Log in

View Full Version : The magna carta



MAGNES
12th June 2011, 04:08 PM
THE MAGNA CARTA

A CHRISTIAN DOCUMENT

Magna Carta Copy to be Auctioned
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7014220.stm

credit
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=1883


The copy of the Magna Carta is the only one in private ownership

A rare copy of the Magna Carta, the document that enshrined human rights in English law, is to be sold in New York.

The copy owned by the Perot Foundation is expected to fetch more than $20m (£9.94m), auctioner Sotheby's says.

The copy on sale, dating from 1297, was bought by Ross F Perot in 1984 and is the only one in private ownership.

King John sealed the original Magna Carta in 1215, outlawing imprisonment and the seizure of property without due legal process, including trial by jury.

The Perot 1297 manuscript, bearing the seal of King Edward I, is due to go on auction in December.

It was on view until recently in the National Archives in Washington.Magna Carta

Preamble:
John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.

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

2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be full of age and owe “relief,” he shall have his inheritance by the old relief, to wit, the heir or heirs of an earl, for the whole baroncy of an earl by £100; the heir or heirs of a baron, £100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s, at most, and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.

3. If, however, the heir of any one of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age.

4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waster of what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid.

5. The guardian, moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks, fishponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land; and he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and wainage, according as the season of husbandry shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonable bear.

6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage takes place the nearest in blood to that heir shall have notice.

7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her.

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.

9. Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor is able to satisfy the debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall answer for the debt; and let them have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are indemnified for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he is discharged thereof as against the said sureties.

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

12. No scutage not aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.

13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

14. And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters; and we will moreover cause to be summoned generally, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, and others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come.

15. We will not for the future grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free tenants, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and on each of these occasions there shall be levied only a reasonable aid.

16. No one shall be distrained for performance of greater service for a knight’s fee, or for any other free tenement, than is due therefrom.

17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.

18. Inquests of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment shall not be held elsewhere than in their own county courts, and that in manner following; We, or, if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court.

19. And if any of the said assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, let there remain of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as many as may be required for the efficient making of judgments, according as the business be more or less.

20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offence, except in accordance with the degree of the offence; and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offence, yet saving always his “contentment”; and a merchant in the same way, saving his “merchandise”; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his “wainage” if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the neighbourhood.

21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offence.

22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others aforesaid; further, he shall not be amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.

23. No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so.

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.

25. All counties, hundred, wapentakes, and trithings (except our demesne manors) shall remain at the old rents, and without any additional payment.

26. If anyone holding of us a lay fief shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff shall exhibit our letters patent of summons for a debt which the deceased owed us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to attach and enrol the chattels of the deceased, found upon the lay fief, to the value of that debt, at the sight of law worthy men, provided always that nothing whatever be thence removed until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfil the will of the deceased; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the deceased, saving to his wife and children their reasonable shares.

27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.

28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the seller.

29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money in lieu of castle-guard, when he is willing to perform it in his own person, or (if he himself cannot do it from any reasonable cause) then by another responsible man. Further, if we have led or sent him upon military service, he shall be relieved from guard in proportion to the time during which he has been on service because of us.

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.

31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is not ours, against the will of the owner of that wood.

32. We will not retain beyond one year and one day, the lands those who have been convicted of felony, and the lands shall thereafter be handed over to the lords of the fiefs.

33. All kydells for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seashore.

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.

35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one measure of corn, to wit, “the London quarter”; and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or “halberget”), to wit, two ells within the selvedges; of weights also let it be as of measures.

36. Nothing in future shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs, but freely it shall be granted, and never denied.

37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight’s service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight’s service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight’s service.

38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his “law,” without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.

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

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us.

43. If anyone holding of some escheat (such as the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) shall die, his heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would have done to the baron if that barony had been in the baron’s hand; and we shall hold it in the same manner in which the baron held it.

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

45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.

46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.

47. All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforested; and a similar course shall be followed with regard to river banks that have been placed “in defence” by us in our time.

48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.

49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of the peace of faithful service.

50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks, the relations of Gerard of Athee (so that in future they shall have no bailiwick in England); namely, Engelard of Cigogne, Peter, Guy, and Andrew of Chanceaux, Guy of Cigogne, Geoffrey of Martigny with his brothers, Philip Mark with his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and the whole brood of the same.

51. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom’s hurt.

52. If anyone has been dispossessed or removed by us, without the legal judgment of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five and twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, for all those possessions, from which anyone has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King Henry, or by our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our order, before our taking of the cross; but as soon as we return from the expedition, we will immediately grant full justice therein.

53. We shall have, moreover, the same respite and in the same manner in rendering justice concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our brother afforested, and concerning the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another (namely, such wardships as we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight’s service), and concerning abbeys founded on other fiefs than our own, in which the lord of the fee claims to have right; and when we have returned, or if we desist from our expedition, we will immediately grant full justice to all who complain of such things.

54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

55. All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements, imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of the five and twenty barons whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the pease, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, along with the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him, provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five and twenty barons are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five and twenty for this purpose only, and after having been sworn.

56. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for the tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.

57. Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross; but as soon as we return (or if perchance we desist from our expedition), we will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and in relation to the foresaid regions.

58. We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

59. We will do towards Alexander, king of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and his hostages, and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the same manner as we shall do towards our other barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William his father, formerly king of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his peers in our court.

60. Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed b all of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.

61. Since, moreover, 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 offence 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, moreover, 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.

62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.

63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand — the above named and many others being witnesses — in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

Printed from Western Voices World News (http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=1883)

palani
12th June 2011, 04:16 PM
Barons are landowners. In the US they are identified as "electors".

The ONLY reason to want to have this "copy" with the seal of King Edward I is to be able to enter it as evidence of breach of contract. For this use the value of the document is priceless.

MAGNES
12th June 2011, 04:22 PM
" Magna Carta is one of the most celebrated documents in history. Examine the British Library's copy close-up, translate it into English, hear what our curator says about it, and explore a timeline. "
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/index.html

The Basics
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/b ... asics.html (http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics/basics.html)

" No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. "

The Bush Admin undid major principles of the Magna Carta,
Law that is 800 years old, and beyond that thousands of
years old if you count the foundations of The West.

Olmstein
12th June 2011, 04:43 PM
So, borrowing from the jews has been a known problem for over 800 years, and yet it is still going on. Does mankind never learn?


10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

MAGNES
12th June 2011, 04:55 PM
So, borrowing from the jews has been a known problem for over 800 years, and yet it is still going on. Does mankind never learn?

Minusing them out of the equation, it is very interesting document, the parallels to
Solon and Athens 600 BC are pretty incredible, Solon gets rid of Dracos and
Draconian law, smashes debt stones, outlaws debt bondage, restores order
to representation, separation of powers, jury trials and peer appeals, checks,
basically inventing Republicanism, the institutions, fair and even justice equally
applied, Solon is the father of Athenian democracy, he does it in the name of
Athena as well, 1800 years pass and people are still protecting themselves from
the same problems.

Notice the Church too is a balance of power to the State. It was always like that.
In Byzantium , in Rome, this document predates the Renaissance, that is pretty
significant, Latin was lost in Rome, Charles The Great brought it back, Greek
was totally lost and was not brought back till later, Classical knowledge was largely lost.
Very few could of read Plutarch's Lives, one of the key picks of reading even for the
Founding Fathers of the USA. Very few would of been aware of blueprints that
work.

I have a thread here on How the Irish Saved Civilization, the Irish and other indigenous
tribes, Scottish, we know had a very strong impact on the UK fighting for their liberties.

HOW THE IRISH SAVED CIVILIZATION (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?45892-HOW-THE-IRISH-SAVED-CIVILIZATION)

MAGNES
14th June 2011, 05:53 AM
Indiana Supreme Court dispenses with Magna Carta, Constitution

by Simon Black (http://www.sovereignman.com/author/simonblack/)

On June 10, 1215 AD, after prolonged rebellion and frustrating negotiation, a group of England’s most influential barons entered London to force the disastrous King John Softsword into accepting a revolutionary charter of individual freedoms.
Five days later in the Runnymede meadow of Surrey County, John affixed his royal seal onto what became known as the Magna Carta. It still exists on the books today in England and Wales.

This document was one of the more important antecedents to the US Constitution; its proclamations ended the absolutism of England’s monarchy and spelled out very clear rights and freedoms, including, among others, the right of a man to enjoy his private property without trespass from government officials.

Over 550 years later, the framers of the Constitution codified this right in the 4th Amendment to be secure in one’s private property. Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court effectively rejected both documents in two separate cases.

In the first case of Lacey v. State of Indiana, the Court ruled that police officers serving a warrant on a private home may simply walk right in without knocking.

The second case of Barnes v. State of Indiana is far more startling. The case deals with one Richard Barnes, a regular Joe citizen of Indiana, who was in the midst of marital problems with his wife one evening in 2007. The couple was arguing when police arrived to the scene and attempted to enter the home.

Barnes made it very clear to the officers that they were not to enter his home. The officers did not have a warrant, and they did not have probably cause to believe that anything illegal was happening. But they entered regardless.

Barnes tried to block the door, and as the police officers muscled their way past him, he shoved one of them against the wall in defense of his property. Barnes was choked and tasered in his own home, subsequently hospitalized, then charged with misdemeanor battery on a police officer.

The case went to court, and the Barnes defense team cited a private citizen’s right to resist unlawful entry into one’s home. They lost. The case was appealed, all the way up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Here’s where it gets interesting.

The Court agreed that the police officers entered the Barnes home illegally. The Court further agreed that one’s right to resist illegal entry has existed since the Magna Carta. The Court further agreed that the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right to resist unlawful entry in numerous court cases.

Seems pretty cut and dry, no?

Yet, in summarizing the court’s opinion, Justice Steven David writes, “We hold that there is -no right- to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Wait. Full stop. A citizen has no right to resist unlawful entry by police officers on his private property? Apparently we’re all supposed to lay down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.

Americans already have to put up with dispensation of the Constitution at airports, border checkpoints, political events, many train station, and soon to be bus terminals and shopping malls. We’d better add ‘private residence’ to that list as well.

The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful entry is the hallmark of any free civilization. Conversely, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of a judicious, impartial court.

There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic, seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government, and possession of firearms.

--------------------------------

Indiana Supreme Court Shreds 4th Amendment
http://www.dailypaul.com/165308/indiana-supreme-court-shreds-4th-amendment

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

---------------------------------------

Indiana Supreme Court threatened following controversial ruling
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8d416141-5026-51b7-898e-6cd827d878ee.html

Indiana State Capitol Police are investigating harassing phone calls and email messages directed to the Indiana Supreme Court following a controversial ruling issued last Thursday. Police would not say how many calls and messages have been received or whether they were addressed to a specific justice. But the communications are being reviewed as part of a criminal harassment investigation, police said.
Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said the threats contained in the calls and emails were "primarily" directed at police officers.

Santa
14th June 2011, 09:11 AM
Good thread, Magnes.

It should be pointed out though, that the Magna Carta only applied to freemen, which comprised less than 10% of the population.


1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever. :oThe remaining 90% were serfs or slaves.

And because of this, the document did little or nothing to cure the oppressive nature of feudalism, which is, it seems, what our current fascist lords and rulers are attempting to foist on us again.

These are just wiki quotes... perhaps there are more accurate definitions out there.


Serfdom is the status of peasants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants) under feudalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism), specifically relating to Manorialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism). It was a condition of bondage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage) or modified slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Middle_Ages) in Europe and lasted to the mid-19th century. Serfdom included the forced labor of serfs bound to a hereditary plot of land owned by a lord in return for protection and the right to work on fields they leased from their landlords to maintain their own subsistence. Serfdom involved not only work in owner's fields, but his mines, forests and roads. Manors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism) formed the basic unit of society and the lord and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs were laborers who were bound to the land; they formed the lowest social class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class) of the feudal society. Serfs were also defined as people in whose labor landowners held property rights. Before the 1861 abolition of serfdom in Russia, a landowner's estate was often measured by the number of "souls" he owned. Feudalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism) in Europe evolved from agricultural slavery in the late Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) and spread through Europe around the 10th century; it flourished in Europe during the Middle Ages but lasted until the 19th century in some countries.
Freemen, or free tenants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tenants), were essentially rent-paying tenant farmers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenant_farmers) who owed little or no service to the lord. In parts of 11th century England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) freemen made up only 10% of the peasant population, and in the rest of Europe their numbers were small.
Villeins

A villein was the most common type of serf in the Middle Ages. Villeins had more rights and higher status than the lowest serf, but were under a number of legal restrictions that differentiated them from freemen. Villeins generally rented small homes, with or without land. As part of the contract with their landlord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landlord), they were expected to spend some of their time farming the lord's fields. The rest of their time was spent farming their own land. Like other types of serfs, they were required to provide other services, possibly in addition to paying rent of money or goods. These services could be very onerous. Villeins were tied to the land and could not move away without their lord's consent. However, in other regards, they were free men in the eyes of the law. Villeins were generally able to have their own property, unlike slaves. Villeinage, as opposed to other forms of serfdom, was most common in Western European feudalism, where land ownership had developed from roots in Roman law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law).
A variety of kinds of villeinage existed in Europe in the Middle Ages. Half-villeins received only half as many strips of land for their own use and owed a full complement of labor to the lord, often forcing them to rent out their services to other serfs to make up for this hardship. Villeinage was not, however, a purely exploitative relationship. In the Middle Ages, land guaranteed sustenance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustenance) and survival, and being a villein guaranteed access to land. Landlords, even where legally entitled to do so, rarely evicted villeins because of the value of their labour. Villeinage was much preferable to being a vagabond, a slave, or an unlanded labourer.
In many medieval countries, a villein could gain freedom by escaping to a city and living there for more than a year; but this avenue involved the loss of land and agricultural livelihood, a prohibitive price unless the landlord was especially tyrannical or conditions in the village were unusually difficult. Villeins newly arrived in the city in some cases took to crime for survival, which gave the alternate spelling "villain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain)" its modern meaning.
Bordars and cottagers

The status of bordar or cottager ranked below a serf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serf) in the social hierarchy of a manor, holding a cottage, garden and just enough land to feed a family (about 5 acres or 2 hectares). They were required to provide labour on the demesne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demesne) on specified days of the week. The bordars and cottagers did not own their plow horses. In 1086 the Domesday Book showed that England comprised 12% freeholders; 35% serfs or villeins: 30% cotters and borders: and 9% slaves.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom#cite_note-15)
Slaves

The last type of serf was the slave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery). Slaves had the fewest rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) and benefits from the manor. They owned no land, worked for the lord exclusively and survived on donations from the landlord. It was always in the interest of the lords to prove that a servile arrangement existed, as this provided them with greater rights to fees and taxes. The legal status of a man was a primary issue in determining a person's rights and obligations in many of the manorial court cases of the period. Also, runaway slaves could be beaten if caught.
The serf's duties

The usual serf (not including slaves or cottars) paid his fees and taxes in the form of seasonally appropriate labour. Usually a portion of the week was devoted to plowing his lord's fields (demesne), harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, and often working in the manor house. The lord’s demesne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demesne) included more than just fields: it included all grazing rights, forest produce (nuts, fruits, timber, and forest animals) and fish from streams; the lord had exclusive rights to these things. The rest of the serf’s time was devoted to tending his or her own fields, crops and animals in order to provide for his or her family. Most manorial work was segregated by gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender) during the regular times of the year; however, during the harvest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest), the whole family was expected to work the fields.
A major difficulty of a serf's life was that his work for his lord coincided with, and took precedence over, the work he had to perform on his own lands: when the lord's crops were ready to be harvested, so were his own. On the other hand, the serf could look forward to being well fed during his service[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]; it was a poor lord who did not provide a substantial meal for his serfs during the harvest and planting times. In exchange for this work on the lord's property, the serf had certain privileges and rights. They were allowed to gather deadwood from their lord’s forests. For a fee, the serfs were allowed to use the manor’s mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_%28grinding%29) and ovens. These paid services were called banalities in France during this time.
In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certain taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxes) and fees. Taxes were based on the assessed value of his lands and holdings. Fees were usually paid in the form of foodstuffs rather than cash. The best ration of wheat from the serf’s harvest always went to the landlord. For the most part, hunting on the lord’s property was prohibited for the serfs. On Easter Sunday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Sunday) the peasant family owed an extra dozen eggs, and at Christmas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas) a goose was expected as well. When a family member died, extra taxes were paid to the manor for the cost of that individual's labour. Any young woman who wished to marry a serf outside of her manor was forced to pay a fee for the lost labour.
Often there were arbitrary tests to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example, was required to be able to jump over a fence of a given height to be considered old enough or well enough to be valued for tax purposes. The restraints of serfdom on personal and economic choice were enforced through various forms of manorial common law and the manorial administration and court.
It was also a matter of discussion whether serfs could be required by law in times of war or conflict to fight for their lord's land and property.
Benefits of serfdom

Within his constraints, a serf had some freedom. Though the common wisdom[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] is that a serf owned "only his belly" — even his clothes were the property, in law, of his lord[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] — a serf might still accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became wealthier than their free neighbors, although this was rather an exception to the general rule. A well-to-do serf might even be able to buy his freedom.
Serfs could raise what they saw fit on their lands (within reason — a serf's taxes often had to be paid in wheat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat), a notoriously difficult crop) and sell the surplus at market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market). Their heirs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirs) were usually guaranteed an inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance).
The landlord could not dispossess his serfs without cause and was supposed to protect them from the depredations of outlaws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw) or other lords, and he was expected to support them by charity in times of famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine).

palani
14th June 2011, 09:51 AM
It should be pointed out though, that the Magna Carta only applied to freemen, which comprised less than 10% of the population.

In this day and age there are absolutely NO freemen in the U.S. of A. That is one reason I got out. You are enslaved from the moment you breath your first breath.

The Magna Carta has been declared to be the law of the land in the U.S. constitution

http://constitutionus.com/


Article [VII]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The exact text where common law has been declared to be Magna Carta is the Confirmatio Cartarum in 1297

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/cartarum.htm


that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law and the Charter of the forest, for the wealth of our realm.

Twisted Titan
11th October 2011, 07:21 PM
bump.......

very interesting reading

Nomoss
11th October 2011, 08:54 PM
Tag. Thanks for the links and the good read.

k-os
11th October 2011, 09:28 PM
I read that the Magna Carta was housed in Fort Knox during WWII.

Does #62 of the Magna Carta refer to a jubilee?

bonaparte
11th October 2011, 11:15 PM
Thanks for a great read.

I really need to study this document more.

FreeEnergy
13th October 2011, 04:49 PM
tag

sirgonzo420
13th October 2011, 08:34 PM
tag

You're it!

lapis
22nd February 2012, 02:16 AM
Bump for those who haven't seen this. I had no clue about The Magna Carta, especially the parts dealing with The Tribe. Thanks for nothing, public schooling!

Awoke
22nd February 2012, 06:08 AM
Great thread. 5 stars. Another example of why GSus leads the pack. This document needs more attention from me. I will pick away at it.



All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.



I wish.


In this day and age there are absolutely NO freemen in the U.S. of A. That is one reason I got out.

Did you move out of the States? (Meaning the chunk of land that is a portion of North America that the USA calls the USA) Or are you still there but a sovereign?

sirgonzo420
22nd February 2012, 06:33 AM
The Magna Carta was void ab initio due to the Treaty of 1213, in which the King pledged fealty to the Pope.

palani
22nd February 2012, 06:44 AM
Did you move out of the States? (Meaning the chunk of land that is a portion of North America that the USA calls the USA) Or are you still there but a sovereign?
There are no States in the sense of "the several States". This being the case there is nothing to move out of or move into. For a while I thought that state officials wear two hats, one to administer to federal citizens and another to administer to State citizens, but I fear that events have proven this view mistaken.

Moving is in the sense of terminating all contracts and establishing with which entities I am willing to conduct commerce with.

Sovereigns settle their problems by reverting to force. I hardly claim such status. I might be a terrorist if I did.

palani
22nd February 2012, 06:46 AM
The Magna Carta was void ab initio due to the Treaty of 1213, in which the King pledged fealty to the Pope.
The U.S. constitution was declared void by Abraham Lincoln (by his actions). However, the belief is still there that it exists. Therein lies the power (if not the authority).

sirgonzo420
22nd February 2012, 07:12 AM
The U.S. constitution was declared void by Abraham Lincoln (by his actions). However, the belief is still there that it exists. Therein lies the power (if not the authority).

Which is why, when all is said and done, I don't keep all my eggs in a "paper" basket.

The Creator (whatever one wants to call it) is my authority.

Awoke
22nd February 2012, 07:20 AM
The U.S. constitution was declared void by Abraham Lincoln (by his actions).

I don't know much about this. What actions? How did he declare it to be void?

Olmstein
22nd February 2012, 08:10 AM
I don't know much about this. What actions? How did he declare it to be void?

This, for starters:

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

palani
22nd February 2012, 08:49 AM
I don't know much about this. What actions? How did he declare it to be void?

The only "perpetual" union exists in the Articles of Confederation. When the southerns left to take care of their own business he exceeded his authority to show that they could not do so. Law immediately became color of law as a result of his actions.

palani
22nd February 2012, 08:52 AM
The Creator (whatever one wants to call it) is my authority.
Your Creator is PRESUMED to be the 14th amendment until you can break that presumption (15 Stat 249).

sirgonzo420
22nd February 2012, 08:57 AM
Your Creator is PRESUMED to be the 14th amendment until you can break that presumption (15 Stat 249).

People assume and presume all sorts of things.

Why should that have a bearing on me?

horseshoe3
22nd February 2012, 09:00 AM
MAGNES, have you ever considered publishing a recommended reading list? I know you have mentioned books here and there, but never in a consolidated, prioritized list. I think a sticky thread would be good. Maybe it could even be a GIM members' reading list. Everybody gets one post and can edit it as they see fit.

palani
22nd February 2012, 09:02 AM
Why should that have a bearing on me?

Necessity imports privilege. This is the rule used by all governments.

As soon as they inform you of this they have given you notice that you are in a battle to the death.

Awoke
22nd February 2012, 09:07 AM
The only "perpetual" union exists in the Articles of Confederation. When the southerns left to take care of their own business he exceeded his authority to show that they could not do so. Law immediately became color of law as a result of his actions.

I must be retarded. I don't understand any of that.

Twisted Titan
22nd February 2012, 09:16 AM
I am astounded that Jews are the only group of people listed by Race all others are noted by title or rank.

So troublesome are these people they had to be singled out.

Ponder that for a while

palani
22nd February 2012, 09:16 AM
I must be retarded. I don't understand any of that.

Do a search for "Articles of Confederation". Bring up that document. Search for the word "perpetual".

Do the same for the U.S. constitution.

Which document declares the union to be perpetual?

Awoke
22nd February 2012, 09:21 AM
MAGNES, have you ever considered publishing a recommended reading list? I know you have mentioned books here and there, but never in a consolidated, prioritized list. I think a sticky thread would be good. Maybe it could even be a GIM members' reading list. Everybody gets one post and can edit it as they see fit.

I know you didn't ask me, but I want to contribute anyways:




The Unseen Hand - (Epperson)
The Creatue of jekyll Island - (Griffin)
The Plot Against the Church - (Pinay)
The mystery of freemasonry unveiled - (Rodriguez)
The Synagogue of satan - (The one by Andrew Hitchcock)
The Committee of 300 - (Coleman)
Proofs of a Conspiracy - (Robison)
The thirteenth tribe - (Kostler)



I would add to that the following:

The Mystical Body of Christ in the modern world - (Fahey)
Freemasonry: Conspiracy against Christianity - (Epperson)
The New World Order - (Epperson)
Demonic Abortion - (Euteneuer)
Club of Rome - (Coleman)
The new Montinian Church - (Arriaga)

I bought another book that is very deeply involved in the Kabbalist occultism, called the Father of Lies, but I can't read it. It's extremely dry. Very hard to get into.
I am currently reading through "Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin, and it is highly recommended as well, but I haven't finished it. I also have "Kingdom of the Occult" by the same author that I hope to read some day soon, when I finish with the other 4 books I have on the go.

Most importantly I would recommend that Bible. Anyways, just my $0.02.

MAGNES
4th March 2012, 08:31 PM
Good book.

Magna Carta (Greenwood Guides to Historic Events of the Medieval World)
Katherine F. Drew | Greenwood | September, 2004 | 211 pages | English | pdf

With the advent of Magna Carta, royal power fell under written secular law and individual liberties were codified. Representative government, common law, and key trial rights such as habeas corpus grew out of these landmark documents. Magna Carta Magna Carta is the name later given to a document signed by king John of England under pressure from the barons and other notables of England in the summer of 1215 at a meadow called Runnymede, which is on the river Thames between London and Windsor. This remarkable document resulted from an aristocratic rebellion against the crown, sparked by king John's abusive use of his customary rights as lord of England.

Though the rebellion began with the barons - who benefited most from John's concessions - success was ensured by John's alienation of the church and the rising merchant class, symbolized by the City of London. But remarkable as the original agreement was, it acquired its elevated position in the legal and constitutional history of England as much from what men thought it said as from what its provisions actually contained. Magna Carta was actually issued several times during the 12th century, often with substantial revisions. Entangled in dynastic wars at home and in France, and carrying on Crusades in the Holy Land, English kings required tremendous amounts of money to finance their armies and pay for the increasingly centralized government. Unsurprisingly, sentiments of rebellion grew stronger and stronger among the landed barons and wealthy merchants as royal demands for their money grew heavier and heavier. Thematically oriented chapters help readers differentiate fact from fiction regarding this pivotal charter in the history of human freedom. Furthermore, the pivotal roles played by the Church, of the landed barons, and of the emerging merchants in England's towns in extracting the concessions from the crown are discussed in broad, yet detailed, strokes.

Chapters on Magna Carta's profound influence on common law and the development of representative government follow. Fifteen biographies of key figures like Henry II, Pope Innocent III, William the Conqueror and Eleanor of Aquitaine enhance the narrative chapters, as do the extensive extracts of the Coronation Oath of Henry I, Magna Cartas of 1215 and 1225, the Charter of the Forest of 1225, and the final Confirmation of the Charters from 1297. Glossary, annotated timeline, maps, bibliography, and index are included.

MAGNES
4th March 2012, 09:15 PM
MAGNES, have you ever considered publishing a recommended reading list? I know you have mentioned books here and there, but never in a consolidated, prioritized list. I think a sticky thread would be good. Maybe it could even be a GIM members' reading list. Everybody gets one post and can edit it as they see fit.

I made reference to numerous works on here, books, podcasts.
Even opened threads on some very good books, like the Irish above,
or White Gold.

It depends on what your interests are.

They were posted when appropriate.

I just posted a good series above you can search, " Greenwood Guides to Historic Events " .

" Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World " is my top pick to search.

I have bought many books recently starting from online sources, pdf, podcast, etc.
Apple iTunes offers great free stuff too, I was impressed recently.

I haven't been posting books on NWO much, on gim I did some, once I linked
to GreenMountainBoys Scribd and got his books removed immediately
cause of gim trolls, something to think about when linking directly.
I have a drive full of occult/mason crap, I have a lot of banned books,
hard to get books, I posted a screen once and offered to up any of them.

On Agora I had a thread on classics, I think I did a good job.

Compiling everything, redoing all of the above today, would require real effort.

People can PM me if they want, on something specific, I will gladly try to be of service.

Glass
5th March 2012, 03:52 AM
great stuff there Magnes. I'm particularly interested in learning about the Charter of the Forest. Will have to have a look around for this book.

palani
5th March 2012, 05:38 AM
I'm particularly interested in learning about the Charter of the Forest. Will have to have a look around for this book.

Manwood's Treatise of the Forest Laws
http://books.google.com/books?id=2rY1AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=manwood&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j7NUT9yICPT4sQKEz6CZCQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBw

MAGNES
11th June 2020, 06:04 AM
END GAME IS ALMOST HERE , maybe a few more years ?

THIS IS ALL OUT IN THE OPEN NOW !

This is a game changer for society , if you are following what is going on,
people will be asking who are these people, this has always been the plan.

Its starts with bashing Europeans and their History, even on forums by
dirt bag trolls, many of which are paid, or " useful idiots " that burrow from
trash setup sites, spoken about this for years on here and elsewhere,
incoherent voodoo.

You won't have a functioning society.

RUSSIAN HISTORY , the Bolsheviks and Anarchists committed terrorist acts
for year to destabilize and it culminated in mass murder of tens of millions
of Christians, Communism works, they took over. People were posting about
this back when, I didn't. The history is there for those interested.

Your mission is to do some research, reading, educate the masses.

MAY JUNE 2020 3 WEEKS OF RIOTS



Judge Blocks Virginia Gov. Northam’s Takedown of Robert E. Lee Statue Breitbart June 9 2020 (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/09/judge-blocks-va-gov-northams-takedown-of-robert-e-lee-statute/)

NPR Contributor Pushes a Modern Day Book Burning: "Remove Books By Whites" TGP Juan Vidal contributes to Daily Beast Rolling Stone (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/npr-contributor-pushes-modern-day-book-burning-remove-books-whites/)

Christopher Columbus Statue Toppled and Thrown in Lake in Richmond, VA TGP June 9 2020 (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/christopher-columbus-statue-toppled-thrown-lake-richmond-va/)

Christopher Columbus statues toppled in Richmond, beheaded in Boston TheHill June 10 2020 (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/501998-christopher-columbus-statues-toppled-in-richmond-beheaded-in)

Citrus Heights Homes Displaying American Flags Targeted By Arsonists CBS Sacramento June 9 2020 (https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/06/08/citrus-heights-homes-american-flags-arson/)

London Mayor Khan Sets Up Commission To Review All Landmarks To Ensure They Comply With "Diversity" ZeroHedge (https://www.zerohedge.com/political/london-mayor-khan-sets-commission-review-all-landmarks-ensure-they-comply-diversity)

Whore, Slag, Slave Owner’: Queen Victoria Statue Vandalised with ‘BLM’ Slogans Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/06/10/whore-slag-slave-owner-queen-victoria-statue-vandalised-blm-slogans/)

Edward Colston 1636 to 1721 UK BLM Marchers Rip Down Historic Statue, Throw It In Harbour Breitbart USED fortune to fund hospitals schools charitable enterprises (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/06/08/uk-blm-marchers-rip-down-historic-statue-throw-it-in-harbour/)

Exclusive: Scottish Police Have ‘No Plans’ to Guard Statues Targeted by BLM and Left-Extremists Breitbart

(https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/06/10/exclusive-scottish-police-have-no-plans-guard-statues-targeted-blm-left-extremists/) UK Museum Curator Madeline Odent Tweets Advice on Destroying Bronze Statues Breitbart American-born museum curator advising BLM/Antifa on Twitter (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/06/10/museum-curator-tweets-advice-on-how-to-destroy-bronze-statues/)

Pelosi wants 11 Confederate statues removed from Capitol - Roll Call (https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/10/pelosi-wants-11-confederate-statues-removed-from-capitol/)

CNN's Angela Rye: Washington, Jefferson Statues "Need To Come Down" RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/18/cnns_angela_rye_washington_jefferson_statues_need_ to_come_down.html)

THE SKYVIKE TROLL GANG WON , CONGRATULATIONS , HAVE FUN !

Who was posting about key history for years countering the disinfo ,
with relatively very little support ?

MINNESOTA ST PAUL

Left-Wing Thugs Yank Down Christopher Columbus Statue Outside Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul VID TGP June 10 2020 (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/left-wing-thugs-yank-christopher-columbus-statue-outside-minnesota-state-capitol-st-paul-video/)

keehah
1st December 2025, 01:33 PM
ft.com: Ministers plan to scrap jury trials in England and Wales except for most serious cases (https://www.ft.com/content/a47a2cbd-fcbf-4363-a544-032964433965)

Nov 25 2025
Ministers have proposed to end the right to a jury trial for a vast range of criminal offences in England and Wales, as they grapple with a huge backlog of cases that is delaying hearings by more than a year in many instances.

Under the shake-up, juries would be scrapped for all cases expected to attract a prison sentence of five years or less, with defendants barred from asking for a jury trial, as they can at present for many offences.

Cases that can currently go before either a judge sitting alone or a jury would all be heard in a new “bench division” of crown courts, with a judge sitting alone.

Juries would also be scrapped in lengthy or complex trials such as fraud cases. However, lengthy and complex trials involving rape, murder or manslaughter, or where there was a special public interest element, would still go before a jury.

The proposals were set out in a memo by justice secretary David Lammy, seen by the Financial Times.

Lammy’s plans go far beyond proposals set out in July by retired High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson, who called for the end of the right to jury trial for a far more limited range of offences.

The Ministry of Justice said no final decision had been made.

But it added: “We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims — with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising — which will require bold action to put right.”

The memo, first reported by the Times, described the planned changes as the “DPM’s decision”, referring to Lammy, who is also the deputy prime minister.

Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, called the proposals “extreme”.

“This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far,” he said.
legalcheek.com: Jury trials set to be axed for most crimes under major shake up (https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/11/jury-trials-set-to-be-axed-for-most-crimes-under-major-shake-up/#:~:text=Under%20the%20plans%2C%20offences%20likel y,right%20to%20appeal%20against%20conviction.)

Nov 25 2025
In a memo seen by The Times (£) (https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/jury-trials-scrapped-court-backlog-5sh9b8psn), Lammy told ministers and senior civil servants across government that there was “no right” to trial by jury in the UK.

That line has not exactly gone down well at the criminal bar. Its association chair, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, told the newspaper: “This is beginning to smell like a co-ordinated campaign against public justice.” She added that the consequences of Lammy’s plan would be “to destroy a criminal justice system that has been the pride of this country for centuries, and to destroy justice as we know it,” arguing that ministers were “using the backlog as a pretext for restricting the right to jury trial”.

Lammy’s proposals go further than those put forward by Sir Brian Leveson, who earlier this year suggested creating an intermediate court in which a judge would sit with two lay magistrates for mid-range offences. Lammy is understood to want to remove the lay element entirely. Under the plans, offences likely to receive a sentence of up to five years would lose the right to a jury, and magistrates would see their powers significantly expanded so that they can deal with more serious cases. The government is also considering removing the automatic right to appeal against conviction.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson stressed that “no final decision” had been taken, although legislation is expected early next year.

JDRock
1st December 2025, 04:36 PM
Remember when, years ago the gov confiscated their guns? Where is their recourse now?