Re: Sadly, "Meep Meep" has posted another email . . . .
- From: "Jared & Christina Olar" <ardgowan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:42:54 -0600
Well, at least your political diatribes are touching on medieval matters. Now all you have to do is respect the fact that this is GEN-medieval, a forum wholly inappropriate for the topics you've been going on and on and on and on about.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message ----- From: <WILeeLcoJOtegeNS@xxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, sci.military.naval, soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:24 PM
Subject: Sadly, the English people are the Queen's Subjects and Crown Puppets.
English Law
http://law.jrank.org/pages/6486/English-Law.html
The system of law that has developed in England from approximately
1066 to the present.
The body of English law includes legislation, COMMON LAW, and a host
of other legal norms established by Parliament, the Crown, and the
judiciary. It is the fountain from which flowed nearly every facet of
U.S. law during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Many of the concepts embodied in the U.S. Constitution—such as the
separation and delegation of powers between three branches of
government and the creation of an elective national assembly
representing the will of the people—trace their roots to English law.
Fundamental legal procedures applied in the U.S. civil and criminal
justice systems also originated in England. The jury system, for
example, slowly matured into its modern form over several hundred
years of English history. The antecedents of many substantive areas of
U.S. law, including the ubiquitous system of state and federal
taxation, may be found in English history as well.
The story of English CONSTITUTIONAL LAW prior to the American
Revolution, which is inextricably intertwined with the development of
English law as a whole during this period, can be told in three parts:
the centralization of power in the monarchy, the creation of
Parliament as a limitation on the absolute power asserted by the
monarchy, and the struggle for supremacy between Parliament and the
monarchy. In large part, the American Revolution resulted from
Parliament's failure to check the monarchy's sovereignty and establish
itself as the supreme lawmaking body representing the people of
England and its colonies.
When William, duke of Normandy, also known as William the Conqueror,
vanquished England in 1066, there was no English law as the Americans
of 1776 came to know it. No national or federal legal machinery had
yet been contemplated. Law was a loose collection of decentralized
customs, traditions, and rules followed by the Anglians and Saxons,
among others. Criminal cases were indistinguishable from civil cases,
and both secular and spiritual disputes were resolved at the local
level by community courts. Trials in the modern sense did not exist,
nor did juries. Guilt and innocence were determined by compurgation
and ordeal.
Compurgation was a ritualistic procedure in which accused persons
might clear themselves of an alleged wrongdoing by taking a sworn oath
denying the claim made against them, and corroborating the denial by
the sworn oaths of 12 other persons, usually neighbors or relatives.
If an accused person failed to provide the requisite number of
compurgators, he or she lost. The number of compurgators was the same
as the number of jurors later impaneled to hear criminal cases under
the common law. In the United States, the SIXTH AMENDMENT to the
Constitution required that all criminal trials be prosecuted before 12
jurors—until 1970, when the Supreme Court ruled that six-person juries
were permissible (Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893, 26
L. Ed. 2d 446).
Trial by ordeal was a superstitious procedure administered by clerics
who subjected accused persons to physical torment in hopes of
uncovering divine signs of guilt or innocence. The most common forms
of ordeal involved boiling or freezing waters and hot irons. In the
ordeal of freezing water, accused persons were thrown into a pool to
see if they would sink or float. If they sank, the cleric believed
they were innocent, because the water would presumably reject someone
with an impure soul. Of course, persons who sank to the bottom and
drowned during this ordeal were both exonerated of their alleged
misbehavior, and dead.
Battle was another form of primitive trial that was thought to involve
divine intervention on behalf of the righteous party. The combatants
were armed with long staffs and leather shields, and fought savagely
until one party cried, "Craven," or died.
Trial by battle, though in many ways as barbaric as trial by ordeal,
foreshadowed modern trials in several ways. The combatants fought in
an adversarial arena before robed judges who presided over the battle.
The accused person was required to put on a defense, quite literally
in the physical sense, against an opponent who was trying to prove the
veracity of his or her claims. Some parties to a battle, particularly
women, children, and older individuals, were entitled to hire
stronger, more able champions to fight on their behalf. This last
practice sheds light on the more recent phrase hired guns, which is
sometimes used to describe U.S. trial attorneys.
William the Conqueror understood the importance of revenue, and that
is where he began building the English empire. In 1086, William
initiated the Domesday Survey, which sought to determine the amount
and value of property held in England, for the purpose of assessing
taxes against the owners. The Domesday Survey was conducted by eight
panels of royal commissioners who traveled to every county in the
country, where they collected information through sworn inquests.
Although the survey began as a method of recording real property held
in the kingdom, one contemporary Saxon chronicler moaned "that there
was not a single hide … nor … ox, cow or swine" omitted (Trevelyan
1982). The Court of Exchequer served as auditor, accountant, and tax
collector for William, and provided a venue to settle disputes between
the Crown and taxpayers, becoming the earliest DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
William's system for revenue collection began a process that gradually
replaced the community courts of justice with a legal system that
emanated from a central location, the king's castle in Westminster.
One symbol of powerful centralized government in the United States is
the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. For many U.S. citizens, paying taxes is
a necessary evil. Taxes are necessary to keep the government, and its
justice system, afloat. At the same time, they take away individuals'
money.
HENRY II (1154–89) further strengthened the central government by
enlarging the power and jurisdiction of the royal system of justice.
During his reign, any crime that breached the ruler's peace was tried
before a royal court sitting in Westminster, or by royal itinerant
justices who traveled to localities throughout England to hear
disputes. Heretofore, the royal court heard only cases that directly
threatened the monarch's physical or economic interests. Most other
complaints, except for those heard by the Catholic Church, were
leveled by private individuals, who were also responsible for proving
their accusations. By increasing the sphere of what the government
considered public wrongs, Henry II laid the groundwork for the modern
U.S. criminal justice system, where attorneys for the federal, state,
and local governments are invested with the authority to prosecute
persons accused of criminal wrongdoing.
Henry II also laid the groundwork for the common-law method of
deciding cases, whereby judges make decisions in accordance with other
decisions they have rendered in similar matters. The royal system of
justice was governed by a single set of legal rules and principles,
which was applied evenhandedly to litigants presenting claims to the
monarch's justices. This system superseded one that applied the often
inconsistent customary laws of neighboring communities of different
ethnic backgrounds. Because the monarch's law was applied in a uniform
manner, it became "common" to every shire in the land. This "common-
law" system of adjudication was adopted by the American colonies and
continues to be applied in nearly all of the 50 states of the Union.
In addition to becoming more prevalent, the royal system of justice
was becoming more popular. Its popularity stemmed from the rational
legal procedures and reliable modes of evidence developed by the
King's Court, which slowly supplanted their superstitious,
ritualistic, and dangerous predecessors, compurgation, ordeal, and
battle. One new rational procedure was trial by jury, which Henry II
made available in land disputes between laypersons and the clergy. The
juries comprised 12 sworn men who possessed some knowledge of the
property dispute, and were asked to announce a verdict to the royal
justices based on this knowledge. The trial-by-jury system employed by
Henry II, though only an embryonic form, reflected society's growing
understanding that verdicts based on personal knowledge of a dispute
were more reliable than verdicts based on ordeals of freezing water
and contests of brawn and agility.
Henry II also made the law more impersonal and less vindictive. In
1166, the Assize of Clarendon prohibited the prosecution of anyone who
had not first been accused by a "presenting jury" of 12 to 16 men from
the community in which the crime occurred. The presenting jury fore-
shadowed the modern GRAND JURY as an accusatory body that identified
persons for prosecution but made no determination as to guilt or
innocence. The presenting jury was seen as a more neutral and detached
alternative to the system it replaced, which required the alleged
victims, some of whom were waging a personal vendetta against the
accused person, to identify alleged criminals for prosecution.
The writ de odio et atia provided additional safeguards for defendants
wrongfully accused of criminal activity, by permitting the defendant
to appeal legal issues to the King's Court in cases where the
complainant was proceeding out of spite or hatred. This writ of appeal
was an early precursor to the modern appellate system in the United
States, which similarly permits parties to appeal legal issues they
believe did not receive appropriate consideration at the trial level.
The presenting jury and writ of appeal underpin two beliefs that have
been crucial to the development of the English and U.S. systems of
justice. The first is the belief that a wrongfully accused person is
no less a victim than is the target of civil or criminal malfeasance.
The second is the belief that the legal system must provide an
impartial forum for seeking the truth in disputed legal claims. These
two beliefs paved the way for an assortment of procedural and
evidentiary protections that have evolved to protect innocent persons
from being unjustly convicted in criminal cases, and to keep
prejudices from biasing judges and jurors in civil cases.
However, the English monarchy did not centralize its power without
cost. Frequently, English rulers abused their enlarged power to such
an extent that they met with popular resistance. One of the earliest
such confrontations occurred in 1215, and produced the first great
charter of constitutional liberties, the MAGNA CHARTA. The Magna
Charta can best be understood as a peace treaty between three rival
jurisdictions of political and legal power: the Crown, the church, and
the barons.
In the thirteenth century, the king's system of justice competed for
influence with ecclesiastical and manorial courts. The ecclesiastical
courts were run by the Catholic Church, with the pope presiding as the
spiritual head in Rome. Manorial courts were run by barons, who were
powerful men holding large parcels of land from the king, known as
manors. Each baron, as lord of his manor, retained jurisdiction over
most legal matters arising among his tenants, also called vassals, who
agreed to work on the land in exchange for shelter and security. The
jurisdictions of the Crown, the church, and the barons overlapped and
each depended on the others for support.
The tyranny of King John (1199–1216) alienated the church and the
barons, converting them into adversaries of the Crown. John was
excommunicated by the pope, church services and sacraments were
suspended in England, and the barons renounced homage to the Crown.
In 1215, King John approved the Magna Charta, which guaranteed
fundamental liberties to the church and to individuals.
CORBIS-BETTMANN
Spearheaded by Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, the barons
confronted King John on the battlefield at Runnymede, where they won
recognition for certain fundamental liberties contained in the 63
clauses that make up the Magna Charta.
The Magna Charta granted the church freedom from royal interference
except in a limited number of circumstances, establishing in nascent
form the separation of church and state. The Great Charter required
that all fines bear some relationship to the seriousness of the
offense for which they were imposed, establishing the principle of
proportionality between punishment and crime, which the U.S. Supreme
Court still applies under the CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Clause of
the EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution.
Most important the Magna Charta prohibited any "free man" from being
"imprisoned, or disseised, … or exiled, … except by the lawful
judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land" (ch. 39). The phrase
"law of the land" was later equated with "due process" in the American
colonies and received constitutional recognition in the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has
described DUE PROCESS as the "most comprehensive of liberties"
guaranteed in the Constitution (ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA, 342 U.S. 165, 72
S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 [1952]), and has relied on the DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to make most of the freedoms
contained in the BILL OF RIGHTS applicable to the states.
Fifty years after Magna Charta, Parliament was created to serve as an
additional check on the ARBITRARY power of the monarchy. In 1265,
Parliament was a very small body, consisting of two knights from each
shire, two citizens from each city, and two burgesses from each
borough. By the fourteenth century, Parliament was being summoned to
advise the monarch, vote on financial matters, and supervise the
excesses of local officials. Representatives for the barons, later
known collectively as the House of Lords, wielded more power than did
representatives for the commoners, later known collectively as the
House of Commons, who were summoned merely to assent to royal will.
It was not long, however, before the Commons realized that its
approval carried a measure of authority. In 1309, the Commons granted
a subsidy to King Edward II (1307–27) on condition that he redress its
grievances. During the reign of Edward III (1327–77), Parliament
asserted three claims that would be echoed with minor variation in the
American colonies: taxes assessed without approval from both houses of
Parliament were void, legislation passed by only one house of
Parliament lacked legal effect, and the Commons reserved the right to
investigate and remedy any abuses by the royal administration. A
century later, during the reign of Henry VIII (1509–47), the Commons
asserted the power of the purse, arguing that all money bills must
originate in its house.
These claims, although fairly innocuous when originally asserted by
the Commons, were interpreted by subsequent Parliaments to mean that
no one could rule without the consent of Parliament, and royal
officials who abused their power, including the ruler, could be
impeached and removed from office. When the English civil war known as
the War of the Roses (1455–85) substantially depleted the ranks of the
barons, the voice of the Commons grew louder as the representatives of
the commoners were left to fend almost for themselves against a
monarchical power that, culminating in the reign of James I (1603–25),
claimed to be divine in origin and absolute in nature.
The struggles between Parliament and the crown for authority over
England in the seventeenth century were a prelude to the struggles
between Parliament and the colonists for control over the American
colonies in the eighteenth century. The monarchy maintained that its
power to govern England derived directly from God and thus overrode
any earthly power, including that of Parliament and common law.
Parliament, on the other hand, maintained that "the people, under God,
were the source of all just power, and that Parliament represented the
people."
Parliament and the monarchy waged battle on three fronts: military,
political, and legal. The military struggle for power began in 1642
when England again erupted into civil war. The political battles
constituted a series of muscle-flexing exercises conducted by
Parliament and the monarchy. The Commons impeached several of the
king's top advisers and demanded redress of the grievances it
summarized in the 1628 Petition of Right. The monarchy, in turn,
dismissed Parliament on a number of occasions, and attempted to govern
without requesting revenue from the Commons.
These political struggles came to a crescendo when King Charles I
(1625–49) and Thomas Wentworth, the commander of the king's largest
army, were tried, convicted, and executed for subverting Parliament
and the RULE OF LAW. The indictment against the king reads much like
the Declaration of Independence:
Whereas it is notorious, That Charles Stuart, the now king of England,
not content with those many encroachments which his predecessors had
made upon the people in their rights and freedoms, hath had a wicked
design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and
liberties of this nation, and in their place to introduce an arbitrary
and tyrannical government; and that besides all other evil ways and
means to bring this design to pass, he hath prosecuted with fire and
sword, levied and maintained a cruel war in the land against the
parliament and kingdom, whereby the country hath been miserably
wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade decayed, thousands of
people murdered, and infinite other mischiefs committed. During the
sentencing phase of the trial, the president of the High Court of
Justice instructed the king, in language that resonates through the
U.S. Constitution, "[T]he Law is your Superior," and the only thing
superior to the law is the "Parent or Author of Law, [which] is the
people of England."
In 1689, Parliament achieved victory in its constitutional struggle
with the monarchy when William and Mary (1689–1702) agreed to govern
England as king and queen subject to a bill of rights. This English
Bill of Rights, a forerunner to the U.S. Bill of Rights, which was
submitted to Congress exactly one hundred years later, declares that
the monarchy's "pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution
of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal."
It also guarantees the right of each English subject to "petition the
king" for redress of grievances, and acknowledges Parliament's role in
"amending, strengthening, and preserving … the laws" of the country.
Although the English Bill of Rights ended England's seventeenth-
century constitutional struggle between Parliament and the monarchy,
America's eighteenth-century constitutional struggle with these two
branches of government had not yet begun. By 1765, the pendulum of
power had swung fully toward Parliament, prompting eminent English
jurist SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE to write that "[s]o long as the English
constitution lasts … the power of Parliament" is "absolute,"
"despotic," and "without control." Because England had no written
constitution that constrained the legislative power of Parliament,
"every act of Parliament was in a sense part of the [English]
constitution, and all law … was thus constitutional."
The American colonists soon discovered that a legislative despot was
just as tyrannical as a monarchical despot. The U.S. Constitution put
an end to the notion of absolute power resting with any one sovereign,
by separating the powers of government into three branches—executive,
legislative, and judicial—and carefully delegating the powers of each.
Although these safeguards against government-run-amok were the product
of the violent American Revolution, they allowed for the tranquil and
uneventful INTEGRATION of many ordinary English legal principles into
the U.S. system of justice, including early BANKRUPTCY and WELFARE
laws during the nineteenth century.
____________________________________________
English Monarchy Defrauded People's Rights
Mar 21, 2008
http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/winnipeg-mb/T6L0R5DC9EEKE09NV
Any claim of absolute sovereignty rights by the English Monarchy was
shown to be non-existent in the Magna Carta of 1215.[Actually 1225, as
the 1215 Magna Carta was voided by the Pope.] Yet, over PERSONS, be
they natural persons (man under contract of servitude with the Crown,
and without right of free will - except for obedience) or artificial
corporate bodies, as created by the Crown, there is absolute rights of
the MASTER over the servant exhibited by the Crown over the People.
England has been under the Roman system since King John signed over
England FOREVER as a vassal state to the Holy Roman Empire/Pontiff/
Vatican in 1213. All human institutions are make-believe ships/
incorporations in the Roman system. Thus, All corporations and
corporate (crew) members are a legal fiction, and are SUBJECTS of the
Crown. The British Crown is subject to, or under the Crown of the City
of London, the Vatican owned financial, legal and professional
controls capitol of the Holy Roman Empire.
The English Monarchy began the defrauding of the English people of
their individual rights protecting Anglo-Saxon Common Law in a
concerted effort by King Edward I in conspiracy with the Pope of Rome
sometime around 1300 AD. The term "common law" and "English common
law" was concocted as a fraud; and, is in fact, a system derived
directly from Roman civil law - commonly called "dictator's law". As
Roman Municipal Law, it points to Mercantile Law used against debtors,
as 'municipal' means a debtor territory.
Considering that Anglo-Saxon Common Law period of England preceded the
Norman Conquest of England by some 500 years, we have evidence of this
fraud posted on the Canadian Federal Justice website:
"The common law, which developed in Great Britain after the Norman
Conquest, was based on the decisions of judges in the royal courts. It
is called judge-made law because it is a system of rules based on
"precedent". Whenever a judge makes a decision that is to be legally
enforced, this decision becomes a precedent: a rule that will guide
judges in making subsequent decisions in similar cases. The common law
is unique in the world because it cannot be found in any "code" or
"legislation"; it exists only in past decisions. However, this also
makes it flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances."
The primary feature of Roman Municipal Law, a variation of Roman Civil
Law,[derived from Maritime Law], used by the deceitful English
Monarchy, and it's so-called justice system, was/is the
"notwithstanding clause". The Monarchy called this 'Equity'. This
clause derives from the fact that Roman Law is based upon all
commercial and political organizations, in fact all human
institutions, being make-believe ships.
All 'ship's orders'- laws, rules and regulations concerning the ship,
have within them the necessary right and duty of the captain to
disregard any such rules or regulations when he deems it necessary for
the 'good' of the ship. The complete "flexible and adaptable" feature
of so-called English or British common law is nothing more than the
common usage of the notwithstanding clause to insure that the Crown's
pleasures, prerogatives and privileges come before the individual
rights of the people.
Complete Magna Carta of 1215 A.D.(King John) version:
The 1215 Magna Carta was declared void by Pope Innocent III
The Pope approved version is the 1225 version signed by King Henry II
http://www.britannia.com/history/magna2.html
Complete Magna Carta of 1297 A.D.(King Edward 1) version:
In this version, we find "freeman" instead of "free man", as in the
original,(freeman = slave granted some freedoms), and "person" - a
false role or status imposed on a man, thus
showing the beginning of the deception by the King and Pope to
Romanize and enslave the English people.
England is owned by the Catholic Church. YES that is right the Vatican
owns England. The largest global ownership of LAND is the Vatican and
the largest collection of MONEY is the British Crown.
Did you know that Queen Elizabeth I wiped out any residual LIBERTY of
the Anglican Church in England by subjecting it to the CROWN through
the Thirty Nine Articles of 1563?
"The British Crown is subject to, or under the Crown of the City of
London, the Vatican owned financial, legal and professional controls
capitol of the Holy Roman Empire."
Most people know about Vatican City being its own country with its own
police etc. but did you know that the City of London (British Crown)
is its own country, all with their own laws and police, and they are
NOT SUBJECT to the Queen of England and the British Parliament? Was
everyone aware of that?
Sadly, the English people are the Queen's Subjects and Crown Puppets.
meep, meep
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Letter to members
- Next by Date: Motives of American genealogists (Was Re: Excuse me)
- Previous by thread: Hickman and Locke families
- Next by thread: Re: Motives of American genealogists (Was Re: Excuse me)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
