Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Council approach
by Sharpysparky Yesterday at 10:50 pm

» Notice of rights of entry for Electricity account
by waylander62 Yesterday at 9:28 pm

» justinian deception
by daveiron Yesterday at 3:46 pm

» More Indoctrinated Idiots
by Lopsum Yesterday at 12:31 pm

» Some 5g science for anyone who isn't aware and wants to learn of some of the dangers
by daveiron Yesterday at 9:16 am

» Guy Taylor
by paymydues2 Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:43 pm

» Cabot Financial - My Next Step
by Mrblue Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:14 pm

» Certificate of Default [Lance Lien Template]
by daveiron Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:24 pm

» Cabot- is there a realistic chance to fight them?
by Mrblue Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:53 pm

» Bills Of Exchange Act 1882
by Mrblue Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:50 am

» intrum advice please
by Mrblue Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:51 am

» It's official:Banks Don't Lend Money
by LionsShare Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:02 pm

» More Council Scum
by itheman Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:18 pm

» Cosmic Disaster : CIA: Classified
by Mrblue Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:46 pm

» Mobile phone law for drivers could be torn up after High Court ruling
by flyingfish Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:10 am

» Private trust
by LionsShare Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:21 am

» Which three letters?
by Mrblue Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:40 am

» Latest from CrimeBodge
by assassin Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:20 am

» Parking Charge Certificate
by itheman Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:36 pm

» Electric vehicles. EV, or not! Cons and ermmm...any pros?
by itheman Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:37 pm

» Reality chat , every wednesday at 8pm (ish)
by Society of the Spectacle Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:02 pm

» Bristow & sutor re: council tax
by stile Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:59 am

» Secret lessons in Wizard of Oz
by DogBalls Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:06 pm

» JES enforcement ltd
by volgabulghar Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:31 am

» Council Tax Summons
by Ian_the_freeman Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:11 pm

» Cabot advice
by Mrblue Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:26 pm

» 24 Storey Tower on Fire in Kensington - dies
by Awoken2 Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:32 pm

» Can the judiciary sink any lower ?
by LionsShare Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:57 pm

» Epstein, surprised ?
by daveiron Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:57 am

» Another Police Fraud
by assassin Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:28 am

» Council Tax debt after a death
by daveiron Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:41 pm

» The Cryptocannabinoid Conspiracy
by mitch Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:54 pm

» Help with "Lifetime Mortgage" please
by Corazon Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:29 am

by daveiron Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:46 pm

» 5G Freedom of Information requests
by daveiron Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:38 pm

» Another warning
by Sharpysparky Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:30 pm

» Video Sites
by assassin Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:51 am

» The 5G Crisis: Awareness & Accountability Summit is online and FREE from August 26 - September 1, 2019.
by Theatchet Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:56 pm

» 505 page eBook called natures pharmacy
by Theatchet Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:17 pm

» dirty solisitors
by assassin Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:22 am

» Hoist Portfolio/Howard Cohen – Letter of Claim ?
by barnwebb Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:32 pm

» Vaccinations - Thimerosal ( Mercury )
by Theatchet Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:08 pm

» Some science on aluminium, although it's from vaccinations, it should show how toxic it is to people
by Theatchet Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:49 pm

» 3 letter process
by volgabulghar Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:49 pm

» Vaccinations - Ingrediants and general info ( F.A.O. of Ceylon )
by Theatchet Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:25 pm

» Vaccinations - specific links to autism ( F.A.O. Ceylon )
by Theatchet Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:20 pm

» Lowell threatening me Again !!
by barnwebb Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:44 pm

Moon phases

Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:53 am

The Secret People by G.K. Chesterton (2.8MB)

Common Law vs Statutes – Living by the Rule of Law
This is gold dust, by Roger Hayes that’s well worth a read. But don't keep it to yourself spread it to the people

Common Law vs Statutes
Living by the Rule of Law
by Roger Hayes
Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.

In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days… most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite – some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.

The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.

– All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.

– A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

– The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

– There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

– Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

– Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.

– Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.

– The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.

– The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people.  Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.

– A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity.  The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.

– Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work).  Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation.  A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.

– If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.

– It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.

– If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.

– Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.

– Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.

– Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.

– Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.

– Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.

– We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

– We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.

– Law refers to common law.

– Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.

– Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.

– Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.

– Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.

– Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.

– Laws are used to keep the peace.

– Without law we have anarchy.

– The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.

– Nobody is above the law.  The law applies equally to us all.

– Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.

– Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.

– Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.

Courts, Judges And Juries
– If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.

– Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury.  The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.

– Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.

– Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).

– The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.

– A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)

– If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.

– A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.

– The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.

– Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional.  The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.

– Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights.  We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.

– Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.

– Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.

– Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.

– If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.

The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

– Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.

– Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented – (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) – is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’

– The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not  as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.

– In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.

– The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.

– In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).

– You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.

– If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.

– Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes… by withholding their consent – the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control.  Watch this space.

– A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.

– The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes… all of their statutes… including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.

– This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.

– Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

– Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.

KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it
This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite… but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.

And from here
Highly recommend you follow the links for even more gold dust....enjoy!

Laurence James Howell | Wednesday 26th November 2014 at 15:45
Capacity and the Estates of man.


There are many capacities in which a man may wish to act. I will deal with the 4 estates of man, of We the People, as they impact our lives in reference to HMG and the HMCTS. We have forgotten how to present ourselves.

To make sense of the estates of man we must look to the clues that the Government and the older English jurists have left for
us to uncover.

Lord Coke, sir Frederick Pollock, sir William Blackstone, Henry Bracton and historian sir William Maitland and others wrote in a time when the truth was easier to print. Like the Giza Pyramids they exist and their books and essays cannot be denied.

The people have full control of their actions and body and are able to govern themselves. This is referred to as the sovereignty of the people.

“Our sovereignty cannot be bartered away by the Solicitor General, or even by the Prime Minister, because it is not theirs to give. I speak not only of the sovereignty of this house, but also of the higher sovereignty of the British people”. Mr Alfred Morris MP. Hansard, 17 Feb 1972 Pg. 727-8.

From this quote it can be seen that there is a descending order of sovereignty, duty and obligations.

Part 1

As a man of the people, our sovereignty comes from our creator which is the God of the King James Bible, upon which the Oaths of Office of QEll to govern and the Judicial Oath of Office are based. The oath of allegiance for Judicial Office holders and the Civil Service means that they are sworn to QEll and she is sworn to god and the people.

The first capacity is that of man of god. We occupy the office of man. We the People, as men and women [people] are the beneficiaries of the gifts willed to us in Genesis ch1 and we received god’s blessing and spirit and so we are part of god or god is a part of us.

We have the protection of gods law…love thy neighbour as thy love thyself. Lord Atkins, The Royal Law [L.L. Blake.], page 5.

When a man swears an oath to the higher authority of god he puts himself under gods law, this is his first duty and obligation and he is obligated at all times to act in accord with this law under the terms of the judicial oath, when acting in a judicial capacity.

He can do no harm to the people as he swears to the higher authority of the people through the judicial oath and he is also subject to the peoples law which is the law of the land. This is his second duty and obligation.

The man occupies the office of judge and is sworn to god via the judicial oath but when acting as a judge he is able to rule the people by use of the all caps or estate and again the terms of the judicial oath.

He swears to the higher authority of the people. We, as people are the beneficiaries of this estate and as beneficiaries we can only receive benefits not harm.

In the statutory court constructive trust is used to switch the office of beneficiary to the office of trustee without our knowledge and hence a hidden contract which then voids the proceedings.

All cases laid before the HMCTS are in reality claims against the Estate, identified by ALL CAPS.

Part 2

The second capacity is as a man of the people….. and we are the indigenous people of the country of Britain and the British Isles, but we are governed by QEll via the coronation oath.

The authority to govern the people comes from the people themselves and is the peoples political sovereignty given to QEll in exchange for the protections contained in the Coronation Oath, Judicial Oath and Constitutional documents

The Coronation Oath and Coronation is the qualification that is needed to govern. Before the coronation she is not able to govern as QEll. On her fathers death she was proclaimed Queen and used several regnal titles.

But to govern as QEll, requires that the coronation oath must be taken as part of the coronation ceremony.

We do not exchange our political sovereignty for nothing, why would we ?.
By looking closely at the terms contained in the oath we are able to see just exactly what is being promised in this conditional contract between QEll and God and QEll and the People.

The coronation enables the Queen to govern and the oath enables the coronation. Being coroneted in the prescribed way is part of the process. Although she became Queen on the death of her father and although assuming the official style,

by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith.

at the time of his death no political power to govern the people is devolved to Her until she receives it from the people via the coronation which embodies the oath with terms and conditions.

Last edited by itheman on Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:57 pm; edited 3 times in total

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:55 am

Part 3.

Her Majesties Government [HMG] govern the people on Her behalf via the third capacity which is as a people subject.

The government want us all to forget that we are first and foremost a people. As a people, we can subject ourselves to be governed in the interests of living in a society which treats everyone with equality, fairness and respect. The society is formed for mutual protection and advancement of the human condition known as life.

The peoples law is known as the law of the land and is rooted in the customary way in which people settled their differences without resorting to violence when might was right. Customs are not written and the law of the land is the unwritten law. It is often referred to as the law where the memory of man does not runneth, or from time immemorial.

This peoples law is directly descended from gods law of love thy neighbour and directly connects to this law by the words harm no one. Ignorance of the law is no plea and it would take a complete ignoramus to not know this law.

The coronation oath states quite simply that the majesty of the office, or her majesty, will govern the People according to their “laws and customs “.

The word laws is plural so can embody many different types of law, although there is only gods law and the law of the land that stands without the agreement of the parties.

The first duty is to gods law, the second duty is to the peoples law and for men and women who identify as a man or woman of the people then the protection of gods law and the peoples law is available.

The judicial oath of office states quite simply that the oath taker will “ protect the people without fear or favour “ and he swears to god and the people that this is what he will do.

Part 4

The fourth capacity is as a citizen subject, which by trickery is the ALL CAPS estate.

The political authority of QE ll to govern the people comes from the exchange, by the people of the peoples political sovereignty, via the coronation oath by the tacit [unspoken] acceptance of the oath by we the people.

It is an assumption of the Queen, that by not complaining of the arrangement, brought about by the presentation of the Queen to the People assembled in Westminster Abbey and the Recognition by the people assembled there who signify their acceptance of the Queen by loud acclamations, that we agree to this arrangement. [The Royal Law, page 87/88 L.L. Blake.]

Obviously not all the People can fit into Westminster Abbey and so a representative assembly is invited to acclaim the Recognition. This is all in the nature of a conditional contract by way of exchange of the Peoples political sovereignty for the protections embodied in the oath of office of QEll.

We exchange our political sovereignty in what is referred to as the social contract which produces the society in which we live as people subjects first and citizen subjects second. Citizen subject is based on Roman civil law by the use of the ALL CAPS Estate and “persona” or personality. This is all based on the conditional contract of the Coronation Oath but not explained in this way.

Part 5

The society of people in Britain has developed in what is considered acceptable social norms of behaviour or customs. This has occurred over many years and started with the tribes of Britain before the Romans arrived in AD44 and can be referred to as “ law of the land” before time immemorial and is mentioned in Magna Carta which contrary to what some say is as valid today as it was when signed by King John.

The Magna Carter is an enduring lawful trust document and is not unsettled by the Treaty of 1213 between the self styled Vicar of Christ as gods representative on earth, which is a unilateral declaratory title claimed by a man and church with no foundation in fact and that treaty is void.

King John did not sign under duress, as is promulgated by those who would deny the historical significance of the Peoples law as detailed in this first constitutional charter.

Before the Romans arrived in AD 44 the tribes had their own tribal law which was the precursor of what would later become to be known as the law of the land. Different tribes had different customs and it is these customs that over time and by general agreement and usage became tribal law. The tribes themselves had developed from the numerous extended family groupings which had lived in defined geographical areas.

Security was the prime motivating factor in the family groupings banding together for mutual support and later becoming tribes in a similar way to the American plains Indians.

The Romans arrived and proved to be the biggest and most successful tribe and because of the nature of conquest, conflict with the indigenous tribes ensued. They also brought with them their own tribal law and over time subdued many parts of Britain and forced the local tribes people to adopt the Roman way which included their version of tribal law. Being experienced and adept at providing administration in the lands they conquered, the Romans encouraged the people of Britain to absorb the new ways and Roman civil law and many of the ruling tribes sent people to Rome to study and learn.

The society in Britain at that time was pagan and the tribes worshipped many deities. This was little different to the Romans themselves who worshipped the cult of Saturn and as had happened in other conquered lands the Romans were not against integrating local custom and gods into their own way of life in furtherance of keeping a lid on the fierce tribes.

QEll is the latest in a long line of consolidation of leaders and tribes into the head of the principle tribe in Britain. Germanic in origin, much like the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others of the middle ages, She presides and governs over the people of Britain through HMG. It is not an absolute monarchy but a constitutional monarchy built upon the oath, coronation event and the constitutional documents put in place in exchange for the political sovereignty of the people.

The authority of QE ll comes from the exchange of the Peoples sovereignty or authority via the coronation oath by the tacit acceptance of the oath by we the people. It is an assumption of the Queen that by not complaining we agree to this arrangement .

Coronation Oath

The coronation oath was taken by Elizabeth Windsor as the styled Queen in 1953. It was administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ritual took place before a worldwide audience.

The Queen was not at all happy with the cameras being there and the BBC had a hard time getting the programme approved. John Anthony Hill has proved that the coronation was not carried out in accordance with historical precedent in that the Stone of Destiny upon which the monarch sits, had been stolen and a replacement left in its place.

This was carried out by Scottish students who repatriated the Stone to Scotland from which it had been taken as spoils of war along with William Wallace. The replica weighs 112 pounds lighter than the original and is made from sandstone which is not as dense as the original stone. The Stone of Destiny came to Ireland along with the last princess of the line of the Pharaohs to marry an Irish King.

The stone was taken to Scotland to be used for the coronation of a Scottish King who ruled both Scotland and Ireland.

John Anthony Hill has pleaded in a court case that the Queen had broken her Coronation Oath to God and that she no longer qualified to be Queen. He argued that if she wasn’t Queen then the adjudicator in his trial wasn’t a judge and could not judge his own cause. It resulted in John Anthony Hill being able to talk to the jury without the judge interfering too much and he won the case.

Contained in the oath are the following expressions

1 “ I solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom … etc.“

2 “ According to their respective laws and customs. “

3 “ I will to my power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all my judgements “

It is a fact that there are three systems in operation here and they are not compatible with each other.

The first is the Laws of God
The second the peoples law of the land
The third is statute

In 1 the first thing to consider is that QEll is a title, and therefore a fictitious entity. When Elizabeth Windsor was born she was born a female first and foremost, a female entity. She was alive and not a fictitious entity which being fictional cannot be alive. A cartoon character is fictional in nature and cannot mix with a live man or woman.

She was given the title of princess but still retained the capacity to travel and live in her private capacity of Elizabeth Windsor.

We will consider private and public capacities.

Private capacity.

Discounting the implications of “ private “ in a martial law context this is a capacity of a man or a woman. What we do in our private capacity is as a man or a woman. The problem arises when trying to mix together a man or a woman with a fictional entity or set of rules laid down by fictional entities.
How can QEll govern the People? The people are live entities and QEll is a fictional title.

The answer lies in the use of a fictional title granted to the people, for use by the people, to enter the world of commerce and establish contractual arrangements in the fictional world of commerce.

This is in fact a trust and the people are the beneficiaries of this trust.

This is recognised as Mr, Mrs, Sir, Lord, Baron, etc. so Mr John Brown is a fictional version of John Brown and with this device attached to his name John Brown can now enter the fictional world of titles. This is how the titled Elizabeth Windsor acting in the capacity of QEll can govern the people of the UK who do not have a title of their own. She governs the People under consenting contract by the use of a title. It is all contract law-by consent, for a valid enforceable contract there must be agreement of the parties after full disclosure.

Another way of recognising when there is a fictional version of your name in operation is the use of an ALL CAPITALSED version of your name.

Public capacity.

Previously we have seen how attaching a title to a live man or womans name gives them the facility to enter the fictional world. It is known as being in the public or operating or acting in a public capacity. Whether we, as men or women want to enter the public world or not is not the point. The government want us to because the government is Her Majesties Government and since QEll is a title then it naturally follows that Her government will be fictional in nature. In addition all acts and statutes passed by the government are also fictional in nature and only apply to a man or a woman when operating in a fictional capacity which as we have seen is also a public capacity.

Now turning to 2

According to laws and customs…… We have seen how, without our knowledge the government does not inform us about the use of the fictional title. The reasons for this will become apparent later.


Let us first examine the word laws. It is a word that signifies plurality so just how many laws are we talking about? How many systems of law are there?

There can be as many as both parties to an action or proceedings can agree on. The law is fixed by the agreement of the parties.

The fictional government passes acts and statutes and so it naturally follows that these are fictional in nature also. We have seen how by attaching a title to a mans name, this changes the capacity of the man into a fictional entitiy. The man is now compatable with the fictional government and so the rules that the government lay down via the acts and statutes can now be applied to the man by the use of contracts.

The acts and statutes are referred to by the government and police as law, but this is not true. The acts and statutes are from a fictional government and can only be regarded as rules of society which are fictional in nature.

It is a maxim that the law is fixed by the agreement of the parties.

Consider the game of football, it has its own rules very often spoken about as the laws of the game. These rules only affect the players who play the game and by their consent they refer to the rules as law. It is by the agreement or consent of the players that the rules are referred to as law.

How does the government obtain our consent to agree that the fictional acts and statutes passed by the government can be regarded as law by the people? By the use of the legal trick previously referred too, the fictional title or more commonly known as the legal fiction or legal personality which is an estate.


Here again the word is in the plural and as we have seen from earlier references to the customs of the people living on the land, the customs became the law of the land by long usage and agreement of the men and women who lived in the tribes before the Romans came to Britain.

The Romans brought with them the concept of personality. Originally in the Roman system actors were sometimes employed by the citizens to speak on their behalf in actions brought before the magistrates of the time. A speaking voice, that could state the case in a way that those, not used to Public speaking before a crowd could not.

The actors assumed the personality of the accused so as to be able to speak on their behalf but everyone knew that it was an actor behind a mask speaking or re-presenting someone else.

Although they assumed the personality of the accused everyone knew that the actor was not the accused and was only speaking on the accused behalf. So the actor acts in a fictional capacity on behalf of the accused.

Just like a solicitor acts for a defendant today, he speaks or acts for the defendant and the similarities between the Roman system and our modern day legal system do not end there, in fact the modern day legal system of courts and the actors who work in them can be traced back to the Roman system.

So is the reference to customs in a legal sense or in a lawful sense. As we have seen before, legal can mean lawful if the people give their consent, without consent there can be no law founded on legal concepts.

Without the use of the legal fiction a man or woman is not compatable with the court system and needs to give consent to act in the capacity of the legal fiction so the acts and statutes apply to them by the use of contracts.


This consent can be given in a number of ways

1 verbally, either knowingly or by trickery
2 in a writing , either knowingly or by trickery
3 tacitly, without expressing verbally either knowingly
or un-knowingly or by trickery
4 by actions, either knowingly or by trickery

The whole system of government is set up in a fictional way. There are many reasons for this and we will explore some of them.

We have already seen that the government passes acts and statutes which are a fictional set of rules which can only be given the force of law by those that agree somehow that the rules are law.

If a man or woman breaks the rules then they are summoned to court by letter. But we have already seen that a man or a woman is incompatible with the court system and acts and statutes. Look at any court summons and you will see it is addressed to a title or the ALL CAPITALISED version of your name.

Most people are not aware of the significance of this device and it changes your capacity and enables the full weight of the court system and rules of government to be applied to you by contract.

The legal system is also fictional and incomprehensible to most people. In the legal fictional world a special language is used called legalese and only trained solicitors are in a position to understand the meaning of statements made by the use of this legalese language. In everyday language most people know what words mean but in legalese everyday words can take on new meanings. Blacks Law dictionaries will give the legalese meanings of the words used by solicitors and the courts.

In a lawful system, logic and reason determine the outcome but this is not the case in the legal system. The amount of statute based rules that are passed by the legislative acts of parliament are not proportionate to the supposed good they do. The legal profession do not want anyone figuring out what they do, so they cloak simple tasks in process and legalese and so retaining a solicitor seems the best course of action for most.

When you do this the court look upon you as an imbecile and you are unable to speak for yourself. You become a ward of the court. The solicitor belongs to a very powerful tribe as do the barristers, QCs and Judges but you are not included, you only pay, it is what you are in court to do.

There are a number of ways that the man or woman is tricked into consenting to act in the capacity of the legal fiction.

Firstly the HMCTS is an arbitration service which will provide the venue and various actors to ensure the smooth running of the case and provide an adjudicator to oversee the fairness of the case in an unbiased way.

By not explaining the significance of the title device to the claimant and defendant it puts both in a position of complete misunderstanding and no contracts can correctly be established because this material fact has not been disclosed. The courts process and legalese work against both parties, defendant and claimant, but with a solicitor on board you do not need to know.

If you present yourself in the case then they work on the basis that you know how it all hangs together so buyer beware or caveat emptor is the order of the day.

Being asked if you are Mr John Brown and answering yes puts you under the control of the judge. Merely turning up at the court building entitles them to believe that you are the legal fiction because the paperwork has been addressed to that capacity. The judges and Clerk to the Justices are very good at word games and will try to get you to admit that you are the legal fiction and so put you under their control.

Asking you do you understand what is being said really means in legalese do you stand under me and its usually the judge doing the asking. By not replying to a question this means they can answer for you and they will, in a way that suits them.

You may be wondering what all the fuss is about and does it matter but consider this, the woman who occupies the office of Queen takes an oath to god and the people and the man who occupies the office of Judge also takes an oath to god and the people.

The Queen swears to govern according to the laws and customs of the people but as we now know this could only be by gods law and the law of the land and this would give us all the advantages and the court system none.

The judicial oath of office is taken by the man or woman who wishes to occupy the office. I swear to god that I will protect the people without fear or favour. Here again he is swearing to the people and this means the peoples law of the land, again giving us all the advantages and the court system none.

But give them half a chance then the Estate device will be deployed along with some legalese and that will put you under the control of the judge who can use all of the court process and his discretion to gain a result against you.

No one swears to look after the legal fiction, that entity has no rights, no protections embodied in the oaths and constitutional documents which were not written for legal fictions or ALL CAPS

Turning now to 3

Law and Justice in Mercy to be executed in all my judgements.

Firstly Law is with a capital letter and means the Common Law, if it was the law of the land it would be with a small letter l. The older Royal Courts of Justice were set up to only determine statute based cases just as the HMCTS is today. Even the Common Law courts are statute based and were known as the Court of Common Pleas.

Mercy comes from god and is available to a man or woman who observes gods law.

These are meanings behind the oaths and it is up to you to decide what you would wish to do. By going to the court building, entering the room and accepting the oath of office of the man who took the oath you, as a man of the people, gain the protection of the oaths and can proceed under the law of the land or gods law.

No duty, penalty or obligation can rest with the people unless and until the oaths of office are adhered to and the unalienable rights and freedoms under god and the inalienable rights and liberties protected by the constitutional documents, the ECHR and the UDHR are acknowledged.

What this means in practice is that at all times the adjudicators hands are tied and are governed by

Gods law, the law of the land, the ECHR, the UDHR, the Constitutional Documents, oaths of office and to at all times act in accord with these documents and at all times to act in a reasonable fashion.

Peace through Love. Laurence James Howell

Respect! And thank you both; Roger Hayes and Laurence James Howell

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:22 pm

Some good stuff on courts, liability orders. Perhaps ignore some of the lawful banking talk (could be a good idea but still banking...centralised banking)

Last edited by itheman on Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:18 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : addition)

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud

Post by itheman on Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:32 pm

Light-bulb moment!

Lending or Crediting? - Which one = fraud?
And fraud (apparently) has NO time limit in which to put in a claim...

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:46 pm

Some words that i think are important to know/use as a [wo]man

Please correct/ would be great to have a dictionary we can use...Karl Lentz apparently wrote one but i can't find it

locus standi
the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court.
"a foreign government which has not been recognized by the UK government has no locus standi in the English courts"

inter vivos devise
Between the living; from one living person to another. Where property passes by conveyance, the transaction is said to be inter vivos, to distinguish it from a case of succession or devise. So an ordinary gift from one person to another is called a “gift inter vivos,” to distinguish it from a donation made in.

a person who derives advantage from something, especially a trust, will, or life insurance policy.
I suggest to you that A man can only enforce rights in the courts by appearing in the appropiate persona with relation to property, thus a man is never told his rights, he exercises them and if he enforces them in the correct jurisdiction and venue they are recognised, in theory anyway.
Equity assists where a Trust is in place and a beneficiary is recognised, regards Council Tax you might ask yourself is there a Beneficiary and if there is, it follows there must also be a trust structure and relationship in place.
The Council create an account and join your PERSON to it, when ever that account has payments made to it, that makes the council or Billing Authority a Beneficiary, if you are the one being told you have no choice but to make the payments you must be the Trustee.
you have a Body or Corpus, that is the trust
Any activity carried on by = the purpose of the trust, albeit very general, the body of the trust must specify the parties thereto.
The secretary of State (the Estate) gets to amend or define the law of the trust which is expressly revocable so he must be the settlor, that just leaves the beneficiaries and the trustees and possibly the administrators or executors.

involving trust, especially with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary.

feeling resentment at having been unfairly treated.
An aggrieved party can be any person whose financial, personal, or property rights or interests are adversely affected by an act of another or an order, judgment or statute. An aggrieved party is entitled to challenge the adverse decisions. "Aggrieved party" defined in Rev. Code Wash.

Verify (not certified)
make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
14 Dec 2018 - GOV.UK Verify is a secure way to prove who you are online. It makes it safe, quick and easy to access government services like filing your tax or checking the information on your driving licence. When you use GOV.UK Verify, you don't need to prove your identity in person or wait for something to arrive in the post.

state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
formally request or demand; say that one owns or has earned (something).
CLAIM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
LAW a request to a court, government department, or company for something such as money or property that you believe you have a legal right to: a claim for sth The Court of Appeal upheld his claim for damages for wrongful dismissal.

not correct or true; incorrect.
unjust, dishonest, or immoral.

an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

enter someone's land or property without permission.
commit an offence against (a person or a set of rules).

need for a particular purpose.
make necessary.
specify as compulsory.

the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
an authoritative command or instruction.
Commerce: A confirmed request by one party to another to buy, sell, deliver, or receive goods or services under specified terms and conditions. When accepted by the receiving party, an order becomes a legally binding contract. See also purchase order.

a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something.

an unknown or unspecified person; some person.
a person of importance or authority.

demand (an amount) as a price for a service rendered or goods supplied.
formally accuse (someone) of something, especially an offence under law.
If you charge someone an amount of money, you ask them to pay that amount for something.

tell (someone) officially that they can or must leave a place or situation.
allow (a liquid, gas, or other substance) to flow out from where it has been confined.

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
physically injure.
physical or other injury or damage

feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that cannot or probably will not happen.
want to do something.

a person who behaves illegally or dishonestly; an offender.

a person who has committed a felony.
cruel; wicked.

(of a company or other organization) not formed into a legal corporation.
not included as part of a whole.
Oxford - take in or contain (something) as part of a whole; include, constitute (a company, city, or other organization) as a legal corpora.
An association that has no legal personality distinct from those of its members.
Examples of unincorporated bodies are " partnerships and clubs".

order or allow to leave; send away.
treat as unworthy of serious consideration.

the state of being legally responsible for something.
a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage.

an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right.
ask authoritatively or brusquely.

a thing used to tie something or to fasten things together.
an agreement with legal force.
A debt instrument issued for a period of more than one year with the purpose of raising capital by borrowing.

the action of bringing parties together; union.
a joining of parties as plaintiffs or defendants in a suit.
a joining of causes of action or defense
acceptance of an issue tendered.

a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act.
annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself.
Magna Carta - (20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm.
be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or harmful.
F – false
E – evidence
A – appearing
R – real

appearing or stated to be true, though not necessarily so; alleged.

the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Last edited by itheman on Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:25 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Additions)

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by daveiron on Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:57 pm

Liability  from Merriam-Webster's  = 1 "The quality or state of being liable. 2 something for which one is liable as a:financial obligation : debt "

Obligation; 1. A promise,acknowledgment,or agreement (as a contract) that binds one to a specific performance
(as payment) also the binding power of such an agreement.

Which begs the question 'What contract, promise,or agreement'

Posts : 1933
Join date : 2017-01-17

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:59 pm

Great inspiring video - but, when will this system fail/change?

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:14 pm

Very clear and simple - addressing the courts and claimants

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:57 pm

Full-text translation of the 1215 edition of Magna Carta

Clauses marked (+) are still valid under the charter of 1225, but with a few minor amendments. Clauses marked (*) were omitted in all later reissues of the charter. In the charter itself the clauses are not numbered, and the text reads continuously. The translation sets out to convey the sense rather than the precise wording of the original Latin.

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerald, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'.

(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine.

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.

(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir's next-of-kin.

(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

(Cool No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

* (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

* (12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

+ (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

* (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied.

(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.

(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

* (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay 'fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay 'fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man’s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

* (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this service.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the 'fees' concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's 'fee', by virtue of the 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', unless the 'fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

* (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

(43) If a man holds lands of any 'escheat' such as the 'honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other 'escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the 'relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the 'escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

* (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

*(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

* (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

* (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogné, Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.

* (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

* (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgment of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

* (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first afforested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's 'fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a 'fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's 'fee', in which the lord of the 'fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

* (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgment of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgment shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of land, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgment of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgment of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.

* (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgment of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.

* (58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

* (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgment of his equals in our court.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

* (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may 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. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

If one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.

In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.

The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

* (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace.

In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.

* (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.

Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).

Source: G.R.C. Davis, Magna Carta (London: British Museum, 1963), pp. 23–33.

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:10 pm

From legal document to public myth:
Magna Carta in the 17th century

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by itheman on Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:54 pm

A great post by ceylon


When you REGISTER something, anything, you give up ownership of it and instead you get a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, this is worthless and this is why you own nothing not even your children, house, car etc.

Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 231
Join date : 2018-03-12

Back to top Go down

 Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta Empty Re: Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta

Post by Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum