90-Day Magna Charta

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Even though it's not mentioned in the Robin Hood comic books, yes, the 1215 Magna Charta had a legal lifespan of only about 90 days. The most reliable references on English legal and constitutional history bear witness to this fact. Sources like Stubb's Select Charters, Holt's history of the Magna Carta, McKechnie's history of the Magna Carta, the British Museum's guidebook to the Magna Carta, and even the Smithsonian's guidebook to the Bicentennial display of the Magna Carta. DiM is entitled (as others are) to his opinions, but he's not entitled to his own facts.

This is the nature and character of the cause against the freeman. From clicking on my Signature - the Magna Charta of 1215:

34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court.

It was years ago, at least it seems so, that I understood this important enough to quote Shoonra in my Signature. This secret pact is the essence of the Crown Templar Society.

Some average intelligent Americans were on vacation, a couple in my home church gathering, the husband a retired engineer and homemaker wife. They visited one of the original four Magna Charta parchments on display in a museum back East. In dinner conversation I asked if they had heard any mention about the Magna Charta being nullified by the Pope, even before 1215 by the Treaty of 1213?

Nothing.

The wife responded with distaste to my second mention of it; "The Pope is not in authority to do that!" The Magna Charta was presented in America to these Americans as the founding document to the American Way of Freedom. In many fundamental ways, the Magna Charta being nullified by a prior religious commitment to forfeit everything to the Pope - the Treaty of 1213 is a repugnant doctrine to think about.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Dave's tin foil helmet must be a bit tight.

I have captured here the notion of Shoonra's - that the Magna Charta is indeed a doctrine nullified by law. And there are many ways to verify Shoonra is correct - like he quotes as a studied historian. It is no wonder that Shoonra pursued a law degree and defends this Bar Association from the City of London (International Bar Association).

I propose this thread's discussion begin with the idea that things go back further than that... That the fact I am entitled to is the "Jews" of the New Covenant that sought the Apostle Paul's life with a vengence were angered at him for spending a large sum on a Roman Citizenship (the current foreign occupation) rather than proselytizing Judaism without teaching the Ten Commandments and Laws of Moses.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

This proposed because the Book of Acts explains quite clearly that Paul administered the Seven Noachide Laws in Asia Minor while campaigning there and doing so, while preaching in pagan nations, was quite in alignment with Judaism then and now.

What Paul did that was offensive was lie about stopping in Cyprus with (codified Mason) Mnason and spending a large part of the Collection Plate on a privilege citizenship from Rome.

Act 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.

Act 22:26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
Act 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
Act 22:28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
Act 22:29 Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

Paul was born in the City of Tarsus in the Province (State) of Cilicia. In Paul's father's generation, Cilicia had aligned itself with Rome in a civil war and in doing so had won eligibility, not entitlement, to Roman citizenship priviliges like being discussed. It is strongly indicated that if one were to desire a full privileged citizenship it was, like the Income Tax for those under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment US and its 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, a very expensive privilege to have. And we find a Roman soldier, apparently from Cilicia too, marvelling at Paul for somehow getting his citizenship privileges for free?

This and many other conundrums arise from Congress passing a subtle declaration hidden inside a Lubavitcher Bill in 1991 - Public Law 102-14: (attached) And perhaps more importantly, The Sanhedrin openly declaring that the US Congress had subjected the US government to the Seven Noachide Laws a few years later in 1997:

This Court, therefore, urges the Attorney General of the United States of America, Janet Reno, currently under the Political Leadership of President Bill Clinton to answer to the charge of failure to hear a grievance that is brought before its duly appointed Courts, and it has 90 working days in which to show cause as to why this case should not be heard before this Court and to submit documents showing that it has conformed with all treaties, conventions and wishes of the native peoples and with states accepted or annexed under the Constitutional principles and Noahide law, which was adopted as Law in the United States by Congress.

This thread was inspired by a thought-provoking Post from Trooper:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/135587-post168.html

To which I answered:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/135587-post169.html

Posts about Right-Fighters and I like to think that Shoonra is level-headed enough that his new insult "David the Jailbird" is invoked in response to something underlying his version of history - mainly the Pope's alleged authority to nullify the Magna Charta.

And mainly a protectionism of Shoonra's attorner authority to jail me for showing Americans the inherent legal remedies to such hidden doctrine of the Bar.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

I can see how a housewife in Colorado might easily be mistaken by you for a reliable authority on the Latinate charters of thirteenth century England.

So I am actually going to quote from real books written by people who knew something. Since I know you can't read very well I am going to type slowly.

Magna Carta and Its Influence in the World Today by Sir Ivor Jennings (Downing Prof of the Laws of England, Cambridge Univ.) (Brit. Information Services, 1965) pages 9-10:

Originally Posted by Jennings

On the other hand, the document which was originally called Magna Carta was not King John's Charter of 1215 but King Henry's Charter of 1225. King John sought to repudiate his Charter almost as soon as it was sealed, and he appealed to the Pope, Innocent III, who on 24 August 1215 issued a bull annulling the Charter. It is unnecessary to ask whether this action had any legal validity, for King John died a year later and the barons who had the infant king, Henry III, in their custody, decided to issue a revised version of the Charter of 1215 in the name of the new king.

Magna Carta and the Tradition of Liberty by Louis B. Wright (U.S. Capitol Historical Society & the Supreme Court Historical Society, 1976) page 35:

Originally Posted by Wright

Some authorities believe that [Stephen] Langton had a major part in the drafting the Charter. Evidence for this belief may be the anger displayed by Pople Innocent III over sections of Magna Carta that curtailed the power of his recently acquired vassal, King John. In his rage, the pope on August 24 [1215] declared the Charter null and void adn pronounced excommunication upon anyone who observed or tried to enforce its provisions. Furthermore, he ordered Archbishop Langton to Rome - exiled from the see of Canterbury. But both Innocent III and King John had only a short time more to live, and their own actions were soon null and void.

Magna Carta by J.c. Holt (Prof. of History, Univ. of Reading, UK) (Cambridge Univ. Press 1965) pages 262-266:

Originally Posted by Holt

It must have been at Oxford in July [1215], at the very latest, that he [K. John] sent to Pope Innocent III asking for the papal annulment of the Charter. From this point onwards, therefore, he was trying to talk the barons into a trap, to lull their suspicions of his intentions and delay their own preparations for the approaching conflict. ...

United the end of August [1215] Innocent was acting in complete ignorance of what had happened at Runnymede, Hence his interventions were quite out of date and out of touch. The first came in a letter of 18 June written after Innocent had heard of the baronial declaration of war. This was apparently addressed to the archbishop and bishops, who were ordered to excommunicate the barons and lay an interdict on their lands unless they accepted the papal forma of 19 March within eight days of the receipt of the letter. ....

... [A] change in attitude which had begun, but had been hidden, when the king asked for the annulment of the Charter in July, and was completed with the arrival of the bull of annulment about the end of September. This condemned the Charter as an agreement exacted by force, which was shameful, demeaning, illegal, unjust and derogatory to the king's rights and dignity. ...

John had won the war of nerves and propaganda.

I suppose I could keep looking up in my reference books, but I expect that once you're back where you belong the prison library will have some books on legal history, although few of them will be written by rural housewives.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I suppose I could keep looking up in my reference books, but I expect that once you're back where you belong the prison library will have some books on legal history, although few of them will be written by rural housewives.

See there you have it. The attorners for the Crown Templars like Shoonra think that a monarch in 1213 had the power to give his nation away to his preferred religious leader. And furthermore, that anyone who feels differently should be jailed.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. By the way, that attorner convolution should be noted. The housewife did not believe me at all. I presume people reading here can understand what I wrote and how Shoonra says I said the opposite so that it might be confusing to you. The law is for the benefit of people like that housewife; not for attorners like Shoonra.

[David Merrill]

This cropped up on another thread:

http://www.ukcolumn.org/home/2008/04...an/#comment-59

Article 61 is the longest and most powerful of the clauses within Magna Carta of 1215. It proved so unpalatable to subsequent monarchs that when Magna Carta was craftily re-draughted in 1297, article 61 was not to be found.

And of course if you want to read the 1215 Magna Charta just click it on my Signature below.

61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Since I know you can't read very well I am going to type slowly. ... I suppose I could keep looking up in my reference books, but I expect that once you're back where you belong the prison library will have some books on legal history, although few of them will be written by rural housewives.

Somone recently mentioned that you never attack anyone. We see the truth now!

AWAY FROM HERE SPIRIT OF ANTI SUI JURIS!!!

[Tigron-X]

I must belittle you to perserve my own honour because your words question my authority! RESPECT MY AUTHORITY! I have spoken! Kneel Subject! Kneel! Or out of my sight you shall go! FOREVER!

**DUN DUN DUN!**

/impersonation


P.S. Thanks for sharing Dave.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra
...although few of them will be written by rural housewives.

And you believe that you and the authors you cited are intellectually superior to what you derisively term "rural housewives?"

Do I detect the effete arrogance of an elitist prig?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mrg

And you believe that you and the authors you cited are intellectually superior to what you derisively term "rural housewives?"

Do I detect the effete arrogance of an elitist prig?

As best I recall it:

That's what you said last week! The Pope does not have the authority to do that.

Beauty in action. Both her words and Shoonra's belittlement of an American housewife in common law.

Tigron-X;

Your parody makes it clear how easily this can be understood by the edified. Again; Beauty in action.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[mikah2k]

David,
Those twenty-five barons seem equal with the grand jury of each of the several States.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by mrg

And you believe that you and the authors you cited are intellectually superior to what you derisively term "rural housewives?"

No but I have a theory that more can be learned in real universities and graduate schools about thirteenth century legal history than can be learned in kitchens or in Colorado jail cells.