OATH TO THE LORDS

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby Manlikemaroe » Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:07 am

[I rarely counsel others in great matters, but this matter is too great not to. If you want to act in lawful rebellion then you must make oath to the barons and transfer your allegiance.
The oath I sent is in the attachment. Use it or not, but make one you must.
Musashi[/quote]

You are the man brother. I owe a lot of you a debt of gratitude(Veronica, various administrators, various members) in the knowledge you have provided for me and sincerely hope I can make a future contribution. Not only is this information priceless(money in theory has a much value a sainsburys receipt) it's evaluation makes you grow up, I'm 23 I felt like I was 50 years before, now I feel like I'm 80. I feel like an enigma around my peers. So I'll help anyone I can because I know the frustrations of being made to feel like your in some way inadequate because you prefer to rely on reason rather than just blindly following dogma etc.

LAWFUL REBELLION; VÍVA REVOLUTION!!!!
Manlikemaroe
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby Manlikemaroe » Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:31 pm

jonboy wrote:I will not be "obeying" any so called "lords". WTF????

:thinks:


Your hardcore!!! But I totally understand why.
Manlikemaroe
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby newmannewy » Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:23 pm

To conclude that Magna Carta is invalid because it was signed in the same circumstances as every other peace treaty is to say that every other treaty is invalid, unlawful and wholly inapplicable. This is, palpably, nonsense.


Really so you can pick and choose which laws THEY created are valid.. That is palpably nonsense.. Heres the scenario.. My name is Musahsi.. I do not recognise the last 800 yrs of laws "the establishment created"... But I do recognise the law of 1215 because that suits my understanding of the day..

pfft

Equally, to say that a foreign potentate – such as a pope – has the authority to negate or nullify a purely domestic agreement is foolish and based on a somewhat poor philosophical deduction from insufficient understanding and a paucity of verified information.


Except the fact that all kings held their power at the behest of the pope.. how is it FOREIGN ?

It is no different from Mc Donalds Inc (vatican) telling their CEO in England (King operating the Uk arm of Vatican Inc) that he cannot contract with the local mafia boses (The Barons).. Because he has NO AUTHORITY to do so..

In 1213/15 the people were serfs/slaves to the lords who were inturn serfs/slaves to the Monarch who was inturn a vassal of the pope.. Evidenced by papal bulls giving authority to monarchs to invade other countries to spread the christian faith such as the Papal Bull "Laudabiliter" issued in 1155.

U make the claim that "we the people" actually had a say in who was king or queen.. palpably nonsense.
http://www.thebigwakeup.co.uk - My own personal site dedicated to helping newbies wake up and see the bigger picture.
Feel free to pass comment, point out my failings & or generally critisice - (It's a working progress)
newmannewy
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby chomerly » Thu May 19, 2011 3:07 pm

Going back to your first post Musashi,

musashi wrote:As said before, the procedure of article 61 requires us to transfer our allegiance from the queen to the lords. Rebellion without this transfer is not lawful. It is simple treason.


Why is it unlawful to serve notice that we are in rebellion?
Surely saying that we are in lawful rebellion says it all. LAWFUL.

If i were to send an affidavit to the Queen, detailing that i can no longer sit back and watch as this country is torn apart by corporations and corrupt politicians while she sits idlely by, surely that would signify to her that my reason for my lawful rebellion can be remedied if she were to take the reigns again and uphold the oath that she swore to the people.

A Cut & Paste of the Coronation Oath cereomony from the website http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx


In the Coronation ceremony of 2 June 1953, one of the highlights was when The Queen made her Coronation Oath (taken from the Order of Service for the Coronation).

The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

And the Queen answering,

I am willing.

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen. I will.

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.




Remember that her power is based upon her oath and she isn't fulfilling that oath.
If she were to then there would be no obvious reason for us to be in lawful rebellion.

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of this.
User avatar
chomerly
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby huntingross » Thu May 19, 2011 8:56 pm

chomerly wrote:Why is it unlawful to serve notice that we are in rebellion?


It's not.....so long as you have....

chomerly wrote:transfer our allegiance from the queen to the lords
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby musashi » Tue May 31, 2011 9:20 am

Letters to the queen from Elizabeth Becket will be up on site, courtesy of treeman, very shortly. For those who wonder the about the part the queen is playing - this will set you straight!!!!!
Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby treeman » Tue May 31, 2011 10:08 am

musashi wrote:Letters to the queen from Elizabeth Becket will be up on site, courtesy of treeman, very shortly. For those who wonder the about the part the queen is playing - this will set you straight!!!!!
Musashi


Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
19 November 2008

Your Majesty,
The Constitution & The Lord Chancellor
Your secretary wrote me on the subject of my correspondence with Sir Anthony Clark. She did not appear to recognise the position that you are in. In allowing the political appointment of a man as Minister of Justice to be equated with the position of Lord Chancellor, when that man has perjured his Oath of Allegiance, you have boxed yourself in. A man who has perjured his Oath of Allegiance and in so doing denied the truth of our constitutional laws which are implicit in your Coronation Oath, makes clear his unsuitability for a seat in Parliament and for him to claim to be Lord Chancellor in protection of the constitution and the conscience of the monarch is wrong.

It puts you in a position of acting against the state and against our constitutional laws. The 1795 Treasonable Practices Act they tried to repeal but could not because it was made a permanent statute in 1807, 1815 and 1848. I hope to hear from Your Majesty that you have understood my letter.
Sir Anthony Clark is apolitical; he should be appointed Lord Chancellor as a monarchical appointment.
I have enclosed another letter which I have today sent to Sir Anthony Clark.

Yours Sincerely

Mrs Elizabeth Beckett

To allow the state to borrow from the people is against the constitutional Petition of Right of 1627, made a permanent statute in 1628 - and statutes under Ed I & Ed III also disallowed borrowing without parliamentary agreement. To allow this is against our constitution. Parliament is divided and the matter is so serious regarding the power against the people - a form of theft - that parliament should be prorogued now. It is what Edward VII did in similar circumstances in 1910.

Copies to; David Cameron

Lord Kingsland
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby treeman » Tue May 31, 2011 11:12 am

Sir Anthony Clark
Master of the Rolls
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A 2LL

20 November 2008
Dear Sir Anthony.
Correspondence with Her Majesty

I enclose correspondence with Her Majesty which mentions your name. I make the point about you being traditionally the deputy to the Lord Chancellor. As you doubtless know The Master of the Rolls was originally keeper of the records and acted as assistant to the Lord Chancellor as the other Masters in Chancery; but in the reign of King Edward I he acquired judicial authority and in the reign of Henry VI bills were addressed to the Master of the Rolls as well as the Lord Chancellor, and since we now have no-one on the woolsack looking after the constitution, we, the people of England, where we know about our constitution, have to have representation in the curia regis.

We and our constitution are under great threat in the matter of the present borrowing, constitutional action is not being taken, in the matter of the Chagosians a member of the government has instructed lawyers to claim against the law that Magna Carta does not apply, and similarly in the matter of the people of this country they are being turned out of their houses against Magna Carta. And we ourslves are being disseised of our freehold by government action.

Our sovereign has been advised that her opinions and our constitution are subject to the ministers whom she has appointed under the principle of the automatic assent.
The claim of automatic assent is of course treason ( " the highest know crime for it aims at the very destruction of the Commonwealth itself ", Jowitt ). Under the Treason Act of 1351 it is treason to imagine the death of the sovereign, which this does since it negates his constitutional position. I have done a great deal of research to find out whether this phrase ( the automatic assent ) is constitutionally made statute. It has not been. There is no trace in Hansard nor in the Privy Council, of it even being debated. Since it is based on falsehood ( it claims that Queen Anne was the last monarch to send back a bill in 1707, whereas in fact Edward VII had sent back the Parliament Act the year before in 1910 as unconstitutional, ordering an election).
Since the automatic assent is illegal and baseless anyone pleading on it is acting treasonably.
This is a most serious matter. George V was told under the so called restraint of the automatic assent that he could not stop the unconstitutional Irish independence act (1921 Anglo- Irish Treaty ) on the grounds that he did not have the power ( Nigel Knight, tutor in law in the Cambridge Law Faculty in his book on the English Constitution ).

We the indigenous people of England, whose ancestors fought for the constitution have to assert the illegality. The effect on successive monarchs together with the false claim that the sovereign has to act on the advice of her ministers - taking advice does not mean acting against the laws and customs inviolable and in her Coronation Oath- but merely taking advice, has led as treason to exactly the destruction of the realm against our laws and customs.
I add, as a matter of interest, that it was this date ( Nov 20th) in 1588 that Elizabeth I appointed Cecil as her advisor. It was the year that she also got rid of the Hanseatic League with its long term power over English Trade and Freedom. The analogy to our present position need not be laboured.
I will be sending a copy of this letter to Her Majesty, As I wrote to you before, the illegalities into which the Queen has been manoeuvred have led to the point of Magna Carta chapter 61. But in her case I believe her actions to have been misguided and probably innocent and can, with your help be readjusted.
Queen Elizabeth I and Cecil together re-established Chapter 1 of the Magna Carta, the inviolability of the Church of England and this needs also to be made absolutely clear.#

Yours Sincerely

Elizabeth Beckett

Copy to Jack Straw, ' Minister of Justice'
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby treeman » Tue May 31, 2011 7:47 pm

:grin:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: OATH TO THE LORDS

Postby holy vehm » Tue May 31, 2011 8:26 pm

Where can one find more - a most interesting read.

I will go and dust off the noose :yes:
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

PreviousNext

Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron