Magna Carta 1215

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and faithful subjects, greeting. Know that we, out of reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honour of God and the exaltation of holy church, and for the reform of our realm, on the 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 and Benedict of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the lord pope, of brother Aymeric, master of the order of Knights Templar in England, and of the noble men William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warenne, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerold, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip de Aubeney, Robert of Ropsley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and others, our faithful subjects: [1] In the first place have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired; and it is our will that it be thus observed; which is evident from the fact that, before the quarrel between us and our barons began, we willingly and spontaneously granted and by our charter confirmed the freedom of elections which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English church, and obtained confirmation of it from the lord pope Innocent III; the which we will observe and we wish our heirs to observe it in good faith for ever.

We have also granted to all free men of our kingdom, for ourselves and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written below, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever:

[2] If any of our earls or barons or others holding of us in chief by knight service dies, and at his death his heir be of full age and owe relief he shall have his inheritance on payment of the old relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl £ 100 for a whole earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a baron £100 for a whole barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s, at most, for a whole knight's fee; and he who owes less shall give less according to the ancient usage of fiefs.

[3] If, however, the heir of any such be under age and a ward, he shall have his inheritance when he comes of age without paying relief and without making fine.

[4] The guardian of the land of such an heir who is under age shall take from the land of the heir no more than reasonable revenues, reasonable customary dues and reasonable services and that without destruction and waste of men or goods; and if we commit the wardship of the land of any such to a sheriff, or to any other who is answerable to us for its revenues, and he destroys or wastes what he has wardship of, we will take compensation from him and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be answerable for the revenues to us or to him to whom we have assigned them; and if we give or sell to anyone the wardship of any such land and he causes destruction or waste therein, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall similarly be answerable to us as is aforesaid.

[5] Moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, the guardian shall keep in repair the houses, parks, preserves, ponds, mills and other things pertaining to the land out of the revenues from it; and he shall restore to the heir when he comes of age his land fully stocked with ploughs and the means of husbandry according to what the season of husbandry requires and the revenues of the land can reasonably bear.

[6] Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage is contracted those nearest in blood to the heir shall have notice.

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

[8] No widow shall be forced to marry so long as she wishes to live without a husband, provided that she gives security not to marry without our consent if she holds of us, or without the consent of her lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.

[9] Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize for any debt any land or rent, so long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt; nor will those who have gone surety for the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor is himself able to pay the debt; and if the principal debtor fails to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then shall the sureties answer for the debt; and they shall, if they wish, have the lands and rents of the debtor until they are reimbursed for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show that he has discharged his obligation in the matter to the said sureties.

[10] If anyone who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, dies before it is repaid, the debt shall not bear interest as long as the heir is under age, of whomsoever he holds; and if the debt falls into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal mentioned in the bond.

[11] And if anyone dies indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if the dead man leaves children who are under age, they shall be provided with necessaries befitting the holding of the deceased; and the debt shall be paid out of the residue, reserving, however, service due to lords of the land; debts owing to others than Jews shall be dealt with in like manner.

[12] No scutage or aid shall be imposed in 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 only a reasonable aid shall be levied. Be it done in like manner concerning aids from the city of London.

[13] And the city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs as well by land as by water. Furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

[14] And to obtain the common counsel of the kingdom about 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, individually by our letters--and, in addition, we will cause to be summoned generally through our sheriffs and bailiffs all those holding of us in chief--for a fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and to a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will specify the reason for the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of those present, though not all have come who were summoned.

[15] We will not in future grant any one the right to take an aid from his free men, except for ransoming his person, for making his eldest son a knight and for once marrying his eldest daughter, and for these only a reasonable aid shall be levied.

[16] No one shall be compelled to do greater service for a knight's fee or for any other free holding than is due from it.

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

[18] Recognitions of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancester, and of darrein presentment, shall not be held elsewhere than in the counties to which they relate, and in this manner--we, or, if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justices through each county four times a year, who, with four knights of each county chosen by the county, shall hold the said assizes in the county and on the day and in the place of meeting of the county court.

[19] And if the said assizes cannot all be held on the day of the county court, there shall stay behind as many of the knights and freeholders who were present at the county court on that day as are necessary for the sufficient making of judgments, according to the amount of business to be done.

[20] A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his means of livelihood--if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good men of the neighbourhood.

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

[22] No clerk shall be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others aforesaid and not according to the amount of his ecclesiastical benefice.

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

[24] No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our crown.

[25] All counties, hundreds, wapentakes and trithings shall be at the old rents without any additional payment, exept our demesne manors.

[26] If anyone holding a lay fief of us dies and our sheriff or bailiff shows our letters patent of summons for a debt that the deceased owed us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to attach and make a list of chattels of the deceased found upon the lay fief to the value of that debt under the supervision of law-worthy men, provided that none of the chattels shall be removed until the debt which is manifest has been paid to us in full; and the residue shall be left to the executors for carrying out the will of the deceased. And if nothing is owing to us from him, all the chattels shall accrue to the deceased, saving to his wife and children their reasonable shares.

[27] If any free man dies without leaving a will, his chattels shall be distributed by his nearest kinsfolk and friends under the supervision of the church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed him.

[28] No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take anyone's corn or other chattels unless he pays on the spot in cash for them or can delay payment by arrangement with the seller.

[29] No constable shall compel any knight to give money instead of castle-guard if he is willing to do the guard himself or through another good man, if for some good reason he cannot do it himself; and if we lead or send him on military service, he shall be excused guard in proportion to the time that because of us he has been on service.

[30] No sheriff, or bailiff of ours, or anyone else shall take the horses or carts of any free man for transport work save with the agreement of that freeman.

[31] Neither we nor our bailiffs will take, for castles or other works of ours, timber which is not ours, except with the agreement of him whose timber it is.

[32] We will not hold for more than a year and a day the lands of those convicted of felony, and then the lands shall be handed over to the lords of the fiefs.

[33] Henceforth all fish-weirs shall be cleared completely from the Thames and the Medway and throughout all England, except along the sea coast.

[34] The writ called Praecipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding whereby a free man may lose his court.

[35] Let there be one measure for wine throughout our kingdom, and one measure for ale, and one measure for corn, namely "the London quarter"; and one width for cloths whether dyed, russet or halberget, namely two ells within the selvedges. Let it be the same with weights as with measures.

[36] Nothing shall be given or taken in future for the writ of inquisition of life or limbs: instead it shall be granted free of charge and not refused.

[37] If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, by socage, or by burgage, and holds land of another by knight service, we will not, by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, have the wardship of his heir or of land of his that is of the fief of the other; nor will we have custody of the fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight service. We will not have custody of anyone's heir or land which he holds of another by knight service by reason of any petty serjeanty which he holds of us by the service of rendering to us knives or arrows or the like.

[38] In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own un-supported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

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

[40] To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

[41] All merchants shall be able to go out of and come into England safely and securely and stay and travel throughout England, as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs free from all evil tolls, except in time of war and if they are of the land that is at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of a war, they shall be attached, without injury to their persons or goods, until we, or our chief justiciar, know how merchants of our land are treated who were found in the land at war with us when war broke out, and if ours are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

[42] It shall be lawful in future for anyone, without prejudicing the allegiance due to us, to leave our kingdom and return safely and securely by land and water, save, in the public interest, for a short period in time of war--except for those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom and natives of a land that is at war with us and merchants (who shall be treated as aforesaid).

[43] If anyone who holds of some escheat such as the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies dies, his heir shall give no other relief and do no other service to us than he would have done to the baron if that barony had been in the baron's hands; and we will hold it in the same manner in which the baron held it.

[44] Men who live outside the forest need not henceforth come before our justices of the forest upon a general summons, unless they are impleaded or are sureties for any person or persons who are attached for forest offences.

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

[46] All barons who have founded abbeys for which they have charters of the kings of England or ancient tenure shall have the custody of them during vacancies, as they ought to have.

[47] All forests that have been made forest in our time shall be immediately disafforested; and so be it done with riverbanks that have been made preserves by us in our time.

[48] All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officials, riverbanks and their wardens shall immediately be inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county who are to be chosen by good men of the same county, and within forty days of the completion of the inquiry shall be utterly abolished by them so as never to be restored, provided that we, or our justiciar if we are not in England, know of it first.

[49] We will immediately return all hostages and charters given to us by Englishmen, as security for peace or faithful service.

[50] We will remove completely from office the relations of Gerard de Athée so that in future they shall have no office in England, namely Engelard de Cigogné, Peter and Guy and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and all their following.

[51] As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all foreign knights, cross-bowmen, serjeants, and mercenaries, who have come with horses and arms to the detriment of the kingdom.

[52] If anyone has been disseised of or kept out of his lands, castles, franchises or his right by us without the legal judgment of his peers, we will immediately restore them to him: and if a dispute arises over this, then let it be decided by the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below in the clause for securing the peace: for all the things, however, which anyone has been disseised or kept out of without the lawful judgment of his peers by king Henry, our father, or by king Richard, our brother, which we have in our hand or are held by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them, we will have the usual period of respite of crusaders, excepting those things about which a plea was started or an inquest made by our command before we took the cross; when however we return from our pilgrimage, or if by any chance we do not go on it, we will at once do full justice therein.

[53] We will have the same respite, and in the same manner, in the doing of justice in the matter of the disafforesting or retaining of the forests which Henry our father or Richard our brother afforested, and in the matter of the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another, wardships of which sort we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight service, and in the matter of abbeys founded on the fief of another, not on a fief of our own, in which the lord of the fief claims he has a right; and when we have returned, or if we do not set out on our pilgrimage, we will at once do full justice to those who complain of these things.

[54] No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman for the death of anyone except 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 let them be settled by the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below in the clause for securing the peace [61], or by 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 associate with himself for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him, provided that if any one or more of the aforesaid twenty-five barons are in a like suit, they shall be removed from the judgment of the case in question, and others chosen, sworn and put in their place by the rest of the same twenty-five for this case only.

[56] If we have disseised or kept out 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 arises over this, then let it be decided in the March by the judgment of their peers--for holdings in England according to the law of England, for holdings in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for holdings in the March according to the law of the March. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.

[57] For all the things, however, which any Welshman was disseised of or kept out of without the lawful judgment of his peers by king Henry, our father, or king Richard, our brother, which we have in our hand or which are held by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them, we will have the usual period of respite of crusaders, excepting those things about which a plea was started or an inquest made by our command before we took the cross; when however we return, or if by any chance we do not set out on our pilgrimage, we will at once do full justice to them in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and the foresaid regions.

[58] We will give back at once the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages from Wales and the charters that were handed over to us as security for peace.

[59] We will act toward Alexander, king of the Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and hostages and concerning his franchises and his right in the same manner in which we act towards our other barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise by the charters which we have from William his father, formerly king of the Scots, and this shall be determined by the judgment of his peers in our court.

[60] All these aforesaid customs and liberties which we have granted to be observed in our kingdom as far as it pertains to us towards our men, all of our kingdom, clerks as well as laymen, shall observe as far as it pertains to them towards their men.

[61] Since, moreover, for God and the betterment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the discord that has arisen between us and our barons we have granted all these things aforesaid, wishing them to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we give and grant them the under-written security, namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe, hold and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in any way against anyone or transgress any of the articles of the peace or the security and the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us, or to our justiciar if we are out of the kingdom, and, laying the transgression before us, shall petition us to have that transgression corrected without delay. And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days, reckoning from the time it was brought to our notice or to that of our justiciar if we were out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons together with the community of the whole land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely, by seizing castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can, saving our person and the persons of our queen and our children, until, in their opinion, amends have been made; and when amends have been made, they shall obey us as they did before. And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress us as much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling of themselves and of their own accord to take an oath to the twenty-five barons to help them to distrain and distress us, we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command. And if any of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country or is in any other way prevented from carrying out the things aforesaid, the rest of the aforesaid twenty-five barons shall choose as they think fit another one in his place, and he shall take the oath like the rest. In all matters the execution of which is committed to these twenty-five barons, if it should happen that these twenty-five are present yet disagree among themselves about anything, or if some of those summoned will not or cannot be present, that shall be held as fixed and established which the majority of those present ordained or commanded, exactly as if all the twenty-five had consented to it; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the things aforesaid and will do all they can to get them observed. And we will procure nothing from anyone, either personally or through anyone else, whereby any of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing is procured, let it be void and null, and we will never use it either personally or through another.

[62] And we have fully remitted and pardoned to everyone all the ill-will, indignation and rancour that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and laity, from the time of the quarrel. Furthermore, we have fully remitted to all, clergy and laity, and as far as pertains to us have completely forgiven, all trespasses occasioned by the same quarrel between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign and the restoration of peace. And, besides, 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 and of the aforementioned bishops and of master Pandulf about this security and the aforementioned concessions.

[63] Wherefore we wish and firmly enjoin that the English church shall be free, and that the men in our kingdom shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions well and peacefully, freely and quietly, fully and completely, for themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all places for ever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all these things aforesaid shall be observed in good faith and without evil disposition. Witness the above-mentioned and many others. Given by our hand in the meadow which is called Runnymede between Windsor and Staines on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign

Magna Carta 1215....the most perfect of all legal documents....

In 1215 the most famous or should I say infamous document in English legal history was scripted and forced upon King John at Runnymede to sign on the 15th June 1215, but to this day I have not seen a signed copy of this document and I know of no one who has ever checked the translation to see if it is correct – what else could be hidden in these words we have not been told about. Magna carta 1215 is as it stands the most perfect of all legal documents and contains many of the processes still used to this day, but as it was then, none of these are for you to use they are explicitly for the socially dominant and are unique to them. This is why Jack Straw in a presentation in Washington in February 2008 stated “we need to modernise magna carta” and the presentation he gave was called the modernisation of magna carta. Let’s start by looking at its name magna carta – the great charter of liberties.

Charter: A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain rights and privileges on a person or a corporation, also: A document incorporating an institution and specifying its rights; includes the articles of incorporation and the certificate of incorporation

As you can see a charter is a grant that does not apply to men, women and children it applies to ‘persons’, as long as you are deemed as to have the ‘privileges of a person’. Under canon law although man and person are synonymous in grammar, not all men were classed as persons as slaves were classed as ‘things’. At this time in England most of us would have been serfs; in other words slaves and this would have been the majority of us, so to any lord we would have been things and things (chattels) have no rights. They have no personality they are personalty: moveable property and Williams ‘Domesday Book’ was a list of all his personalty, as all censuses are. So when you combine this with liberties.

Liberties: The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, forced labour, privileges, rights etc civil liberties.

Something that is plainly obvious starts to emerge. As it says above legally free, but ‘things’ cannot be legally free as they have no legal personality i.e. ‘status’ they do not exist in the legal world, so in effect they have no legal rights. ‘Things’ are not physically or legally free and can be kept in confinement, servitude under forced labour, they have no privileges, or rights and no civil liberties. ‘Things’ do not enjoy social, political or economic rights and privileges, they are property of another under the whim of that other. Even in its name alone it spells out who it was wrote for and exactly why it was wrote. Liberty is not freedom, liberty is a grant of rights, but would only apply to the ones of status, those who believed they were better in some way, as we would know it now the upper class high society. This legal document set forth the class divide, although already well established this document maintained that this concept would carry on through the ages even to present day and even in the parliamentarians own words spoke by Jack Straw "it is very essential and is needed to be modernised so it can be maintained".

The concept of liberty forms the core of all democratic principles and societies, yet as a legal concept it defies clear definition, which to me is very obvious because it actually defines slavery and is the antithesis of moral or natural as slavery is. We must remember that legal is in form only (persons) a category of ‘things’ distinguished by some common characteristic or quality and within this comes the legal ability to enslave those of lesser quality. A master slave syndrome maintained by a immoral legal concept in the form of liberty under a false belief system based upon nothing more than human suffering and a delusional miscomprehension that anything and everything is ok, as long as it has the label ‘legal’ upon it such as war. What is most evident here is the fact that ‘society’ relies upon a democratic process to exist and this is where the true meaning of society rears its ugly head. The socially dominant members of any community a definition of the word society says it all and describes what a democratic process really allows for in allowing the socially dominant to live off the back bone of the rest of the community believing they have a divine rite to do so and no matter what is needed to maintain this deception it is ok as long as it has the label ‘legal’ applied to it. In essence liberty is no more than legal slavery where men, women and children are bound by legal chains and not physical ones - are bound to those who are deluded under a misguided comprehension deriving from the use of fictional artificial law emanating from the church and the laws of oppression. One of the concepts magna carta achieved was to make the laws of oppression legal. But this document was to lead to many other devises that were needed to contain the kings and queens of the future within legal doctrine to prevent them from ever being able to break the original contract between John and pope innocent III and was to be used to set up the legal mechanism that would prevent this occurring and create a constitutional figure head. If you are struggling with any of this then let’s put it another way and bring it up to modern day. Before 1972 we were all known as ‘subjects’ the queens subjects, now of course we are known as ‘citizens’ more on this in a bit, but for now let’s look at the word ‘subjects’.

Subject: One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or a ruler, the obligations of a vassal to a lord: a slave

So up until 1972 we were classed as slaves no different in description to the times magna carta was penned. Another deceptive word to disguise the true meaning of what we are actually classed as, by the socially dominant, the ruling classes and those of delusional status. Now we are classed as citizens, as of by definition being part of a republic, with the processes of a republic and a sovereign who is no more than a president, a figure head called a constitutional sovereign. When the new republic is fully establish i.e. the European union, the figure head of the old republic will be removed to allow us to merge with the new republic and thus the only one who can break the original contract is removed forever, legally that is....please remember this is all based upon legal fiction, the use of artificial law (legal systems) and has no power whatsoever over you unless you want it to and you except the illusion. The republic is a political one based on the legal concept of liberty that is why you are now classed as a ‘citizen’; a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community and oh boy you live in a political community controlled by legal parameters within a constitution, that is why everything is done under a constitutional basis derived from statute (legal) from the word status: The legal character or condition of a person or a thing. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed: The body of people (plural of person) who are citizens (a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community) of a particular government. But what they do not tell you is the fact that not all persons have to give consent, only ‘particular persons’ as slaves have no say now as they did not at any other time. You are ‘ruled’ whether you like it or not FULL STOP under this doctrine as a thing. They use an attachment to you called a legal personality via a piece of paper, a name, or as it was in the days of magna carta just a family name, to be able to legally label the thing (slave) as the thing cannot exist in the legal world unless it has a name, which became a certificate 153 years ago to say what it’s called. The thing is then ruled, regularised, regulated and ordered to adhere to all democracies legal concepts (statutes) via the attached name, via policy=contracts under acts (statutes) and are fooled into believing they are electing representatives to do this on their behalf and they are fooled into believing they can withhold consent - all we are really saying is 'NO' and that is the stumbling block, nothing to do with consent whatsoever. Without doubt we are fucking stupid!

This document set this doctrine in place as a legal concept and maintained that slavery would be legalised through this document that would be maintained till even now, with the concepts still now driven by the same purpose for the same needs. But this was not only to effect just England this was to effect the world and everywhere the fleet set sail to, delivering the doctrines of common and canon law legal systems and of course the place it emanates from the church. That is why whenever you look at a country within the common wealth its foundation is within a common law legal system construct to set up the privileges for the socially dominant who would then introduce the canon law legal system to control the ‘things’ (us), because the civil legal system has no foundation without the common law legal system first being in place. Because without a common law legal system there are no socially dominant and without the socially dominant there is nothing classed as things (slaves) so there is no need for a system to control them, a canon law legal system called democracy.

Without delving too deeply into the document evidence starts to emerge that without doubt throws new light on to what historians maintain. One key element is that the dope sorry the pope was against the signing of magna carta and was quoted to say “....this document is unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful....” and this has been given as the main reason King John was excommunicated, total fabrication. Without doubt this document was scripted in Rome and put together by legal minds of the time because John had already signed the treaty of Verona (contract) and this document was to ensure John or any successor to the throne could never break that treaty (contract) and if this was not the case then why was Stephen Langton present at the signing? And offering advice! Especially because he was a cardinal: one of a group of more than 100 prominent bishops in the sacred college who advise the pope and elect new popes. It just does not make any sense if you realise the facts and do not except what historians say as being literal and more based on hearsay constructed to mask the truth deliberately.

“....on the 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 and Benedict of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the lord pope, of brother Aymeric, master of the order of Knights Templar in England….”

Not just Stephen but many other members of the pope’s house hold plus the ruler of Ireland in the holy see’s eyes. If the pope was so against this document, then why were all these witness to it and giving advice? Surely if this was the case they would have boycotted the whole thing, or prevented it from happening and not witnessed it. The Barons were being granted concessions in return for their obedience to the pope and to recognise the Stephen Langton was the official ruler even though this would be done from the shadows as it is now. Certain privileges and rights ordained upon them in the form of magna carta to maintain they would do what the pope wished through his representative Stephen Langton to ensure that the King would never have the ability to undo the contract. This is why this legal document is unique in every aspect to them and would serve to be the template to create another vessel for control of the king or queen and all the men women and children of England, namely parliament. This vessel again was to be employed around the world, although called by many different names, nonetheless exactly the same in construct and design for the same purpose: slavery through a deceptive legal process called democracy!


david elphick's picture

david elphick (not verified) said:

Just read all of that john.
wow, about to take the courts on myself as i for one am sick sick sick of paying out to these law breaking vultures.
thankyou john and keep up the good work.

Laurence James Howell's picture

Laurence James ... (not verified) said:

Hi All

I believe the document is a lawfull document. A legal version was created when a butchered version was finally issued in 1297. The 1215 version cannot be alterred and remains in force under Gods law and the law of the land.

Charters are for people and the law is for people and the law of the land is referrenced and this was codieifed into the Common Law jurisdiction.

The peoples law of the land jurisdiction rules the Common Law jurisdiction as Common Law rules statute jurisdiction..

the queens and the judges oaths of office swear to the higher authority of God and the higher authority of the people. No obligation can rest with the people when exercising their public authority [ all caps ] untill all oaths are adherred to.

c s o'brien's picture

c s o'brien (not verified) said:

Wow. I always felt a weird vibe from Magna Carta - but I never could quite put my finger on what it was.

John, your (and the order's, I presume) perception(s) of this document seem a hell of a lot more accurate and truthful than what the conventional historians tell us of this document.

It is becoming more and more evident, to me, that you are right. That we are in slavery because of these foundation systems of evil artificial laws and the breeding house for political/religious/elitist tyrants (parasites) that has been built on top of it.

You are right, it is all so deceptive that it is passed off to the masses as how 'normal reality' should be. This is inexpressibly disturbing and alarming.

I am petrified, for there is no way of knowing - for certain - whether we, as a race, (or at least the majority of us) will ever realise this in time, before we are rendered subjects and thus objects and thus slaves for ever and ever.

And before the numbers of the policy and military gangs (the polices and armies) increase to such a level that we fall into a reality of suffering (of every kind) so extreme (as if people don't suffer enough as it is) that the reality of it would/will make the anguish that we are experiencing now seem like a jovial picnic at the park: a super nanny police state.

It is becoming evident to me too that we - the majority of us - are most likely to be plunging down into 'hell': the next stage of systematic oppression enforced and perpetrated and carried out by the puppets of the elitist parasites - the leading beneficiaries of our enslavement and forced turmoil and the anguish it causes - of this huge, disguised, pyramid scheme...

...whilst the 'socially dominant' - which is a brillant way of putting it - are playing the game, climbing the ladders to the next level of pomp and position and legal amnesty etc. and buying their stairways to heaven.

Hmmm. I too am going to go to court soon (hopefully) as a friend of mine would like to stop paying council tax and I would very much like to help him, although I have never done this before and I need some (a lot of) help. I could do with information on people who have done this before and what happened to them (hahahahahahaha). And something about 'case law' whatever that is.

Hmm but that is for another time. For now I am tired so goodnight,

Bill Hubert's picture

Bill Hubert (not verified) said:

I would love to re post this entry on my own website will that be okay

Kevin whitlock anglo saxon whitehair.'s picture

Kevin whitlock ... (not verified) said:

Captcha ...lucky thirteen? John.
A very interesting read I just need to be a slave too
The concise english now....
My research as an imprisoned jib electrician led me too look into the 1956 law
Which my pantomime was held under...only jumping into the future I was indited under the 2003 act. Statue of 1956 law says a man can only be in crown court at the time of the alledged crime I was
10 Yrs young... Anyway too cut a long story chase.
The 2003 was appealed by the european court off human rights not once, but three times surrounding 56 ACT so 2003 act had too be rewritten fact...a lot of acting in this farcical drama.
In not one crown court published editions can you find anything apart from appendix see 56 law
You dig and I dug and am now by posting this little gem
Because now im case law. well regina too be fair ... And others are now being indited under my unlawful imprisonment...
All my research led me by accident because off ammendments too 2003 act too look into 2006 give a year or so for statue law too be written & published I finally found it the amen,dments are in magistrates because thats the starting place of any trial.. I hope this helps someone somewhere....
And guess wot folks all my research & nobody will take on my case..
Answers on a notes ehh...

Bob's picture

Bob (not verified) said:

Why do people refere to modern statutes as if they have any legitimacy? The whole system is bullshit, thats the only thing anyone need tell a quasi judge in a quasi court. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1706 and ratified by the English parliament in 1707. Due to breaches in the Treaty agreement, the United Kingdom of Great Britain ended in 1712, no statutes, no treaties and no parliament have been legal since if they preport to have authority under "Great Britain". This is a fact of international law and the English constitution, we "British" have all been had for idiots for three hundred years.

Brian T's picture

Brian T (not verified) replied:

Clearly people fail to understand anythiing about the law or how parliament works.

Each and every parliament is sovereign. Each Parlaiment can introduce and pass any legislation it chooses and that legislation has the force of LAW. Equally any subsequent parliament is sovereigh and can repeal any previous legislation if it so chooses, Including those 'laws' which you hold in such reverence. There is nothing on the statute books of England and Wales which cannot be repealed or amended if parlaiment so chooses.

Simon's picture

Simon (not verified) said:

Hi there

I am afraid guys you have choices here, keep believing and trying to cite what the original 1215 document said, while understanding it was not meant for unfree men (you decide yourself where that placed you 'at that time in history' over the baronial and noble classes), and whether we shoul dconsider its ammended forms in 1216, 1217, 1225, and then finally the three remaining legally recognised chapers of its re-issue in 1297 (Edw 1). Or simply see it as a document that has nothing to do with 99% of the population, was not meant to be, not has it ever been, and just see its significance as a psychological shift in general thought about how power is perceived in general. Yes Magna Carta is a legal document that was applied by th ebaronial landowners and nobility, but that is it!  Unless you consider yourself one of the leading landowners in the UK, with a Lordship or other noble and baronial title, it has absolutely no relevance to you what so ever. But... its 'spirit' which has now spread as a constitutional principle is what is faced now by the people. (also forget the Bill of Rights 1688) and absolutly a Bill of Rights made now, it would just entrench in law the constitutional perversions that already exist. What is needed is to iron out all the problems before even considering a precarious thing such as that. I saw John Harris in about 2009-10 in Totnes and he introduced me to this stuff.. but it tied up too easy with the cons this and cons that... but John is an inspiration. Since I have been off to do a Bsc Degree in Law (Hons) and hope to do a masters next year on this subject as recognised by true English law. You do not need conspiracy stuff to prove this, it is all there in English legal history and in statute, procedural and constitutional law. If it is applied that way (and I was hoping in ghaining a legal academic title, the law and those following law) can not deny the principles relevance.. they can no longer say it is a conspiracy... Nor do most judges and others in legal circles, it is well known there is a historic battle still been fought today between the Judiciary and Executive... and a conflict against the dominance of ministers... follow what the law is today.. as yesterday is just a shadow now. Get off the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights is our answer roundabout...  the smokey screen.. theres much more actually going on.  

Bob's picture

Bob (not verified) said:

People who declare that the Magna Carta of 1215 only applied to the upper Barrons must neither have actually read the Magna Carta nor given any study towards the historical circumstances leading up to the Magna Carta. The conditions were written by the upper Barrons during a feudal period, but if you read more carefully the upper Barrons were putting upon the King and themselves the constitutional conditions by which all people are to be treated. Only an outaw who is a person who refused to establish his guilt or innocense by due process of law, was excluded from the law.

The argument regarding "freemen" and bond men is bogus since no one any longer swears allegiance to a feudal Lord, hence we are all freemen unless by due process of law we have been convicted of breaking the law. The Magna Carta 1215 is a treaty between the state and the country, it is the "inalienable charter", the written foundation of the fundamental constitution.

        The Bill of Rights 1689 is the confirmation of the fundamental constitution based upon a further treaty being the Declaration of Right, which again is an echo of the Petition of Right, which again is an echo of the Magna Carta. These are the laws of England, not Great Britain which is a bogus political invention begun in 1706. So every one keep banging on about the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and the Petition of Right and the Declaration of Right because these are your laws, the laws of the people, the constitution is your constitution, the constitution of the people, all the country has the powers to enforce the law and constitution upon the state including parliament, not that the GB parliament has any legitimate authority.

Laurence James Howell's picture

Laurence James ... (not verified) said:

Hi All,

The UK is the political constuct and fictional in nature. It is this entity that proviides for the contractual elements of all contracts offerred by the HMCTS who operate under the political construct of the oath of office of QEll.

Study the oath of QEll, study the judicial oath of office and oath of alliegence, study the oath of office of the constable. Study and completely read the Magna Cata.

The Magna Carta has provisions for Welshmen and other entities.The Welsh articles were incuded in recognition of the siege of Shrewsbury by the Welsh King Llewelyn the Great 

 Do not be mislead by those claiming that the Magna Carter is a legal document. They are either genuinly mistaken or are leading people astray by illconcieved and ulterior motives.

The King has no clothes, Stop being a sheep and carry out your own research..

The constitutional documents were not written for legal fictions. The oath of office of QEll is not written for legal fictions, but for people to be governed in the fictional realm or UK, by the use of the ALL CAPS LEGAL FICTIONAL ACCOUNT.

 You will see that as a man of the people you can step outside all the contractual offers made to the ALL CAPS ACCOUNT by accepting the oath of office of QEll and the Judicial oath of office of the man that occupys the office of judge in the room that most people think is a statutory court.

To insulate yourself from the ravages of a statute based court accept the oaths of office and immediately that action establishes a court of law. You are now in a room which contains Gods law, law of the land or the peoples law and other jurisdictions by consent. Do not consent.

We live in Britain on the land mass. We are governed by consent. During the corronation service the Queen, who at that point is not QEll she has anothr regnal title, is presented to the people who demonstate their approval by cheering. This is in the nature of a general offer of a conditional contract between the what will be QEll and the people. LL Blake The Royal Law gives much detail in this respect.

We exchange our political authority for the protections embodied in the oaths of office and constitutional documents. This is the soveriegnty referred to in the freeman movement, you exchange yours under a general offer of political association and the general assumption that the people generally accept the oaths etc.

No offer is made to each of the people so unless you deny this affiliation the system, HMG can presume you accept this position.

A man of the people can exercise his public authority without liability by using the acts and statutes and trust law in the position of first executor to the estate {ALL CAPS] and disavow the executor de son tort. As executor you control the trustee which is the public trustee.

Study the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] and the Euoropean Convention of Human Rights.ECHR

ECHR Protocol 4 article 1  Prohibition of Immprisonment for debt.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fullfil a contractual obligation.

A fine from a statute court is a contractual obligation to the ALL CAPS with your liability at risk. need I say more.

Pay particular attention to the preamble of the UDHR it is written for poeple as it must be.

Peace through Love


Crystal Clear's picture

Crystal Clear (not verified) said:

Magna Carta is a legal agreement, a treaty.


Who are the named parties/signatories thereto?


That's who it applies to.


Anyone reading stuff into it that wasn't originally there, is deceiving themselves and going against legal contract and law. Which suits the system just fine.

Laurence James Howell's picture

Laurence James ... (not verified) said:

1  Magna Carta is translated as a Great Charta, not a treaty.

2  There are many entities included in the corpus of this trust document as beneficiaries, King John is the grantor and the Barons the trustees.

3  The document was sealed by King John

4  Anyone reading and studying this document knows exactly what it is and how it binds the Monarchy. It was the first document that applied limiting factors to the Kingship and is the foundational document of the British Constitution.

Peace through Love






vincent's picture

vincent (not verified) said:

I have a problem i need help

I sold my house last week it was suposed to complete but days before the completion my Conyeyancy solicitor got an order under POCA

it basicaly reads


TO: (1) H***********  (the subject)

      (2) Vince******** (alleged partner of the subject)

     (3) LC***** (Conveyancing Solicitor)


if you H*********, V********, LC*******Solicitors  disobay this order you may be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your assets seized.

No arrest have been made, we seem to be waiting. what do i do?

The subject on the order is my ex girlfiiend she has one child and had three to me, we realised after a while we could not be together although we are best friends,

time moved on and from a sale of my house that i owned before i met her, i built a house my self, im a builder. i used the cash from the house sale, No mortgage or loan apart from what my family loand or gave me. in 2006 i agreed to let her rent it from me, she was claiming rent till she got a job and the daughters started work in around 2013, i lived in another property until my friend died a couple of years maybe 3 years ago, i have many reciepts elec, car ins, doctors letters, and i was on the elctrol roll for a few years there and bank account was listed there and general reciepts for tvs etc.

However i think they are saying they believe that from the outset we colluded to get rent from them, and we were partners,

This is not the case it fell that way and made better sence to me, they spoke to her months ago about the matter, almost a year ago why are they interested again?

I could have rented the house for more to someone else but it felt right that my children were there i muched prefered it that way my daughters would be in a safe place. plus the house still need outside work still.

The conveyance solicitor suggested i ask that the allow me to sell my house but the will keep the funds untill the situation is resolved.

i have gave him no instructions as yet.   what should i do its all my life, all my money tied up in this, i have nothing now and am lending money from my mother to help survive etc

should i move into the house do i becuase then i wont have to pay any rent.

Or do i let the buyer have it and allow themcourts or however to take charge of my money, this is so wrong. i feel abused n trapped what can i do next.

i have been reading frantically about contract law,   the four corner rule,  our straw man.

i wish i did this earlier in life my brain cant take anything in because i am so worried.

i am scared

can anyone help.