Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[notorial dissent]

As I recall, and my memory may be flawed, there was a very specific mechanism, rather than just four old dottards making a basically symbolic protest, and it wasn't even close to being carried out. So using sovtard logic, if Art 61 is absolute, then so is the method for invoking it, and it wasn't followed.

[SpearGrass]

Anyone who wants to know what Magna Carta was really about, and how it fits into the legal system of the time, should go to the excellent Penguin book on the subject by a Prof. David Carpenter, a recognised specialist. Or, it grieves me to say it, David Starkey's more populist book is quite good.

In practice in the middle ages kings were never absolute - that's an invention of the renaissance. In the middle ages, kings in several countries (including France) were elected by the nobility, after all. Art 61 is part of a European movement among philosophers in the University of Paris which was examining the role of kings and their legitimacy. The divine right among those thinkers (led by John of Salisbury) meant that kings ruled by the will of God (since God wills everything) and therefore had an obligation to act morally, and if they did not, they could be removed. Quite the opposite of what Charles 1 was thinking. Archbishop Langton, who wrote Art 61, was a student of John of Salisbury and Art 61 puts his thinking into practice. But it was so revolutionary it could gain no traction. When vassals tried applying magna carta principles to the barons, they went off the idea a little.

John was able to repudiate the charter because a) his overlord declared it null, b) it was obtained by force which nullifies any charter then and now, and c) he died. The king was dead, long live King Henry III. Kings are not bound by the acts of other kings, and no charter can bind the future in perpetuity. If it did, no-one in Waltham Abbey would own their houses - the land would still belong to the (non-existent) abbey, or their successor in title - the Archbishop either of Canterbury or Westminster, depending on your view of Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy 1534. Could it override Article 1 of Magna Carta? Now that's a rabbit hole that Edward William Ellis has fallen down, which shows you how deep and dangerous it is.

I had a struggle recently with someone who has found a repealed road traffic order and maintains that it still applies - it would mean that he wasn't guilty of speeding, because the Order predates the current reduced speed limit for vans. He maintained that Acts and statutory instruments can never be repealed. I sent him the link to the Locomotive Act 1861, pointing out that if he were right, the speed limit on the A19 is 10 mph, so he was definitely guilty. And there was silence.

[SpearGrass]

Notorial dissent is right that Art 61 had a clear procedure - the committee of 25 appointed a sub-committee to carry out the procedure of "distressing and distraining" against the goods of the king to coerce him into complying with the provisions of magna carta.

The committee of 25 consisted of 25 named individuals, e.g Roger Bigod, Saer de Quincy, William Marshall jr, Archbishop Langton etc. If any died, the remainder were to nominate a replacement. All 25 having passed into the tombs and sepulchres of brief mortality, and not having nominated a replacement, even if the Charter had not been revoked, there would be no-one now with the right to convene a subcommittee so Art 61 would have died even if the pope hadn't killed it.

And the only thing the sub-committee could do was distrain on the king's goods with a view to compelling his compliance with the Charter. Once he agreed to comply, they had to stop, and give the stuff back. The role of the other freemen in the country was simply to swear to support the sub-commitee in their enforcement action - not fail to pay council tax, or park in disabled spaces, or operate a cannabis farm, or drive without insurance, or any of the things "lawful dissenters" do now.

[notorial dissent]

Notorial dissent is right that Art 61 had a clear procedure - the committee of 25 appointed a sub-committee to carry out the procedure of "distressing and distraining" against the goods of the king to coerce him into complying with the provisions of magna carta.

The committee of 25 consisted of 25 named individuals, e.g Roger Bigod, Saer de Quincy, William Marshall jr, Archbishop Langton etc. If any died, the remainder were to nominate a replacement. All 25 having passed into the tombs and sepulchres of brief mortality, and not having nominated a replacement, even if the Charter had not been revoked, there would be no-one now with the right to convene a subcommittee so Art 61 would have died even if the pope hadn't killed it.

And the only thing the sub-committee could do was distrain on the king's goods with a view to compelling his compliance with the Charter. Once he agreed to comply, they had to stop, and give the stuff back. The role of the other freemen in the country was simply to swear to support the sub-commitee in their enforcement action - not fail to pay council tax, or park in disabled spaces, or operate a cannabis farm, or drive without insurance, or any of the things "lawful dissenters" do now.

Spot on, save for one point. The "Sureties", the "committee" you are referring to, owing to the times we are speaking of it would be safe to assume that membership in the "committee"
would have most likely have been considered an inheritable office/honour/position by the heirs of the members and would have succeeded to the position on death of the previous holder, barring no heir at which point they would have appointed a replacement.

All of which of course is purely academic as to the best of my knowledge the "committee" never actual met after the original signing of the charter, and I would suspect that the Surety descendants would take great umbrage at anyone attempting to usurp their rightful position.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The divine right among those thinkers (led by John of Salisbury) meant that kings ruled by the will of God (since God wills everything) and therefore had an obligation to act morally, and if they did not, they could be removed.

You could argue that "those thinkers" only included those who knew Latin and could read the Bible rather than the average layman, but it wasn't without scriptural backing...

Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you.

Romans 13: 1-4

[SpearGrass]

Notorial dissent said "The "Sureties", the "committee" you are referring to, owing to the times we are speaking of it would be safe to assume that membership in the "committee" would have most likely have been considered an inheritable office/honour/position by the heirs of the members and would have succeeded to the position on death of the previous holder, barring no heir at which point they would have appointed a replacement. "

But that's not so: Art 61 expressly provides for replacement and it is by nomination by the other members. Even in relation to land and title, the modern concept of inheritance wasn't very firmly rooted in the 13th century. It was starting to develop, but it was still necessary to gain the permission of the lord before a son could inherit on the death of his father - John's abuses of that was one of the issues addressed in the Charter - the abuse of it by barons, however, was not.

[jackroe]

Jackroe also uses the common sovcit fallacy of "it doesn't count because it wasn't done exactly the way I think it should be done."

As best as I understand it, this council of barons was the closest thing to Parliament that even existed at the time. And it's hard to argue their intent was to keep Clause 61 after it started a civil war, and was promptly written out of every subsequent version of the document. It was certainly annulled by the methods that existed at the time.

No, it simply was not done at all. The issue of subsequent Charters with similar content does not mean the prior Charter's extra content is void. The repeal of sections of the Charter of Henry 3 confirmed by Edward 1 by Parliament does not extend to the repeal of any sections of the 1215 Charter.

As for the Pope annulling the Charter, one of the issues at stake between John and the Barons was John accepting the Pope as his feudal Lord---in England the Bishopricks are of royal foundation, they are not creations of the Pope, and if you want to do this sort of "read between the lines" sort of law, it was well settled by the reformation that the Pope's jurisdiction within England was wholly fraudulent, it was a pretended jurisdiction that never ought to have existed, tho, of course, the papists tell it another way. Elizabeth's 1559 Act of Supremacy begins

"An acte restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same,"

The Pope never had jursidiction, so the only tenuous argument left is that somehow the issuance of subsequent charters and parliamentary repeal of those Charters somehow annuls sections of the 1215 Charter.

[SpearGrass]

Jackroe's contention is clearly not grounded in history or works by the leading academic experts in history or legal history. Nor is it based on the understanding of the people of the time, who required John's son to remake the charter, in 1216, 1217, and again, when he was an adult (on the understandable basis that minors are not bound by contracts or charters). That is to my mind (but then I'm just a lawyer and student of history who has read Magna Carta) far more important than a bare assertion by someone 800 years later. Even if you close your eyes, hold your breath, and try to eject the papal overlordship of England from existence, people at the time didn't believe the 1215 charter was binding, and their views are worthy of respect.

As a matter of faith, if you want to believe that Magna Carta means something different from its meaning in the material world, you can. But that doesn't change the material world. In the material world, no-one has ever applied Article 61. Not in the 13th century, nor ours. Not even PLDers or other "lawful rebels", they apply a fantasy version of it wot they made up.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Jackroe's contention is clearly not grounded in history...

Jack Roe's contentions are nothing more than a rehash of several previous posters who have engaged in pigeon chess on this forum. He'll get bored and go away like all the others have. He may even be one of the previous miscreants, but it's really not worth checking.

[Burnaby49]

I'm going to make a comment I've frequently made in the past when arguments about legal interpretation get down to incomprehensible gibberish in an attempt to prove, in this case Article 61, that all courts are interpreting the law incorrectly and that some bizarre interpretation, totally unconnected to real law or common sense, is actually correct. I believe I posted it on this discussion a while ago as a public service to idiots;

It Doesn't Make The Slightest Fucking Difference Whether You Are right Or Not!

Absolutely none whatever. You can argue endlessly, relentlessly, on Quatloos in an attempt to convince us you are right. So what? If we agree with you how does that advance anything for you? We're a bunch of laymen posting on a website. The only place your arguments matter is in court. Win there and you have a path forward to you paradise of Article 61 freedoms. But, until you do, your arguments, no matter how you try to dress them up and no matter how much you obsessively believe in them, are totally worthless. So, Jackroe, if you want to prove yourself right and that we're idiots, I've given you the way to make us look like monkeys. Do something, anything, that can trigger a court action. Stop paying your rent or mortgage, get a parking ticket for parking in a restricted zone, jaywalk in front of a cop, then take it to court and defend yourself on the basis of your article 61 expertise. Let us know how it works out. Jacquie Phoenix at least gave it a shot and she got totally shredded at Queen's Bench. Unless you or another Article 61 fanatic goes to court and wins that's the established law in Canada. Until then your all of your legal analysis and arguments are worthless idle speculation.

[jackroe]

I discussed the whole thing with a friend who is a judge, and he was fairly adamant that the 1215 Magna Carta had not been repealed, so it was still valid law

Are you seriously asking us to believe that a real judge from a real court believes a widow can only remarry with the consent of her "lord" and a woman can only accuse a man of murder if the victim is her husband?

That would have been varied by subsequent legislation, so no, that is not true. Section 61 has never been repealed, nor has the section

Nos non faciemus justitiarios constabularios vicecomites vel ballivos nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et eam bene velint observare.

I think properly construed this requires a Judge to know Latin and to be able to understand this clause and execute it.

[jackroe]

Jackroe's contention is clearly not grounded in history or works by the leading academic experts in history or legal history.

I can entertain multiple points of view, that's all. So, what is it that these Barons did in 2001? You understand that it's not just these poor commoners hallucinating that the Barons petitioned the Queen under Article 61, right?

As a matter of faith, if you want to believe that Magna Carta means something different from its meaning in the material world, you can. But that doesn't change the material world. In the material world, no-one has ever applied Article 61. Not in the 13th century, nor ours. Not even PLDers or other "lawful rebels", they apply a fantasy version of it wot they made up.

Your idea that the King's grant is avoided due to minority is incorrect, plus John wasn't a minor when Magna Carta was sealed, even if H. 3 was.

Here is the general idea in Bracton concerning the function of the barons:

"[004...The king
[005] has a superior, namely, God.6 Also the law by which he is made king.7 Also his
[006] curia, namely, the earls and barons,8 because if he is without bridle, that is without
[007] law, they ought to put the bridle on him." (https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/ ... htm#FN2SRC)

So, the constitutional function of the barons is to put the bridle on the king. Article 61 does not apply only to a specific group of barons:

"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."

And then follows the rest of the article. It does not specify the method of election, debretts says that there are some 426, but it seems that they are free to conduct the election themselves, and to my knowledge there is not some rival faction of barons supporting the Queen against the dozens of hereditaries that supported the petitioners in 2001.

"The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress." (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... urope.html hit esc before the article evaporates, or register, to see the whole thing)

This is the quiet article published in 2001. Now that we have COVID and people are actually invoking this on a somewhat wider scale, we see a mad dash to pretend that "magna carta was reissued" or 'the pope annulled it" or whatever. I think the best argument would probably be that the barons did not elect the the twenty five (and more) who supported the petition, not that Magna Carta is invalid, but that argument would mean that the Barons should elect 25 of their number to fulfill the office stated in the 1215 Charter.

Plus the UK Cabinet Manual says

"5. Constitutional matters and practices may include: • statutes, such as Magna Carta in 1215;"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... manual.pdf

It does not mention Magna Carta 9 H. 3 or otherwise.

Really, you are smarter than the hereditary peers who petitioned the queen? I mean, maybe it is possible, or maybe there are matters of national security, e.g. the need to continue levying aids in order to support the military and judiciary, which have long since been replaced with a paid bureaucracy? In the olden days, no one could be made a judge except that he had sufficient assets to support himself, the idea that you'd have some poor man dressed as a judge, to give whatever judgments kept the tax coffers full so he could cash his paycheque, it is absurd.

Unlike most of this "freeman" stuff, this actually has some interaction with people who are very highly placed in the united kingdom, hereditary peers. So, they are surely not all trying to avoid taxes, so what gives? They don't understand the constitution that Bracton says that their office is to enforce?

But more to the point, there was a Mock Trial in the UK, by Supreme Court Judges, and one said that

"Fealty is reciprocal, as the act of homage makes clear. John’s breaches of dutyjustified those he had wronged withdrawing from their oaths of fealty. They were entitled to take up arms to compel the king to return to his duty, as William Marshal had earlier been justified in defying the king when he was himself wronged. And as John himself justified his own taking up arms against the King of France, to whom he owed fealty in respect of his Norman duchy.Resorting to self-help in this manner is not treason.The fact that homage was renewed following the Charter sealing shows, as Baron Fitzwalter rightly said in evidence, that the bonds of fealty had earlier been dissolved on 5May by the formal act of defiance.
...
The acknowledgements made in the Charter are not novel. There are precedents for them in the Coronation oaths, in the Charter of Henry I, and as a matter of comparative law as in the Statute of Palmiers of Simon de Montfort and as in King Pedro’s Charter for Catalonia, cited by counsel for Baron Fitzwalter. The comparative law dimension indicates that the ideas expressed in the Charter are universal, not shocking. The Charter is an insecure step only. But the ideas it contains tap into fundamental human concerns with justice, fairness, and good government. They can be expected to develop." (https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/magna- ... -elias.pdf pp. 2-3)

Here we see Dame Elias using comparative law to show that the power of breaking faith with one's Sovereign, if government becomes so egregious as to violate the fundamental laws and customs of the nation, is a universal notion. So, it is not even that Article 61 creates the power of diffidation, it acknowledges that it exists, as does Bracton: if the King breaks the fundamental contract, which is a matter to be judged by the Barons themselves, they are the King's partner, he is not their master, they are not his serfs, then they are completely within their common right to renounce fealty and fight with the King to restore law, with the aid of the whole community. Typically once things are this bad, many of the people, as we see today, will not hesitate to rise up, within what they feel able to do, e.g. tell the bureaucrats to get stuffed.

The power of denying consent to be governed, of diffidating, is a universal power, when it is exercisable is an open question, the idea that human beings are serfs to corporations that exist primarily to protect the stock market and land titles that are increasingly hard to come by for large parts of the population is a...queer notion.

[jackroe]

Jackroe's contention is clearly not grounded in history...

Jack Roe's contentions are nothing more than a rehash of several previous posters who have engaged in pigeon chess on this forum. He'll get bored and go away like all the others have. He may even be one of the previous miscreants, but it's really not worth checking.

So, in Nazi Germany, all good Nazis obey the statute law the Reich has produced, would you have turned in Anne Frank?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So, in Nazi Germany, all good Nazis obey the statute law the Reich has produced, would you have turned in Anne Frank?

Do you know what non sequitur means? I wouldn't try cutting hedges if I were you.

[JimUk1]

Jackroe's contention is clearly not grounded in history...

Jack Roe's contentions are nothing more than a rehash of several previous posters who have engaged in pigeon chess on this forum. He'll get bored and go away like all the others have. He may even be one of the previous miscreants, but it's really not worth checking.

So, in Nazi Germany, all good Nazis obey the statute law the Reich has produced, would you have turned in Anne Frank?

Well, I just can’t fathom how you think this is even relatable or this statement is justified.

If your culture or customs (to which most laws are the basis of) has been thrown into turmoil by a fascist overlord, it is still not an acceptable cultural norm.

As for your circular reasoning with Magna Carta-

Tony Blair signed the treaty of Nice after been elected by the people of the United Kingdom, duly accepted by the crown.

So your position is now to move to the protection of the Barons after they granted you free and open elections

But now you want to override that because you don’t agree with what a political party did, even though you wanted free and open elections?

You’ve not really thought about it.

[Burnaby49]

Heads up UK, you may be in line for a visit from the purple haired Albertan!

Jacquie Phoenix
1d

We are currently experiencing a high number of new members at a time when we are adjusting to the loss of our Mentor David Robinson. I am getting ready for a flight to England and admins are stretched thin, we are currently black logged on pending posts, so please be patient, we will get to as many as possible. Please remember not to post about off topic things, It only delays things further and they will not be approved anyway. The only thing does is put you at risk of removal.

New members I know you are excited to start learning and have many questions, please study the topics list that is our hub of learning. When you are ready to take the Oath, do your Lawful Standing and start using the process look in the units for a step by step guide on filling in the documents. The Constitutional Caution Card as well as Letter to Schools and window notices for Businesses can be found in the topics list under Protection Tools. Rule of thumb cover all your bases with Treason Notices so look at what government agencies that may try to get involved and put them on notice. Business owners you will also want your Local council on notice. I hope this post helps answer some your questions at this time. We will get the group functioning as normal as quickly as possible.
Thank you

https://www.facebook.com/groups/754338414949984//

Maybe that comment is just aspirational and she's just optimistic that her followers will cough up enough to cover her airfare but, then again, maybe she's got it. So I checked back on her GoFundMe plea for travel funds. she hasn't as yet reached her £2,000 goal having, to date, only received £1,109 but maybe, just maybe, if she cuts some corners, it's enough.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/david-amp-jacquie

However Dave's funeral fund isn't doing badly. They haven't got the requested £10,000 but they're up to £2,401, considerably more than I would have expected.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/5wdx2e-david ... orial-fund

Of course Jacquie, even if in funds, will still have to contend with issues like a UK quarantine and her refusal to wear masks but maybe she'll Article 61 her way through all those difficulties.

[JimUk1]

Of course Jacquie, even if in funds, will still have to contend with issues like a UK quarantine and her refusal to wear masks but maybe she'll Article 61 her way through all those difficulties.

I will wager she’s the first Canadian citizen arrested under England’s Covid legislation.

The irony!

[longdog]

I discussed the whole thing with a friend who is a judge, and he was fairly adamant that the 1215 Magna Carta had not been repealed, so it was still valid law

Are you seriously asking us to believe that a real judge from a real court believes a widow can only remarry with the consent of her "lord" and a woman can only accuse a man of murder if the victim is her husband?

That would have been varied by subsequent legislation, so no, that is not true. Section 61 has never been repealed, nor has the section

Nos non faciemus justitiarios constabularios vicecomites vel ballivos nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et eam bene velint observare.

I think properly construed this requires a Judge to know Latin and to be able to understand this clause and execute it.

Oh for fuck sake. How many more times?

None of Magna Carta 1215, 1216, 1217 or 1225 needs to be repealed because they are not considered to have ever been a part of our current system of law.

They are not common law and as they predate the establishment of parliament in 1295 they could never be considered statute. The 1297 version is the only version which has ever been a part of our current system of law. The others belong to a previous system and are irrelevant.

[Footloose52]

I discussed the whole thing with a friend who is a judge, and he was fairly adamant that the 1215 Magna Carta had not been repealed, so it was still valid law

Are you seriously asking us to believe that a real judge from a real court believes a widow can only remarry with the consent of her "lord" and a woman can only accuse a man of murder if the victim is her husband?

That would have been varied by subsequent legislation, so no, that is not true. Section 61 has never been repealed, nor has the section

Nos non faciemus justitiarios constabularios vicecomites vel ballivos nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et eam bene velint observare.

I think properly construed this requires a Judge to know Latin and to be able to understand this clause and execute it.

I thought the discussion was about clause 61 so of what relevance is clause 45 to this discussion other than "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.". Whilst Magistrates could, perhaps, not quite meet the above as regards knowledge, Judges (in England) and Sheriffs (in Scotland) will meet the requirements. It is, perhaps, moot about constables especially as the definition of their role has changed over the years.

[MRN]

Are you seriously asking us to believe that a real judge from a real court believes a widow can only remarry with the consent of her "lord" and a woman can only accuse a man of murder if the victim is her husband?

Hey, I'm a big fan of those bits! Mainly because they were a considerable improvement over "also couldn't NOT marry without said consent", and "can't accuse a man of murder at all".

Not that we haven't done vastly better since, but I have a definite soft spot.