified version, which became a statute.

The later statute has been repealed, as statutes can be.
The original treaty of 1215, is not subject to parliamentary repeals as it is not an Act of parliament; it is a bilateral treaty which can only be altered by the original parties themselves.

[1694]

Wrong (again).

There are two Magna Carta.
The treaty of 1215 and the later, codified version, which became a statute.

The later statute has been repealed, as statutes can be.
The original treaty of 1215, is not subject to parliamentary repeals as it is not an Act of parliament; it is a bilateral treaty which can only be altered by the original parties themselves.

Is it written down? Its a statute.

If its not written down its not worth the paper its written on. Our "unwritten constitution" for example.

Any way this is all just bullshit, rules handed down for us to play by, given to us, taken from us. Did we ever have any power if we are at the mercy of a hand to feed us.

A bi lateral treaty only amendable by the original parties, yet applied to us. Well thats a fine state of affairs.

[yozhik]

Is it written down? Its a statute.



The 1215 Magna Carta is written down.
It is NOT a statute.
It is not an Act of parliament.

[christophera]

The magna carta is a statute.

Yes, but a foundational social contract first, then regarded later as the beginning statute.

The motives. LOOK at them, in the Charter, relate them to what history presents the signers motives as being. See the empowerment to the people that is written.

You don't see it on the ground around you but that is because the true basis of WHY it was signed has been removed from history and what has been supplanted does not make sense, ...... so disempowers people from unity.

[1694]

The 1215 Magna Carta is written down.
It is NOT a statute.
It is not an Act of parliament.

A written piece of legislature is it not?

I assume the 1215 version is not an act as is preceeds the formation of parliament?

But like I said, chasing your tail. Rules handed down from rule makers for us to play by.

No more law than any other rule.

You have no inalianable rights just privilidges and rules.

If you want to live by law move to somalia....ironically refered to as "lawless" by the rule makers and lapped up by dimwitts.

[1694]

Looks like the barrons applied law to the king, then they agreed the rules, but the king fucked off the rules, becuase they were just rules and not law so could easily be broken, so law had to be applied again.

[yozhik]

You have no inalianable rights just privilidges and rules.



You have tried to sell this bullshit on this forum before.
It doesn't fly.

If you honestly wish to claim that human beings have no unalienable rights, then your argument is not with any one on this forum; it is with the U.N, all signatories to the Hague Convention and every other International Declaration on Human Rights that state the exact opposite. i.e. human beings have unalienable rights.

You need to find a new market to peddle your counterfeit wares.

[christophera]

A written piece of legislature is it not?

I assume the 1215 version is not an act as is preceeds the formation of parliament?

But like I said, chasing your tail. Rules handed down from rule makers for us to play by.

No more law than any other rule.

You have no inalianable rights just privilidges and rules.

If you want to live by law move to somalia....ironically refered to as "lawless" by the rule makers and lapped up by dimwitts.

You are not getting the point. Have your read the charter and understand the empowerment to the common man defined? If you do then your position is that somebody said it was something to refer to only as a "A written piece of legislature".

My point about the motives of the signers as history presents them cannot be congruent with human nature, either from your perspective or that of the system historian. Such is why everyone is having a hard time actually admitting that the Charter has huge empowerment to the common man.

I propose that WHY it is being signed is what is really covered up by history misrepresenting the motives of the signers.

I agree with your position on an emotional level but I generally try to avoid reasoning with that and instead try to understand the people with their human motives, at the moement in time such social contract in time was made.

[christophera]

You have tried to sell this bullshit on this forum before.
It doesn't fly.

If you honestly wish to claim that human beings have no unalienable rights, then your argument is not with any one on this forum; it is with the U.N, all signatories to the Hague Convention and every other International Declaration on Human Rights that state the exact opposite. i.e. human beings have unalienable rights.

You need to find a new market to peddle your counterfeit wares.

If I might step in from the side. A peaceful, just, sustainable society that is also evolving, has rights of natural law, which are inalienable. They are biology in many ways and can be reasoned and recognized by the common man. The issues that are contentious are, I believe, actually generally related to another esoteric conflict of spirituality promoting frauds of society which I've made a thread about as it relates to our Unconscious mind.

Is the Collective Unconscious Blocking Awareness?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63148

[1694]

Where do these inalianable rights come from? You cite rules drempt up by some far off power broker and applied to you. Yet we often see these rules broken.

What have you learned?

A) You're claim to have rights, its just a claim to what somoene else has said you can have.

B)What someone else has said you can have, doesnt hold any water as the rules are regularly broken.

These rules that you claim others must abide by are no different to the statutes that you claim you should not have to abide by.

We are brought up to be "good" "though shalt not kill" and all that, yet our government has military forces of hundreds of thousands of killers. Its one rule for us, another for them, why? Because they make the rules and they make them for their benefit.

[yozhik]

We are brought up to be "good" "though shalt not kill" and all that, yet our government has military forces of hundreds of thousands of killers. Its one rule for us, another for them, why? Because they make the rules and they make them for their benefit.

Sounds like you're happy with that.
If not happy, then resigned to doing nothing about it, except piss on the parade of those who have a little more backbone and can see the moral depravity in it, and choose to fight it rather than lie back, part their butt cheeks and take it up the ass while thinking of the Queen with an arrogant quip of "that's life, deal with it."


Well excuse me if I don't smile and accept being anally raped.
If you're fine with it ... good for you.
May all your haemorrhoids be manageable and pain free.
Go take your punishment and leave those who want to do something about it to ours.

[1694]

Sounds like you're happy with that.
If not happy, then resigned to doing nothing about it, except piss on the parade of those who have a little more backbone and can see the moral depravity in it, and choose to fight it rather than lie back, part their butt cheeks and take it up the ass while thinking of the Queen with an arrogant quip of "that's life, deal with it."


Well excuse me if I don't smile and accept being anally raped.
If you're fine with it ... good for you.
May all your haemorrhoids be manageable and pain free.
Go take your punishment and leave those who want to do something about it to ours.

Not happy, just not deluded in my thinking. Wasting energy persuing these dsitractions will not help.

[yozhik]

Wasting energy persuing these dsitractions will not help.

So what will help?

How about contributing to the solution rather than highlighting and identifying the problem?

If "these distractions" won't help; what will?

[bsmurph83]

Where do these inalianable rights come from? You cite rules drempt up by some far off power broker and applied to you. Yet we often see these rules broken.

What have you learned?

A) You're claim to have rights, its just a claim to what somoene else has said you can have.

B)What someone else has said you can have, doesnt hold any water as the rules are regularly broken.

These rules that you claim others must abide by are no different to the statutes that you claim you should not have to abide by.

We are brought up to be "good" "though shalt not kill" and all that, yet our government has military forces of hundreds of thousands of killers. Its one rule for us, another for them, why? Because they make the rules and they make them for their benefit.

I would ask then, is it not the governments that revel in their petty and inane statutes? Wasn't the original Magna Carta created BEFORE governments and thus, before statutes? Why is it that the Magna Carta appears to support such common sense freedoms for men and women while later government created statutes are so often the very antithesis to this spirit of equality and freedom?

And I'm wondering, 1694, if you're so disenchanted with BOTH the statutes from fiction land/admiralty, AS WELL AS the common sense decency afforded within, demanded and upheld by Common Law - the law of the land - what are your solutions to this situation? Noone on this forum is unaware that the 'rules' are broken by the PTB constantly -that's why we're here. To grow up and hold a higher standard for ourselves, as well as holding the 'authorities' to account for their actions.

Isn't the point of our presence in this forum to learn to distinguish between different sets of 'rules' in order to see which we would most like to live by? Are we not here to learn how to establish our standing under Common Law, as freemen on the land? This IS the freeman-on-the-land forum isn't it?

I don't think many people here will agree with point (A) of yours. I claim the right to make decisions for myself without the government interfering needlessly. I don't see it as my being given permission by someone else. We don't achieve freeman status by asking permission, we do it by claiming our rights and standing. When it goes unrebutted, the claim stands AT LAW. We KNOW the the PTB are crook, we KNOW they bend and break the rules wherever they can, but what is your point? That there is no use in making any effort at all? That is the impression you create sometimes, and if that is the spirit in which you contribute then your presence is anathema to the basic premises of this whole forum... It is the freeman-on-the-land forum, after all... If you don't think there's any point to anyone claiming their standing as a freeman, then what is the use of trawling these threads?

You keep saying "there are no laws..." Why then do you spend so much time in a forum about Common Law?

[christophera]

Sounds like you're happy with that.
If not happy, then resigned to doing nothing about it, except piss on the parade of those who have a little more backbone and can see the moral depravity in it, and choose to fight it rather than lie back, part their butt cheeks and take it up the ass while thinking of the Queen with an arrogant quip of "that's life, deal with it."


Well excuse me if I don't smile and accept being anally raped.
If you're fine with it ... good for you.
May all your haemorrhoids be manageable and pain free.
Go take your punishment and leave those who want to do something about it to ours.

Not happy, just not deluded in my thinking. Wasting energy persuing these dsitractions will not help.

Which is why I feel that properly and completly understanding the social contracts that were made, broken or not, will greatly aid in re establishing them, or the rights, freedoms and powers humans must have to evolve.

The issues of the fabricated, fictional entities that separate us from our humanity and seek to control us generation after generation, which we are blindly conscripted to must be exposed and rejected then put in their place.

Our unity as well as our fear rests in our unconscious mind. Let us bring the unity out, share it and exercise it and put the unreasonable fears in their places.

[white horse]

A Yank thinks that history has completely misrepresented the Magna Carta and the motives of the parties and asks some Brits what they think.

Basis:

I see many here that believe, or more, ...... know that English common law gained its force of "being" somewhere, and they endeavor to understand its mechanisms, but where did it originate?

My premise is that common law originated with the same thing or time that compelled the signing of the Magna Carta. Oral histories carry another tale of those times and it doesn't figure into what history says was happening to my best understanding.

Some of my families Oral histories indicate the Robinhood story is a typification (robber barrons) included into written history to placate angry and aging Chieftans of forest clans who resented the charter being signed and completed then placed in a box rather than positioned next to other social contracts immediately.

What do the people of the Isles think, English, Scotch and Irish? How about the Welsh the Normans, Saxons and the Celt?

Ok Chris, good question. Very good question.

Let me take some time to answer as it is a pet subject of mine. It is also, while being blindingly simple, is also an extremely complex issue requiring a story that spans thousands of years.

In essence I believe Magna Carter was a bit of a historical red herring. But having said that it does fit into the pattern of English liberty and holding the ruler up to account.

The problem with Magna Carter is that it deals more with things liek inheritances and claims on property, which was more the playground of the Baronial Elite than the man in the mud. Secondly, much of the libertarian advances made in the charter were reversed shortly afterwards and it did not really have a big and lasting effect;

The big effect it di have tho was more to do with its nature than in the content. The fact that in England 'common' men had 'forced' their King into a field, and made him sign a declaration that he will be a good King (not to overthrow or userp). Unheard of anywhere... except in Anglo Saxon/Celtic/Briton tradition. Magna Carter was just putting into words what previous generations had allowed to go unwritten.

King John stepped over the line by abusing the system. So the 'system' kicked back, headed by the only ones with the physical means to do so, the landed gentry upper class.

Thus many state that Magna Carter is the start of our 'written' constitution. Sort of is, sort of isn't...!

... tbc...

[christophera]

Ok Chris, good question. Very good question.

Let me take some time to answer as it is a pet subject of mine. It is also, while being blindingly simple, is also an extremely complex issue requiring a story that spans thousands of years.

In essence I believe Magna Carter was a bit of a historical red herring. But having said that it does fit into the pattern of English liberty and holding the ruler up to account.

Part of my point about what is missing is that the freemen accept the King as sanctified within the English church to sign a document already accepted by the pope/vatican, reinforcing the elections importance to that church, or that government was separate from it, of which King John was the ruler of. The signing of the document is the Kings guarantee to make the barons adhere to in service to them, the Freemen, " to be had and held by them".

http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm
1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

The problem with Magna Carter is that it deals more with things liek inheritances and claims on property, which was more the playground of the Baronial Elite than the man in the mud. Secondly, much of the libertarian advances made in the charter were reversed shortly afterwards and it did not really have a big and lasting effect;

The issues I see serve Freemen often. Not exclusively, but also seem to show the elites how to treat those with material standing in other clauses.

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

44. Men who dwell without the forest need not henceforth come before our justiciaries of the forest upon a general summons, unless they are in plea, or sureties of one or more, who are attached for the forest.

Number 44 sounds like a form of amnesty for the men of the forest, or at least those there without a current contract.

The big effect it did have tho was more to do with its nature than in the content. The fact that in England 'common' men had 'forced' their King into a field, and made him sign a declaration that he will be a good King (not to overthrow or usurp). Unheard of anywhere... except in Anglo Saxon/Celtic/Briton tradition. Magna Carter was just putting into words what previous generations had allowed to go unwritten.

I agree completely with almost all of the action described, particularly "what previous generations had allowed to go unwritten. However, it seems it was the barons who were being forced into the field and made accountable by the King as he could be compliant with the vatican who had already approved the Charter and was also the head of the English church.

King John stepped over the line by abusing the system. So the 'system' kicked back, headed by the only ones with the physical means to do so, the landed gentry upper class.

Thus many state that Magna Carter is the start of our 'written' constitution. Sort of is, sort of isn't...!

... tbc...

Hmmmm, my history doesn't extend to that. Didn't King John die a few years after signing?

As I said in one of these threads, the secretary of the state of California published and distributes a book free of charge that shows the Magna Carta as the beginning of a chain of social contract that continue to the california state Constitution last. Accordingly it appears that the Magna Carter is the start of the US 'written' constitution.

[christophera]

It seems of utmost importance to establish amongst Freemen the exact basis of the authority they need to invoke.

Perhaps someone can explain why the ptb would aquiese to complying with any agreement, ............ if the Freemen could not properly present it with regards to the real history.

[bsmurph83]

It seems of utmost importance to establish amongst Freemen the exact basis of the authority they need to invoke.

Perhaps someone can explain why the ptb would aquiese to complying with any agreement, ............ if the Freemen could not properly present it with regards to the real history.

i think - and feel free to correct me - that it ultimately comes back to commerce. the freeman wants to live without interference from corporate entities/governments. that's what gov's are, they're commercial money-making ventures. so the basis of authority appears to lie in the Bible. this is the code of commerce the PTB follow and they recognise it in court.... which is actually pretty ironic because i view the bible as a fascinating work of fiction, and yet, this is the basically the 'how-to' of commerce. that's why they get you to swear on the Bible in court, but they take it from you after you swear and then they try to trap you in admiralty/fiction world. they say you have to make sure you HANG ON to the Bible once you've sworn on it because that is where the remedy lies. i'm basing this on all the Pytellek and Menard material i've gone through. Pytellek's got some very interesting stories about his adventures in court while using the Bible as his remedy... apparently some judges quite enjoy it when someone comes into court knowing how the system works. livens up their day a bit :D

[christophera]

i think - and feel free to correct me - that it ultimately comes back to commerce. the freeman wants to live without interference from corporate entities/governments. that's what gov's are, they're commercial money-making ventures. so the basis of authority appears to lie in the Bible. this is the code of commerce the PTB follow and they recognise it in court.... which is actually pretty ironic because i view the bible as a fascinating work of fiction, and yet, this is the basically the 'how-to' of commerce. that's why they get you to swear on the Bible in court, but they take it from you after you swear and then they try to trap you in admiralty/fiction world. they say you have to make sure you HANG ON to the Bible once you've sworn on it because that is where the remedy lies. i'm basing this on all the Pytellek and Menard material i've gone through. Pytellek's got some very interesting stories about his adventures in court while using the Bible as his remedy... apparently some judges quite enjoy it when someone comes into court knowing how the system works. livens up their day a bit :D

That certainly would seem logical to effect respect for testimony that might not be ordinarily afforded.

Soveriegnity might be as simple as wearing a symbol like your first national flag on your shirt, then treaty of that nation with its courts is invoked you've got silver and gold in possesion, hand on the bible, affirming the jurisdiction you recognize.

These type conditions are unconscious for them. Their allegiance in corporation is manifest when we fit in to their ceremony and respect their structure without asserting ours.

In the US, courts have the admiralty flag which IS NOT described in Title 4. No one has been able to get it out of the court room as far as I know.

[bsmurph83]

That certainly would seem logical to effect respect for testimony that might not be ordinarily afforded.

Soveriegnity might be as simple as wearing a symbol like your first national flag on your shirt, then treaty of that nation with its courts is invoked you've got silver and gold in possesion, hand on the bible, affirming the jurisdiction you recognize.

These type conditions are unconscious for them. Their allegiance in corporation is manifest when we fit in to their ceremony and respect their structure without asserting ours.

In the US, courts have the admiralty flag which IS NOT described in Title 4. No one has been able to get it out of the court room as far as I know.

yeh it's ALL admiralty/maritime - everywhere. commerce. the thing is that even just showing up in court creates the presumption that you are consenting to their jurisdiction. you enter fiction land. but the burden of proof lies with the claimant (the state) and the presumptions that must be broken are that you are in fact chattel of the state/a slave. rather than testifying, you ask THEM questions that they can't answer and eventually they hang themselves (if you know what you're doing). you go in and argue or testify or accidentally create a joinder between you and your strawman and you're fucked. the judges test to see if you know the difference between being a living man and being a person. if ppl don't know, they're screwed. the judge is allowed to test you to try and create joinder 3 times. after that you can say (always asking questions and/or getting them to prove their claim is key), "your honour, i'm happy to respond to that if you can show me that peter (? i think...) was NOT tested only the three times before the cock crowed..." - hello Bible again. Pytellek reckons one judge smiled when he said this, as if to say "ah, so you clearly know what you're doing..."

some don't like it though and will try to create joinder. others will be happy to finally see someone who 'knows who they are' and dismiss the case against the PERSON because when you go to court by special appearance as a living breathing man, there's noone there they can prosecute and the court records for everything you say will read "inaudible" because they can't see non-fiction. we wanna stay outta court and outta fiction land so we don't have to go through that BS and run the risk of facing a kangaroo court and a corrupt judge. even the old pro's have spent time in jail for NOTHING - even recently - just ask Mark P...

the sovereignty within us has to be expressed in ways that effectively rebut the presumption that we are the dead legal fiction/strawman who 'committed' the 'offence' so we can walk right outta there. it's all headspace. no arguing, no testifying but always asking to see proof of claim. then let them squirm...

[christophera]

yeh it's ALL admiralty/maritime - everywhere. commerce. the thing is that even just showing up in court creates the presumption that you are consenting to their jurisdiction. you enter fiction land.


Totally.

Perhaps add some of the below strategy as something that can be deployed along with yours.

An approach that is bringing in another very fundamental aspect of language and grammer.

http://dwmlc.com/

Then also, a tee shirt with a Title 4 US flag on it. Obviously then your vessal is marked with the flag of the United States of America, so you could sit in foreign waters, their port/court and expect them to recognize the laws governing your vessal.

I don't buy into what he says totally because there is no way to use it. However, I've seen that combining a certain amount of it into interpretation of required responses to the court can cause them to choke. The prosecutor can't make a true statement if the grammer is wrong.

but the burden of proof lies with the claimant (the state) and the presumptions that must be broken are that you are in fact chattel of the state/a slave. rather than testifying, you ask THEM questions that they can't answer and eventually they hang themselves (if you know what you're doing). you go in and argue or testify or accidentally create a joinder between you and your strawman and you're fucked. the judges test to see if you know the difference between being a living man and being a person. if ppl don't know, they're screwed. the judge is allowed to test you to try and create joinder 3 times. after that you can say (always asking questions and/or getting them to prove their claim is key), "your honour, i'm happy to respond to that if you can show me that peter (? i think...) was NOT tested only the three times before the cock crowed..." - hello Bible again. Pytellek reckons one judge smiled when he said this, as if to say "ah, so you clearly know what you're doing..."

some don't like it though and will try to create joinder. others will be happy to finally see someone who 'knows who they are' and dismiss the case against the PERSON because when you go to court by special appearance as a living breathing man, there's noone there they can prosecute and the court records for everything you say will read "inaudible" because they can't see non-fiction. we wanna stay outta court and outta fiction land so we don't have to go through that BS and run the risk of facing a kangaroo court and a corrupt judge. even the old pro's have spent time in jail for NOTHING - even recently - just ask Mark P...

the sovereignty within us has to be expressed in ways that effectively rebut the presumption that we are the dead legal fiction/strawman who 'committed' the 'offence' so we can walk right outta there. it's all headspace. no arguing, no testifying but always asking to see proof of claim. then let them squirm...

I agree, a criminal court is not the place to attempt playing their game in their court.

I focus on using civil court to define motive for governmental change or compliance with laws on local levels. Then, if the courts will not observe public interests, redress by court order creating compliance as a reasonable means of change is clearly a myth. I've not seen how this might be done properly, but then again I've had no economic means to do it well. Emergency type measures only.

However, the fact that a trial was never granted after a municipality failed to appear, says that they could not bear to have any of the public learn of the severity of their abuses. So all has been dismissed on pre trial motions by defendant municipalities. Denial of acces to courts is what it is.
Sad thing. The issues have global impacts.

[bsmurph83]

Totally.

Perhaps add som of the below strategy as something that can be deployed along with yours.

An approach that is bringing in another very fundamental aspect of language and grammer.

http://dwmlc.com/

ah jesus, david wynn miller... man, that guy... i really don't know what to say... I will probably never make a serious attempt at deciphering his ramblings because if it's that complex it's sus to me... honour-dishonour is the system I think I'll stick with if I ever wind up in court. it's pretty simple shit, no legalese necessary.

Then also, a tee shirt with a Title 4 US flag on it. Obviously then your vessal is marked with the flag of the United States of America, so you could sit in foreign waters, their port/court and expect them to recognize the laws governing your vessal.

well, i'm not in the US, but I've not ever heard of clothing or any markings being used in any effective way anywhere... i'd be interested to see any examples if they exist. but from where i'm at at the moment, you can go to court wearing a thong and a flower in your hair and you'll probably have just a much (or as little) chance if you don't have the correct mentality and know how to respond to everything they say with negative averments and requests for proof of claim (honour-dishonour).

I don't buy into what he says totally because there is no way to use it. However, I've seen that combining a certain amount of it into interpretation of required responses to the court can cause them to choke. The prosecutor can't make a true statement if the grammer is wrong.

Do you have any specific examples of what you're talking about to illustrate?



I focus on using civil court to define motive for governmental change or compliance with laws on local levels. Then, if the courts will not observe public interests, redress by court order creating compliance as a reasonable means of change is clearly a myth. I've not seen how this might be done properly, but then again I've had no economic means to do it well. Emergency type measures only.

yeh. the thing is, the PUBLIC is the strawman collective. it's just a community of unconscious slaves, and slaves have no rights. the bankers own all the persons/public as they are held as surety for the global bankruptcy. their legal standing is literally that of a slave. so yeh, good luck getting justice for the public! :(

[christophera]

ah jesus, david wynn miller... man, that guy... i really don't know what to say... I will probably never make a serious attempt at deciphering his ramblings because if it's that complex it's sus to me... honour-dishonour is the system I think I'll stick with if I ever wind up in court. it's pretty simple shit, no legalese necessary.

Perhaps the phrase below will help a little. Millers stuff is anti legalese. It dismantles the legalese because the legalese is not proper language and the grammatical rules can be used to show it is fraud. Miller successes pivot on that and has removed quite a few sitting judges with the technique. Hawaiian sovereignity was partially restored with his help.

well, i'm not in the US, but I've not ever heard of clothing or any markings being used in any effective way anywhere... i'd be interested to see any examples if they exist. but from where i'm at at the moment, you can go to court wearing a thong and a flower in your hair and you'll probably have just a much (or as little) chance if you don't have the correct mentality and know how to respond to everything they say with negative averments and requests for proof of claim (honour-dishonour).

Miller came up with the US flag on the tee shirt idea because there was no way to get the admiralty flag out of the court. Seems logical if nothing else.

Do you have any specific examples of what you're talking about to illustrate?

A friend got a ticket in a nearby municipality. When he went to court the judge asked him how he was going to plead. This is what he said.

For the witness with the knowledge of the law is with the claim of the truth by this witness.

He was a student of Millers for 3 years and is good with grammer to begin with. He says the above is mathematically correct per Millers formula for truth language. The judge said "I guess that means not guilty".
Later, my friend asked the subpoenaed highway patrol at trial in front of the judge, "Do you have any silver or gold?" The cop did not. My friend then pulled out a silver and a gold coin he carries, and asked the judge if the judge was going to allow a vagrant to give a Freeman a ticket. The judge said, "Then I'm a vagrant too".

My friend was convicted but appealed and paid for the appeal. Then he got busy and missed the appeal date. After 4 months all of his money was returned with a note from the court saying the charges were dismissed.

yeh. the thing is, the PUBLIC is the strawman collective. it's just a community of unconscious slaves, and slaves have no rights. the bankers own all the persons/public as they are held as surety for the global bankruptcy. their legal standing is literally that of a slave. so yeh, good luck getting justice for the public! :(

Good luck even getting the public to realize that they are completely controlled and weakened by their lifestyles taken from corporate example provided by decades of media.

[bsmurph83]

yep!

all that stuff about Miller is very interesting. i'd be interested in learning about it but it's obviously something that would be rather time consuming if you want to become competent at it. good luck to those who do! if the same results can be gotten without legalese or Miller's full on anti-legalese dialect then I'll probably look there, which is what honour-dishonour seems to do.

'charges dismissed' is the magic phrase for me! :cool:

[christophera]

yep!

all that stuff about Miller is very interesting. i'd be interested in learning about it but it's obviously something that would be rather time consuming if you want to become competent at it. good luck to those who do! if the same results can be gotten without legalese or Miller's full on anti-legalese dialect then I'll probably look there, which is what honour-dishonour seems to do.

'charges dismissed' is the magic phrase for me! :cool:

I would like to see the pleadings he actually filed and get transcripts of hearings rather than study it direct. Application is everything.

My poin† is that the Freemen should also be able to go on the offensive in their courts. The Freeman owns them in their fair, just and lawful state. Some other unfortunate people own that other thing.

Accordingly a culture of civil litigation comprised of people using the Freemen principles where the national pastime is conducting inquiry under force of law into corporate activity and government activity, logically refines the operation of a system. Those who forced the signing of the Magna Carta basically created the right to have such courts.

Such courts are absolutely reasonable when the situation grows as corrupt as it has. That is why I suggest sueing media to gain a true democracy rather than existing in deception serving corporate profits by infiltrated governmental collusion, manipulation or NWO agenda.

If nothing else it creates a body of evidence with evaluation and opinions clearly stated either way with reasoning, hopefully ...... applied in decision.

[christophera]

Canadians seeking to create a Charter for Canada. Reinforcing the 1215 Magna Carta.

http://www.detaxcanada.org/carta.htm

This is a fairly complete telling of what history condenses as the meaning or motives of the parties. Notice how the motives of the King and Barons are skewed from the actual statements of the Charter.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/M/monarchy/documents/magna_carta.html

Notice how this interpretation has the term "crusade" used.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pgc.asp?page=source/mcarta.html

Then another does not.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html



What is being hidden is the oppressive taxation that was imposed upon perhaps 2 generations to finance crusades.

[christophera]

It seems a very good idea to reassemble under the agreement of the Magna Carta and reclaim its rights then temporarily reject all violated agreements that follow it. The documents following the Charter attempt to emulate its meaning to the people, but move away from the impetous that created the accpetance by the elites of the Charter.

Or, ....... as long as they are bound by the Charter, the motives the elites had are the only position that was present. The Free men had the elites backed up against the wall and were threatening them with eventual extinction if they did not sign and agree to abide by the Kings authority.

The only compromise is that the truth of how the signers signatures were compelled is not communicated, hence this discussion right now to try and recover the truth of why the barons and the king signed in agreemtn to respecting the rights of Freemen.

The signers have violated their agreement over and over. Re knowing the true nature of the agreement is the first step we can take towards reinstituting it.

[alisa2]

The signers have violated their agreement over and over. Re knowing the true nature of the agreement is the first step we can take towards reinstituting it.

The true nature of the Magna Carta is that it is a stipulation between the king and their subjects. From the Magna Carta came the Petition of Right (assented to by Charles the First) and then the Declaration of Rights (assented to by Prince Orange in 1688) which Declaration was then made into an act of parliament call the Bill of Rights. Such was the Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from King John, says Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to having a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution because, he states, in part that:


"A Bill of Rights would furnish to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power and that "men disposed to usurp might argue with some logic that it is absurd to say there is no authority-- when the Constitution has a provision against the abuse of that authority. And that provision clearly implies that the national government has a power to regulate it."

[I took that quote out of context.. So for clarification, please go read Federalist Paper #84 for yourself. ]

[christophera]

.
The true nature of the Magna Carta is that it is a stipulation between the king and their subjects. From the Magna Carta came the Petition of Right ................ Such was the Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from King John.

Let me point out 2 things, because this thread contends that history is misrepresented with regard to the motives of the signers and depends more on history before 1215, and the MC itself, to determine what led to the MC being signed rather than statments about it in years following.

Within the known history preceding 1215, there is absolutely no motive for the barons to agree to what they have agreed to in the MC. In fact, logically, they would be more inclined to agree to a structure that guaranteed the opposite behavior from them than what the MC does if historical behaviors are any guide.

I would suggest that the barons had a sword in hand because they were trying to defend themselves from the Free men who were becoming an army in the forests and that the King was the only entity that the people would accept such an agreement from as the barons had exhibited such treachery over decades.

[alisa2]

christopher wrote: Within the known history preceding 1215, there is absolutely no motive for the barons to agree to what they have agreed to in the MC. In fact, logically, they would be more inclined to agree to a structure that guaranteed the opposite behavior from them than what the MC does if historical behaviors are any guide.

Are you suggesting then that the MC is a fake? What kind of structure would they [the barons] have been more inclined to agree to. Give an example.

[alisa2]

i think - and feel free to correct me - that it ultimately comes back to commerce. the freeman wants to live without interference from corporate entities/governments. that's what gov's are, they're commercial money-making ventures. so the basis of authority appears to lie in the Bible. this is the code of commerce the PTB follow and they recognise it in court.... which is actually pretty ironic because i view the bible as a fascinating work of fiction, and yet, this is the basically the 'how-to' of commerce. that's why they get you to swear on the Bible in court, but they take it from you after you swear and then they try to trap you in admiralty/fiction world. they say you have to make sure you HANG ON to the Bible once you've sworn on it because that is where the remedy lies. i'm basing this on all the Pytellek and Menard material i've gone through. Pytellek's got some very interesting stories about his adventures in court while using the Bible as his remedy... apparently some judges quite enjoy it when someone comes into court knowing how the system works. livens up their day a bit :D



Actually, the prohibition against government interference is in Article 1 section 10 (if you live in the U.S.) which states, in part, “No State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” Social security violates this provision/prohibition of interfering with the people’s contracts, even if it is voluntary. The mere writing of the SS Act is/was a violation because the Article clearly states, No state shall make any law- that includes any law the government regards as “voluntary”. Most, if not all, interference by government can be traced back to the SSN. There was interference by government before the SSN and people still didn’t know what to do about it but in my opinion I think it had more to do with lack of knowledge of the Constitution and how to fight back with it than anything else.

[christophera]

christopher wrote:

Are you suggesting then that the MC is a fake? What kind of structure would they [the barons] have been more inclined to agree to. Give an example.

No, the MC is genuine, probably more than most realize. History has misrepresented the motives of the signers.

The Barons would have agreed more readily to a system of two bowls of potato soup per day and leather slings to keep the peasants chains from clanging to loudly.

My point is who does history tell you forced the Barons to sign for the salvation of their souls, and those of all of their ancestors and heirs? What exactly does that mean? What is "rectifying our realm" mean? (1215)

Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers,

There are perhaps 3 reasons to hide the true motives of the signers that I can think of.

Here are some hints that address the most compelling reason.

King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders;

or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross;

[yozhik]

No, the MC is genuine, probably more than most realize.


I can't agree.

From what I have read, interpreted and formed an opinion on; the Magna Carta is overrated and somewhat irrelevant.
It is a red herring.
A distraction.

[alisa2]

The Barons would have agreed more readily to a system of two bowls of potato soup per day and leather slings to keep the peasants chains from clanging to loudly.

My point is who does history tell you forced the Barons to sign for the salvation of their souls, and those of all of their ancestors and heirs? What exactly does that mean? What is "rectifying our realm" mean? (121


Read the book 1215 The Year of the Magna Carta by Danny Danziger.
It's a fascinating book and will answer all of your questions.

[christophera]

I can't agree.

From what I have read, interpreted and formed an opinion on; the Magna Carta is overrated and somewhat irrelevant.
It is a red herring.
A distraction.

Read the Magna Carta, try to reconcile the inconsistencies between what you identify as it's intended influence and the language. I do notice you have not commented on some of the reasons I put forth for the true meaning to be misrepresented and such comment, with reasoning, would have substance.

[yozhik]

What I do not comprehend or identify with is the fascination with a single historical document, which clearly, was never intended for "the people", and was signed by a King who had already signed away his realm to the Vatican, to save his own arse, with no loyalty to the country, the notion of a country and the sovereignty of a country.

For a King to relinquish his entire Kingdom and then "rent" it back, shows the mettle of the man, or rathr, the lack thereof.
Why would any document signed after this pact with the devil have any significance or credibility?

It's a meaningless document for the social elite, with signatories who had no credibility, signed under duress.
In terms of it being a "contract", there would be multiple grounds for it to be void ab initio.

I personally can not see any point in clinging on to a document that does not stand the test of time.

The Constitution of the United States of America is of similar worth(lessness), although again, is clung onto as if it was the Holy Grail.
It is simply another beautiful example of the genius of the deception that has been weaved and crafted over centuries.

[christophera]

What I do not comprehend or identify with is the fascination with a single historical document, which clearly, was never intended for "the people", and was signed by a King

Correct, and the barons I believe. The issue is WHY did they sign? That motive will illumnate who the contract really serves.

I suggest the mysterious aspects of the document itself be addressed rather than exercise of the historical perspective that is being questioned.

I've quoted from the Magna Carta some reason I can show for the true motives of the signers to be misrepresented. I would like to see those addressed by your understanding of the issue they bring forth.

[yozhik]

Correct, and the barons I believe. The issue is WHY did they sign? That motive will illumnate who the contract really serves.

I suggest the mysterious aspects of the document itself be addressed rather than exercise of the historical perspective that is being questioned.

I've quoted from the Magna Carta some reason I can show for the true motives of the signers to be misrepresented. I would like to see those addressed by your understanding of the issue they bring forth.

Why examine the motive of the Barons?
What is the relevance or importance?
Who cares what their motives were?
There motives are inconsequential when the other party had no credibility and was signing under duress.

My motivation for signing a contract means nothing if the other party is intent on fraud or has no intention of upholding their commitments.
Whilst intellectually interesting; the reality is, it means nothing.

[christophera]

Why examine the motive of the Barons?

A contract has to have at least 2 parties, one provides something in exchange for something else from the other. If that something happened to be rights and freedom, would it matter?

What is the relevance or importance?

What does one party have to abide to and why? Both relevant factors here.

Who cares what their motives were?

Who do you refer to? That is my issue, who and why is not clear. I believe history miisrepresnets them and I've posted specifics that need to be answered because they are a part of the MC. Some think they know what it is about because they were told by historians. I don't think so, it does not add up.

There motives are inconsequential when the other party had no credibility and was signing under duress.

You are not being clear. Who was under duress and why?

My motivation for signing a contract means nothing if the other party is intent on fraud or has no intention of upholding their commitments.
Whilst intellectually interesting; the reality is, it means nothing.

If they will then not recognize it, if there is no place of authority, it means the next time around, there is no negotiating, ........... ever, unless the methods of fraud are well enough understood to evade.

War or peace, you choose. Answer some direct questions and comment on quotes coming from the MC please.

[bsmurph83]

Actually, the prohibition against government interference is in Article 1 section 10 (if you live in the U.S.) which states, in part, “No State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” Social security violates this provision/prohibition of interfering with the people’s contracts, even if it is voluntary. The mere writing of the SS Act is/was a violation because the Article clearly states, No state shall make any law- that includes any law the government regards as “voluntary”. Most, if not all, interference by government can be traced back to the SSN. There was interference by government before the SSN and people still didn’t know what to do about it but in my opinion I think it had more to do with lack of knowledge of the Constitution and how to fight back with it than anything else.

hi, sorry alisa2, i'm not sure why you've quoted from me there. i can't work out the link between your comment and mine and why mine was included...? that comment of mine is a ways back in the thread from memory...

[alisa2]

hi, sorry alisa2, i'm not sure why you've quoted from me there. i can't work out the link between your comment and mine and why mine was included...? that comment of mine is a ways back in the thread from memory...


hi. gee, i'm sorry, that you don't understand why i've quoted you there. Maybe i'll have better luck next time, huh, bsmurph ? LOL.

[alisa2]

I believe history miisrepresnets them and I've posted specifics that need to be answered because they are a part of the MC. Some think they know what it is about because they were told by historians. I don't think so, it does not add up.


You don't have to believe the historians. Even if history misrepresented the barons, one cannot go back in time to find out who or what they did represent. Things don't add up to you because you have no memory of what happened, and you never will, because you were not there.

There is no mistake the MC made a major difference in history and you will have to read the history books to see that difference.

[christophera]

You don't have to believe the historians. Even if history misrepresented the barons, one cannot go back in time to find out who or what they did represent. Things don't add up to you because you have no memory of what happened, and you never will, because you were not there.

We do have the MC which is a statement from the past, and agreement compelled by one group of people upon another. If we cannot understand it, then history is too flawed for that purpose and we shall have to re understand it or perhaps suffer it again. Then we should attend to whoever is keeping our history for us and end their incompetence or effot to make us ignorant of our past.

There is no mistake the MC made a major difference in history and you will have to read the history books to see that difference.

I'm wondering what else is communicated in the passages I quoted and asked for comment on that is also not understood and what that means.

[christophera]

I'm quoting myself to emphasize that people here have no clue as to what these passages mean by the use of history to understand them. I cannot help but feel that the efforts to use common law by those who would call themselve Free men is seriously blunted because of this fact.


My point is who does history tell you forced the Barons to sign for the salvation of their souls, and those of all of their ancestors and heirs? What exactly does that mean? What is "rectifying our realm" mean? (1215)

Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers,

There are perhaps 3 reasons to hide the true motives of the signers that I can think of.

Here are some hints that address the most compelling reason.

King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders;

or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross;

[yozhik]

What is it you are looking for or wanting?
I don't see any specific goal from your posts?
You quote yourself and seem to berate the members for not doing ... what exactly?
If you have something to share ... share it.
If you have a specific opinion, then state it.

Your motives are unclear and the point of the topic is also obtuse.
Please state a view succinctly, rather than posting a quote and then looking at the class with a generic "discuss" prompt.

Discuss what?
You obviously have some very firm ideas and opinions and seem to be judging based on those, but without making them known, in simple terms.

[bsmurph83]

hi. gee, i'm sorry, that you don't understand why i've quoted you there. Maybe i'll have better luck next time, huh, bsmurph ? LOL.

well alisa, let's hope that with any luck, perhaps your next post and quoting of others' materials will not require added clarification! no need to take it so personally, I was merely seeking a little further discussion. if your input is unclear to someone and they seek clarification, would it not be more constructive to attempt to provide it? would that not be more conducive to general learning purposes here? i apologise if my post came across as some kind of affront, the internet doesn't well facilitate the conveyance of various subtleties of language.

[alisa2]

bsmurph wrote: hi, sorry alisa2, i'm not sure why you've quoted from me there. i can't work out the link between your comment and mine and why mine was included...? that comment of mine is a ways back in the thread from memory...

I replied to your quote of a few weeks ago but you didn't have to respond to it- I wasn't waiting for a response from you.

Now, here’s the link you couldn’t work out: The first sentence in your post states “…the freeman wants to live without interference from corporate entities/government… so the basis of authority appears to be in the Bible”. The last sentence in your quote you then say “…the Bible is where the remedy lies”, and that “Pytellek uses the Bible as his remedy.” Now, that was the link between your comment and mine. I replied by saying that the prohibition against government interference is in [the U.S. Constitution] Article 1 section 10 (if you live in the U.S.), which states, in part, “No State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” Social security violates this provision/prohibition of interfering with the people’s contracts, even if it is voluntary. The mere writing of the SS Act is/was a violation because the Article clearly states, No state shall make any law- that includes any law the government regards as “voluntary”. Most, if not all, interference by government can be traced back to the SSN. There was interference by government before the SSN and people still didn’t know what to do about it but in my opinion I think it had more to do with lack of knowledge of the Constitution and how to fight back with it than anything else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I realize your quote was a ways back in the thread of memory but that memory was right in front of you--all you would have had to do is re-read your post to reawaken that memory. But maybe there never was any hope to begin with of connecting your words with mine for whatever reason.
Don't worry about it. Peace.

[christophera]

What is it you are looking for or wanting?
I don't see any specific goal from your posts?
You quote yourself and seem to berate the members for not doing ... what exactly?
If you have something to share ... share it.
If you have a specific opinion, then state it.

Your motives are unclear and the point of the topic is also obtuse.
Please state a view succinctly, rather than posting a quote and then looking at the class with a generic "discuss" prompt.

Discuss what?
You obviously have some very firm ideas and opinions and seem to be judging based on those, but without making them known, in simple terms.

Discuss the quotes from the Magna Carta I've posted again here at the bottom. I've posted specific questions about it.

My point is that history very nearly ignores a major rebellion and the reasons for it. It was too obvious to be described at the time of the Charter and the Free men role of victory gaining the concessions and perpetuity of treaty in the Charter was short sighted to not perpetuate the agreement of the Charter and the reasons for it as an aspect of the Charter.

Now, my point 794 years later, is that we actually need to understand what was happening to receate the force of law and the accountability in clause 61 that the elites accepted upon THEM. How in the hell else could we enforce any of it if we did not understand how we compelled the agreement and why they accepted it?

Of course, the truth of the Charter has been lost because many of the people do not want to know it. It contains reference to something repugnant and vulgur to the elites which is what John Harris referes to with mention of conspiracy, history and religion. So it is not something "you just share". I've tried and now you are upset.

http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/articles/john-harris-carpenters-view


My point is who does history tell you forced the Barons to sign for the salvation of their souls, and those of all of their ancestors and heirs? What exactly does that mean? What is "rectifying our realm" mean? (1215)

Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers,

There are perhaps 3 reasons to hide the true motives of the signers that I can think of.

Here are some hints that address the most compelling reason.

King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders;

or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross;

[bsmurph83]

bsmurph wrote:

I replied to your quote of a few weeks ago but you didn't have to respond to it- I wasn't waiting for a response from you.

Now, here’s the link you couldn’t work out: The first sentence in your post states “…the freeman wants to live without interference from corporate entities/government… so the basis of authority appears to be in the Bible”. The last sentence in your quote you then say “…the Bible is where the remedy lies”, and that “Pytellek uses the Bible as his remedy.” Now, that was the link between your comment and mine. I replied by saying that the prohibition against government interference is in [the U.S. Constitution] Article 1 section 10 (if you live in the U.S.), which states, in part, “No State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” Social security violates this provision/prohibition of interfering with the people’s contracts, even if it is voluntary. The mere writing of the SS Act is/was a violation because the Article clearly states, No state shall make any law- that includes any law the government regards as “voluntary”. Most, if not all, interference by government can be traced back to the SSN. There was interference by government before the SSN and people still didn’t know what to do about it but in my opinion I think it had more to do with lack of knowledge of the Constitution and how to fight back with it than anything else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I realize your quote was a ways back in the thread of memory but that memory was right in front of you--all you would have had to do is re-read your post to reawaken that memory. But maybe there never was any hope to begin with of connecting your words with mine for whatever reason.
Don't worry about it. Peace.

i think there's been a misunderstanding here somewhere (possibly several). my input was probably a bit left of field, but yours strikes me as perhaps being moreso. i'm maybe looking at this in more global terms than you in that you reference the Constitution and the interference of gov's via the SSN and so on... i was talking more about general jurisdiction and the hierarchy of things in law. you basically re-posted your original post which doesn't clear a lot up unfortunately... maybe my own post was misunderstood or just not clear or whatever the case may be...

now - and i invite corrections and/or refinements of this from all parties - i was under the impression that the Constitution refers to CITIZENS who have a standing UNDER the government and its created acts and statutes. if that's the case it would seem to be an inherently inferior position; slave-like in fact, because the government is A COMPANY conducting commerce, so standing under its rules/workplace policies would make you an employee - SSN or not. If that's the case then I don't care what acts, statutes or bills it creates because they would only refer to employees who want to live in the fictional world of the dead (commerce). these things don't apply to the freeman on the land who lives under Common Law, the law of the land.

the way i see it, americans and the peoples of other nations were enslaved before the SSN because the nation was a corporate entity right from the start (originally called the Virginia Company). it's citizens have always been employees/slaves, it would seem. the privatisation of the Fed in 1913 just concecrated this situation and worsened it (for the whole planet). the freeman on the land doesn't live IN the United States of America (corporate entity), because he is in a foreign jurisdiction (Com. Law). the legal creations of the 'government' are irrelevant, because the only law the freeman needs to know is essentially, 'do no harm'.

another question for anyone and everyone: what does the Bible indicate in terms of the creation of a so-called contract under duress? if the barons forced the king to contract in creating the MC i'd be interested to know what the Bible indicates in this regard (i don't have a copy). like i said earlier, the Bible seems to be regarded as the origins of the laws of commerce and honour-dishonour. so, if the Bible indicates that this would render any transaction void ab initio, then would that render the Magna Carta invalid, even if provocative? a couple of christophera's posts on earlier pages from the actual document itself seem to suggest the investing of immense power and freedom in the freeman on the land, BUT, if the King signed under duress, then is it all simply for nothing and an interesting aside in history?

the Bible has been referred to as 'the greatest book the world affords' by persons of interest to us. it seems to be what the rules of commerce are based on, hence I ask the above questions...

Intriguing quote: Pytellek comments in his materials (paraphrased): "...which Commonwealth of Australia are we operating in? Is it the CL where Australian Constitution applies and Bill of Rights and MAgna Carta or are we in Admiralty because Commonwealth of Australia is registered on the US Securities and Exchange Commission?"

it all looks a bit of a mess, doesn't it?

feedback appreciatively received, as long as the ad hominem can be left at the door...

[yozhik]

I agree.
The Constitution of the United States of America is simply corporate policy.
It is NOT a document written by man, for man.

Founding document?
Articles of Foundation?

I think it foolish to derive sovereignty from a document, when the true sovereignty is within.
A document is a fiction.
It has been created and no matter how much diligence and care is taken, will always be an imperfect copy of the original intent.

The written word is not the originating thought; it is a representation of the thought, scribed in commonly accepted symbols, collectively forming words, approximating unique and sentient ideas.

So a written document, stating corporate policy, is as far removed from the intent of man as possible.

[alisa2]

bsmurph wrote i was under the impression that the Constitution refers to CITIZENS who have a standing UNDER the government and its created acts and statutes. if that's the case it would seem to be an inherently inferior position; slave-like in fact, because the government is A COMPANY conducting commerce, so standing under its rules/workplace policies would make you an employee - SSN or not. If that's the case then I don't care what acts, statutes or bills it creates because they would only refer to employees who want to live in the fictional world of the dead (commerce). these things don't apply to the freeman on the land who lives under Common Law, the law of the land.


The constitution refers to all PEOPLE who are State CITIZENS. Those CITIZENS had standing UNDER the government of the several States. The Federal government had jurisdiction for certain cases mentioned in Art. III. We, THE PEOPLE possessed ALL of their rights in 1787. Those rights were not "constitutional rights" but rather rights possessed by all natural people. Documents do not grant rights, but simply state what rights are already possessed by THE PEOPLE. "THE PEOPLE" are the natural people as mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America. No constitution or other document creates rights but only state them so as to prevent governments or people from infringing upon those rights. The word “Person” in the Constitution for the United States of America meant natural person. It wasn’t a term that had to be defined. The term “person” was statutized with the advent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th had three main purposes: to make national citizenship paramount to state citizenship; to confer national citizenship upon the newly freed slaves; and to secure for the former slaves the enjoyment of certain CIVIL rights (as opposed to natural rights). The 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection” transformed the constitutional system.

Regarding the SSN, in addition to being a violation of our Art. 1 section 10 rights, it violates of our 5th Amendment right against self incrimination: The date of birth (DOB), mother’s maiden name and father’s name are unique information that you could have rightly withheld. That information was used against you to establish a unique SSN to track you- the criminal. The SS application was fraud but the card would not have issued had you not given information that could be used against you.


There is a lot more.. but that's all I have time for now...

[christophera]

the way i see it, americans and the peoples of other nations were enslaved before the SSN because the nation was a corporate entity right from the start (originally called the Virginia Company). it's citizens have always been employees/slaves, it would seem. the privatization of the Fed in 1913 just consecrated this situation and worsened it (for the whole planet). the freeman on the land doesn't live IN the United States of America (corporate entity), because he is in a foreign jurisdiction (Com. Law). the legal creations of the 'government' are irrelevant, because the only law the freeman needs to know is essentially, 'do no harm'.

Uh, ....... interesting exchange. Both you and alisa2 seem correct.

The quoted above shows how you differ in your perceptions, bsmurph goes for origins, common knowledge precedent with logic as a final goal (keeping track of documented history rather than statute development), and alisa2 goes for the paper trail.
To substantiate that below we have bsmurph going to analyze what has been delineated for Free men as an origin or authority of "common law", religion.

RE the above. I think the Magna Carta can be seen a predecessor contract to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution because the people creating it, or their ancestors left England and were in the form or relating to English law. At the time (1176+-) the very confusion I work to dispel was dominant and the colonizers had to distance themselves from English contracts to distinguish the new one, ..... so the Magna Carta is not mentioned in the Constitution. However, the state of california places the MC as the first social contract in a chain ending with the states Constitution.


another question for anyone and everyone: what does the Bible indicate in terms of the creation of a so-called contract under duress? if the barons forced the king to contract in creating the MC i'd be interested to know what the Bible indicates in this regard (i don't have a copy). like i said earlier, the Bible seems to be regarded as the origins of the laws of commerce and honour-dishonour. so, if the Bible indicates that this would render any transaction void ab initio, then would that render the Magna Carta invalid, even if provocative? a couple of christophera's posts on earlier pages from the actual document itself seem to suggest the investing of immense power and freedom in the freeman on the land, BUT, if the King signed under duress, then is it all simply for nothing and an interesting aside in history?

Let me try to organize some of the motives as I've been able to piece it together

As far as I can tell, from a logical examination using that which was left out, everyone was acting under duress and the MC was supposed to end it. And would of if the people had not allowed themselves to be controlled by unreasonable fears. Controlled by unreasonable fears, the knowledge they needed to be vigilant against the elites heretical dominance was disabled by relinquishing that cultural aspect of the new spiritually, psychologically ignorant societies imposed by crusade, inquisition and conquest.
Keep in mind, part of the reason for the duress to begin with is a global at this time and, spiritual, religious, diplomatic taboo, so all of those participating in and keeping history (for Free men as well) have an interest in leaving out that critical aspect.

The Free men were going to exterminate the barons and the Knights of the Temple for religious reasons, or a bizarre distortion of it with "heresy gone wild" to tyranny and endless war (see "crusades" sound familiar?). The barons, in order to preserve what power they might, and the business of banking they employed the Knights to secure, Threatened the King because the King did not want to participate in their scam or be used to officiate the lie they were going to propagate with the MC.
The barons were threatened and over run occasionally, by armed, angry, organizing mobs, led by the Free men who were backed by the robber barons (name by the elites for them, actually clan Chieftains) and without the trusted Kings guarantee, their words, written or spoken were worthless to the Free men who would sooner kill them. Albeit at the cost of many lives of the people, which was a reason the Chieftains were willing to end the attacks and allow business IF some independent authority secured the word of the barons creating the force of law, by respect, on all levels.

The King, actually trying to be a benevolent representative of the Vatican, working to gain the peoples favor for Rome, knew the onerous history of exploitation and immersion into heretical gained, and held power, abused, and, was not totally free of heretical connections himself, as Kings are (sanctified?); agreed to be forced to sign IF recorded as "under duress" by history.

Not a small mess, immense. Mostly because of fear of human unconscious potential labeled "heresy" to even recognize as extant.

[christophera]

The constitution refers to all PEOPLE who are State CITIZENS. Those CITIZENS had standing UNDER the government of the several States. The Federal government had jurisdiction for certain cases mentioned in Art. III. We, THE PEOPLE possessed ALL of their rights in 1787. Those rights were not "constitutional rights" but rather rights possessed by all natural people. Documents do not grant rights, but simply state what rights are already possessed by THE PEOPLE. "THE PEOPLE" are the natural people as mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America. No constitution or other document creates rights but only state them so as to prevent governments or people from infringing upon those rights. The word “Person” in the Constitution for the United States of America meant natural person. It wasn’t a term that had to be defined. The term “person” was statutized with the advent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th had three main purposes: to make national citizenship paramount to state citizenship; to confer national citizenship upon the newly freed slaves; and to secure for the former slaves the enjoyment of certain CIVIL rights (as opposed to natural rights). The 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection” transformed the constitutional system.

Regarding the SSN, in addition to being a violation of our Art. 1 section 10 rights, it violates of our 5th Amendment right against self incrimination: The date of birth (DOB), mother’s maiden name and father’s name are unique information that you could have rightly withheld. That information was used against you to establish a unique SSN to track you- the criminal. The SS application was fraud but the card would not have issued had you not given information that could be used against you.

There is a lot more.. but that's all I have time for now...

I like it. Functional and easy to grasp without creating uneeded structure that human rights depend on.

I think everyone agrees, that the only thing wrong is that the Constitution is not working. I see an infiltration that colludes to ignore it and usurp it.

None of that recovers it, or the force of it as something the entity we refer to as govenment must abide by.

As far as I can tell, at this late date, perhaps only the loss of our unreasonable fears can save us so we can discuss how the role they have in our enslavement or demise can be used to protect us.

[bsmurph83]

this is all very interesting. if what you say, christophera, about the MC's creation, then i guess it makes sense to consider it as being of some importance. it's valid (?)

it doesn't make anyone free (sovereignty is within) but it doesn't hurt to have around either...

as far as the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and various amendments to either (can the bill of rights even be amended? i don't know), living in Australia, I've had little need for a knowledge of these things, which is why my line of questioning has largely tried to avoid dealing with specific contents of these American doc's.

from observing the last few years and the hilarious presidency of George Bush, i think it's safe to say that any amendments to the Constitution have been for the worse rather than the better. they've been systematically trying to undermine whatever 'safety' or 'freedom' this doc provides, which just goes to illustrate why i place so much emphasis on the freeman's standing ABOVE the government and thus, any amendments they make to any sacred documents. i don't care much for the paper trail. words on paper can be altered at the whim of a tyrant (or in the case of the President, a puppet controlled by a tyrannous cabal).

having said that, if someone way more knowledgeable than i, such as Mark P, references the validity of the MAgna Carta, Bill of Rights, or whatever, then I pretty much have to take them as being of some significance, even if only in the limited capacity documents have in securing or defending anyone's freedom. i'd rather have the MAgna Carta on paper to back up the concept of our inalienable rights than nothing at all. the government's acts and statutes can kiss my arse, they don't apply to me.

[christophera]

i'd rather have the MAgna Carta on paper to back up the concept of our inalienable rights than nothing at all.

Well said. And alisal2 said, "It doesn't grant them, it just defines what cannot be taken".

The dominant fact is that because the various nations Constitutions, social contracts, whatevers, that do follow the trend of the Magna Carta wi the form of English, only exist while they are complying with the terms of the agreement.

Outside of that, the nations leaders can be held accountable for non feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance, and of course in any case completely estopped from making any demands.

The words of the MC itself structure the psychological environment of motive. They justify this interpretation of history because that of academia cannot be seen as consistent with human nature by any stretch. And, the general history prior sets the environment of severe to extreme abuse of human rights continuing for about 70 years.
Such is what created the Freemen as they escaped a form of slavery dedicated to financing a sick obsession to kill people who used various natural skills to work with the unconcious mind, or Pagans and the label and generalization of "heresy" they were imposed with. Hypocritically the elites used the same knowledge within their "orders" of Knights of the Temple and Hospitaliers.

Australia has a very strong thread of that which runs through parts of it. I've studied the "Kelly gang" in depth, and what was happening there.

[yozhik]

Given the topic seems to be the MC and the C of the USA, I thought this might be an interesting read ...

Corporations were originally established for unlawful purposes -
primarily to escape personal punishment for crimes by placing the blame
on a fictional organization responsible to no one.

"Piercing the Corporate Veil" is a legal term which signifies the
process where a court removes the protection provided to individual
members of a corporation for criminal activity, and makes those members
responsible for their own actions.

The "United States" government jumped on the corporate bandwagon in
the 1870's by declaring itself a separate entity from Constitutional government.

Because corporations are imaginary, they must have some real person
(typically a lawyer) to speak and act for them.

That, is, since corporations don't actually exist, they must be
"represented" by a flesh and blood person who does exist. Such
"representation" is mandated by law in all American courts.

Whether the courts actually presume that all "parties" to a lawsuit to
be artificial entities remains questionable. However, there is little
doubt that most of the government entities that "appear" to sue us in
court are corporations.

For example, under Title 28 of the United States Code, section
3002(15)(a) declares that the term "United States" means "a federal
corporation". Although this corporate identity may have been created by
Congress just after the Civil War, this corporation is not the same
"United States" that was created by the Constitution.

The resulting confusion between the "United States" Republica and the
"United States" corporation has allowed the corporate "United States"
to intrude into the Americans' lives while masquerading as the
constitutional "United States" Republic. This deception has been
oppressive since the corporate "United States" is not directly bound by
the Constitution and thus not obligated to respect the American
people's "unalienable Rights". As a result, the corporate "United
States" is hugely empowered in court while the rights of Americans
facing that corporations are hugely diminished.

All of the socialistic programs and the grab of power at all echelons
of government are corporate "enterprizes". One cannot escape oppression
by corporate authority until he has removed himself from the
corporation's jurisdiction. If we "pierce the corporate veil," we can
remove ourselves from that corrupt jurisdiction and regain the status
of natural men with "unalienable Rights".

We can view modern government as a system of inter-linked corporations,
where the Constitution is merely a byword, Congress is the board of
governors, the president is the corporate CEO, and the "courts" -
including the U.S. Supreme Court (but not the Supreme Court of the
United States) - are mere corporate arbitration boards.

[bsmurph83]

good post yozhik. what's the source?? would like to read more...

[alisa2]

This is for you, Christophera:

The Magna Carta's main message is that tyrants may be toppled.

http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/story/history-magna-carta-revisited


It is an easy trick to point out how little of the Great Charter is even comprehensible so long after the riven feudal society which spawned it has gone. How can one possibly translate for a modern audience the meaning of the archaic story of King John, his bitter feuds with his father and brothers, his savage territorial wars, sprawling across the blood-ties of European royalty, and the endless struggles with contemptuous barons?

Here was a man whose father had imprisoned his mother; who fought his brothers and tried to betray his eldest, the obsessive Crusader Richard the Lionheart. He then fought his nephew Arthur for power. He may have killed Arthur with a botched castration, or by knifing him and throwing him into the Seine. (We should not feel too sorry for Arthur who, in turn, had tried to kidnap his own grandmother.) He was forced to grovel to Pope Innocent III, himself a ruthless character who threatened England with invasion and for a while put the church there on strike, threatening the people with Hell, because John would not accept his nominee as Archbishop of Canterbury. Although John had it coming, there are no heroes here.

These are tales which, post-Shakespeare, would need to be translated into drug feuds in Colombian shanty-towns or New York mafia families to make sense; in which there is no virtuous power, and merely a struggle for ascendancy involving endless family betrayal and the corruption of all law. The story of John’s loss of the crown jewels in a tidal wrong turn is like a subplot from “The Sopranos”.

Reading through it now (translated from the original, in Latin, of course) one finds the bulk of the text is a dense web of deals about inheritance, power and property which essentially bolstered the position of the barons, territorial hard-men, rather than “the people”. Given the importance of Magna Carta to English identity, it is worth noting that of the 25 barons who forced John to submit, 19 still have French names. No heroes, they. Their main beef against him was that he had lost his French war and was trying to make them pay for it. But the notion that they were sturdy English patriots is somewhat undercut by the fact that when John repudiated the Charter, they promptly invited the French prince Louis to invade. Louis conquered half of England and plunged the country into full-scale civil war. Had John not died rather suddenly, possibly of over-eating, then his French cousin might well have been King Louis of England as well as being Louis VIII of France.

Anyone who thinks that despite all this, the Great Charter is an infallible guide to our current liberties might like to reflect on clauses such as “Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing” or the two clauses robbing Jews of interest on loans made to people who died. The power it sought to entrench was the power of hard-faced landowners and city rulers.

So why has it lasted? It does contain the deathless promise that all “freemen” should have its proclaimed liberties “forever” and promises (Tony Benn’s point) that no freeman should be imprisoned unlawfully. But above all, it permits the barons legal right to revolt if the monarch fails to abide by his Runnymede deal. In vivid language, the king allows them to “distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”

There we have it. There’s the language of power. This is not the foundation for common law, or an early charter of human rights. Its main message is that tyrants may be toppled. In England’s cathedrals and museums, gawped at by millions, there lies a ticking alibi for bloody insurrection.

[christophera]

good post yozhik. what's the source?? would like to read more...

Agreed, excellent post and history of the US corporate government.

[christophera]

This is for you, Christophera:

The Magna Carta's main message is that tyrants may be toppled.

http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/story/history-magna-carta-revisited



That is a good account that parallels history. Left out again are the people and the fact that they were working on exterminating the barons. Left out is that the barons were trying to get them to pay for the Kings lost French war after paying for crusades and minor wars for 50 years plus.

It describes the worst side of the MC in that it was a sweetheart deal between parties of the same side, the elite. It pretends that the barons want to follow the MC closely enough that they would go after the King for not upholding it. Which is probably why the King didn't want to sign it. Such was a lie and he knew it.

The Free men knew it too, but felt it was "accept the treaty as it was hammered out or go to war against the barons" Such would be interpreted or "painted" as revolt against the King or the church as many of the peasantry believed the church was going to act in their interest and the Free men knew it. Rather than try to wage a war against official propaganda they accepted the MC knowing that the peasants would eventually learn about the treachery and trickery of the elite.

After 800 years, many peasants have figured it out.

[alisa2]

That is a good account that parallels history. Left out again are the people and the fact that they were working on exterminating the barons. Left out is that the barons were trying to get them to pay for the Kings lost French war after paying for crusades and minor wars for 50 years plus.

It describes the worst side of the MC in that it was a sweetheart deal between parties of the same side, the elite. It pretends that the barons want to follow the MC closely enough that they would go after the King for not upholding it. Which is probably why the King didn't want to sign it. Such was a lie and he knew it.


What do you base your opinions on? Where do you get your information from? I can't help but get the impression that you have an ax to grind against the barons. Granted they are not here to defend their side of the story, I'd still like to know how you have come up with the two paragraphs above.

[christophera]

It describes the worst side of the MC in that it was a sweetheart deal between parties of the same side, the elite. It pretends that the barons want to follow the MC closely enough that they would go after the King for not upholding it. Which is probably why the King didn't want to sign it. Such was a lie and he knew it.

The Free men knew it too, but felt it was "accept the treaty as it was hammered out or go to war against the barons" Such would be interpreted or "painted" as revolt against the King or the church as many of the peasantry believed the church was going to act in their interest and the Free men knew it. Rather than try to wage a war against official propaganda they accepted the MC knowing that the peasants would eventually learn about the treachery and trickery of the elite.

After 800 years, many peasants have figured it out.

What do you base your opinions on? Where do you get your information from? I can't help but get the impression that you have an ax to grind against the barons. Granted they are not here to defend their side of the story, I'd still like to know how you have come up with the two paragraphs above.

I think this one passage is the reasonable position that accounts for the way history records the barons demanding the King sign and make them accountable.

It (history) pretends that the barons want to follow the MC closely enough that they would go after the King for not upholding it.

Actually it is the heretical secrecy that the barons and Knights employ that must go, otherwise the axe will be dissapated in grinding.

[yozhik]

The Free men knew it too, but felt it was "accept the treaty as it was hammered out or go to war against the barons" Such would be interpreted or "painted" as revolt against the King or the church as many of the peasantry believed the church was going to act in their interest and the Free men knew it.

Which church do you refer to?

[alisa2]

Actually it is the heretical secrecy that the barons and Knights employ that must go, otherwise the axe will be dissapated in grinding.

Secrecy? How so?

[christophera]

Secrecy? How so?

This is where it leaves law and society as you know it and goes into psychology and spirituality as it really is and has been since the beginning (recently secret). Are you ready for that?

[christophera]

Which church do you refer to?

The Anglican church as it was allied with Rome.

[yozhik]

The Anglican church as it was allied with Rome.

Rome was firmly behind the King.

[christophera]

Rome was firmly behind the King.

It seems that was a politically advantaged position, at least temporarily following an upset.

http://3minutetheologian.org.uk/blog/2008/05/18/anglican-roots-magna-carta/

except in the court of John. The king decided to play hard ball, and proclaimed as a public enemy anyone who recognized Stephen as Archbishop. A month later, he went further, and the monks of Canterbury were expelled from the monastery. If John thought that would solve the problem to his satisfaction he was wrong: he had tried to play hard ball— the pope could play harder.

In March, 1208, Pope Innocent III placed England under interdict. The Church in England was closed— every one. Mass was forbidden to be celebrated, except in monasteries and behind locked doors. Baptism was forbidden to be celebrated in church. The dead were refused burial in consecrated ground. Church bells were silenced (so it wasn’t all bad). The king was excommunicated, which meant that no Christian person was allowed to associate with him. The bishops, with the exception of the Bishop of Winchester, left England.


Still though the motives of the barons to give such rights to Free men is not explained on that page. It seems we will not find the true history written. What I've quoted shows King John as a ruler controlled by avarice. Since the barons were bankers, it would seem that they, and the King were in business. The assertion there that Rome produced the draft for the MC still does not acknowledge motive for the signers to agree to the rights the Free men assert to be theirs.

[yozhik]

It seems that was a politically advantaged position, at least temporarily following an upset.


John signed away his entire Kingdom in 1213 and gave it all to the Vatican, to win their favour and to prevent war.

By then contracting to "rent" it back and sit as their representative, England became a fiefdom of the Vatican.

Has that 1213 document ever been rescinded?
It still sits in the Vatican archives.
I've never seen a document that records the Vatican returning the land and title back ... hardly a "temporary" arrangement :)

I'm probably wrong ... I've just not come across it as yet.
If anyone has the info, I'd really appreciate a pointer in the right direction.

[christophera]

John signed away his entire Kingdom in 1213 and gave it all to the Vatican, to win their favour and to prevent war.

By then contracting to "rent" it back and sit as their representative, England became a fiefdom of the Vatican.

Has that 1213 document ever been rescinded?
It still sits in the Vatican archives.
I've never seen a document that records the Vatican returning the land and title back ... hardly a "temporary" arrangement :)

I'm probably wrong ... I've just not come across it as yet.
If anyone has the info, I'd really appreciate a pointer in the right direction.

I dunno, you could be right. If so, it would be invalid because of artifice and fraud on the part of the Pope of the Vatican. However, the mere fact of it could have triggered the Magna Carta as the peoples method to engage in a valid treaty to be sure there was no vacuum to fill and move against prression orginating from abroad and locally as well.

Apparently they had enough influence to cause the barons to pressure the cozy relationship with the King which gained the barons some image insulation by association with the church, historical sancitification by crusaders default status as lng as they were under some church entity.

[yozhik]

For me, this abandonment of the Kingdom in 1213 and the change of status to a fiefdom to the Vatican and the Catholic church is pivotal.

I doubt it was publicised as a complete surrender and signing over of authority and title (which in truth, it was)!
More likely it was heralded as a diplomatic success, with the King remaining the King and the Vatican being an appeased enemy turned into an ally.

Don't know; I'm guessing.

Whatever; it succeeded in its goal of quelling the Catholic uprising, it prevented war with France - they weren't going to take on the might of the Vatican who would have supported John - and it kept John in the throne, albeit a rented one. The Catholic church was happy, the people were happy, the imminent dangers of war were removed, John's position was fraudulently given the veneer of continuity and all appeared well.

When in actual fact, there was no English realm or Kingdom, there was no English monarch; there now only existed a representative of the Vatican, sitting atop Vatican owned land, as leaseholder, who paid an annual fief to the Vatican to keep the deception alive and well.

The whole point is, after 1213, it could be argued that any contract written on behalf of King John, as monarch and ruler over the English realm, was essentially fraudulent ... any land he bestowed to his subjects, including Barons, was merely apportionment of a sub-tenant leasehold, with no allodial title. were they aware of this?

Now ... none of this is academically researched. :)
It is pure conjecture on my part, born from the basic information of the 1213 document with the Vatican existing, and its ramifications.

I don't know if it was common knowledge in 1213, or whether it has since been revealed in time. It sure does raise some interesting topics for discussion though! :)
One in particular; has the fiefdom ever been reversed? Or does our "monarch" STILL pay annual fees to the Vatican and is the 1213 document still alive and well?
Sure would answer some of the questions that exist today re: the role of the Vatican and the Holy See ...

:rolleyes:

[christophera]

The whole point is, after 1213, it could be argued that any contract written on behalf of King John, as monarch and ruler over the English realm, was essentially fraudulent ... any land he bestowed to his subjects, including Barons, was merely apportionment of a sub-tenant leasehold, with no allodial title. were they aware of this?

Yes it could be argued, but without the Pope proving he is Jesus Christ on earth as claimed or presented, the vaticans position would be fraudulent. That, ........ is probably why the 1213 issue is un explored. Of course doing such would expose any researcher to claims of heresy against the church, ....... and we all know how popular that was, or is.

Emotional reasoning in control, .......... again.

[yozhik]

Yes it could be argued, but without the Pope proving he is Jesus Christ on earth as claimed or presented, the vaticans position would be fraudulent. That, ........ is probably why the 1213 issue is un explored. Of course doing such would expose any researcher to claims of heresy against the church, ....... and we all know how popular that was, or is.

Emotional reasoning in control, .......... again.

I don't think we can just write this 1213 agreement off so easily.
To explore the MC 1215 to its fullest and to include the motivations of the parties, as you desire, then the 1213 document HAS to be considered as a foundation precursor for this contract.

It is a substantial indicator of the frame of mind of the signatories of the MC and also helps explain the environment of its signing.

The Pope doesn't have to prove anything in terms of being Jesus Christ on earth. He has a signed document from the King, assigning the Kingdom to the Vatican and transforming England into a fiefdom.

The mental capacity of the Pope isn't in question; the character and status of the signatories to the Magna Carta 1215 are.

[christophera]

Secrecy? How so?

This is where it leaves law and society as you know it and goes into psychology and spirituality as it really is and has been since the beginning (recently secret). Are you ready for that?

Relating to what you say below in terms of the strictest reason, I have to say that the secrecy itself, how it is created, enforced, upheld and propagated must be understood to show that the vatican has ZERO standing.

I don't think we can just write this 1213 agreement off so easily.
To explore the MC 1215 to its fullest and to include the motivations of the parties, as you desire, then the 1213 document HAS to be considered as a foundation precursor for this contract.

It is a substantial indicator of the frame of mind of the signatories of the MC and also helps explain the environment of its signing.

The Pope doesn't have to prove anything in terms of being Jesus Christ on earth. He has a signed document from the King, assigning the Kingdom to the Vatican and transforming England into a fiefdom.

The mental capacity of the Pope isn't in question; the character and status of the signatories to the Magna Carta 1215 are.

Human psychological potentials are a reality and they control the basis of the situation that you've defined, which, ........... is completely within the elites domain of secrecy and manipulative control. To escape that, Free men MUST use the whole truth.

Otherwise its a perpetual, social pissing contest with folks afraid to get their feet wet.

[yozhik]

Relating to what you say below in terms of the strictest reason, I have to say that the secrecy itself, how it is created, enforced, upheld and propagated must be understood to show that the vatican has ZERO standing.

Huh?
You're saying the Vatican and the Holy See have no standing today?
Or had no standing back then?


Human psychological potentials are a reality and they control the basis of the situation that you've defined, which, ........... is completely within the elites domain of secrecy and manipulative control. To escape that, Free men MUST use the whole truth.

Otherwise its a perpetual, social pissing contest with folks afraid to get their feet wet.

Right ... so what you're saying is ... ummm ... so Freeman who get their feet wet have pissed on them in a competition? Yes? No?

OK ... I give up ... what exactly ARE you saying ... its late ... I'm tired ... and I'm mentally challenged. Can you please rephrase in small, monosyllabic, plain English words? Please?

[christophera]

Huh?
You're saying the Vatican and the Holy See have no standing today?
Or had no standing back then?

IF you know the truth about what's been done with it's impacts. Until that time they rule, mostly.

Right ... so what you're saying is ... ummm ... so Freeman who get their feet wet have pissed on them in a competition? Yes? No?

Correct, competition and of those participating have the spiritual courage to actually acknowledge the reality which is dominate when it comes to the secrecy and truth IF it is presented to them. Social fears dominate.

OK ... I give up ... what exactly ARE you saying ... its late ... I'm tired ... and I'm mentally challenged. Can you please rephrase in small, monosyllabic, plain English words? Please?

The secrecy of the English elite, all the elite over the planet is enabled by a secret form of knowledge considered heresy, but almost never spoken, that has made people afraid of part of their existence while the elite secretly use the knowledge of the heresy to dominate the planet.

The vatican has been the main force compelling the fear.

[yozhik]

IF you know the truth about what's been done with it's impacts. Until that time they rule, mostly.



Correct, competition and of those participating have the spiritual courage to actually acknowledge the reality which is dominate when it comes to the secrecy and truth IF it is presented to them. Social fears dominate.



The secrecy of the English elite, all the elite over the planet is enabled by a secret form of knowledge considered heresy, but almost never spoken, that has made people afraid of part of their existence while the elite secretly use the knowledge of the heresy to dominate the planet.

The vatican has been the main force compelling the fear.

Right ... so essentially your bemoaning the Illuminati, the NWO, the PTB, secret societies and the occult, as well as the nefarious influence of the Vatican/Holy See?
That probably about 95% of the posts on this site covered then ... :D

We seem to be a long way off the original subject ... and down a cyclic rabbit hole of philosophical uncertainties.

[christophera]

Right ... so essentially your bemoaning the Illuminati, the NWO, the PTB, secret societies and the occult, as well as the nefarious influence of the Vatican/Holy See?
That probably about 95% of the posts on this site covered then ... :D

We seem to be a long way off the original subject ... and down a cyclic rabbit hole of philosophical uncertainties.

Uh oh, ........ you just found away to distort the issue with generalization designed to avoid discussion of the secret and intitiate emotional reasoning.

What Ive' posted applies perfectly to the original subject which provides examples of the secrecy maintained from the MC. Here is such an original part which you've not addressed as it relates to the motives of the parties.


My point is who does history tell you forced the Barons to sign for the salvation of their souls, and those of all of their ancestors and heirs? What exactly does that mean? What is "rectifying our realm" mean? (1215)

Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers,

There are perhaps 3 reasons to hide the true motives of the signers that I can think of.

Here are some hints that address the most compelling reason.

King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders;

or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross;

[christophera]

Secrecy? How so?

This is where it leaves law and society as you know it and goes into psychology and spirituality as it really is and has been since the beginning (recently secret). Are you ready for that?

Right ... so essentially your bemoaning the Illuminati, the NWO, the PTB, secret societies and the occult, as well as the nefarious influence of the Vatican/Holy See?
That probably about 95% of the posts on this site covered then ... :D

We seem to be a long way off the original subject ... and down a cyclic rabbit hole of philosophical uncertainties.

Okay, you are not ready either. You are confronting the unconscious fear that grips about 80% of the populations of the US and England. That is the fear the elites depend on to prevent us from using this knowledge of the human mind and its history of spiritual related psychological performance, to unify. Fears either against the elites abuse of it, or our uses of it to heal and unify as a people.

Meaning that all of the legalese is useless subterfuge imposed by the elite as a squirrel cage for people that are too afraid of the human unconscious and its societal implications to reasonably discuss the potentials. That is what the elites have bred and fostered since and before the MC.

[christophera]

alisa2, yozhik

This is not about me imposing a perspective, it is about us setting an example of accountability to reason. So I'm here thanking you for contributions. They are real and substancial and very close to a final understanding in many ways of the societal/legal issues addressed.
However lurking in our past is the truth about us that we've been made afraid of. It is not a reasonable fear by any stretch of the notion.

I would hope your intents are to match the positive qualities we think we have as human beings to societal structures of accountability and responsibility with something like law, or its many reasonable branches, generally. Me too.

However, it's all about human beings and their behavior, no matter who they be. So psychology is intrinsic to our development to a point of willful and directed evolution. We have an unconscious existence that runs, 24/7 parallel to the conscious, waking state of our daily lives.

There is a fact that makes every word I write have a potential to absolutely change our world. The fact is that we do not know what we are doing with our minds when we are sleeping because we are unconscious. That fact the unconscious can control our perceptions adds weight to the potential for change.

See my signature and realize that responding openly to this type of message is not what you've always done and the result will not be what you've always gotten. It is a matter of human beings breaking ranks with the flock of the fearful and instead investing in a certain form of reasoning that may feel paradoxical at first but then breaks that cycle the keeps things the way they are.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/sheep4.gif

Using love as the ultimate protection and taking some responsibility for acknowledging and working with our unconscious existence as a way of life to prevent secrecy and illicit control over our world. The unconscious collective does not want the collective conscious to "know" of its existence and it is the largest part so people end up acting against "knowing", without knowing it, as a tendency. I made a thread about it here.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63148

This tendency can probably subvert any tendency to "know" that is not absolutely fearless and direct. The nature of understanding can reduce fear so a fearless confrontation with evidence and information will be required.