Tuesday, 2 November 2010

The Rights of Englishmen

The following email and article were sent to me by Edward Spalton and he has given me permission to publish both in full. Apologies for the spacing.  I can't seem to fix it.


Before you go all Caledonian on me, I should point out that Magna Carta was actually a general settlement, including return of hostages to Llywelyn of Wales and a settlement with Alexander of Scotland. Ireland was represented by the Archbishop of Dublin.

A few years ago I was involved with a group which got 25 barons together, as provided in the Charter, to present a petition for redress of grievance to the Queen together with signatures by (I think) a million people - not to introduce the EU constitution until the people had been consulted. 

It didn't attract as much publicity as was hoped. It was delivered to the Queen's private secretary in a very opulent motor car.

Whether it had anything to do with it or not, Tony Blair announced soon after that there would be a referendum after all. As the government ratted on that, the barons are free under the terms of the charter to wage war upon the government until redress is received

"Any man who desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power".

This is the concept of "lawful rebellion" which some are now trying to develop into civil disobedience.

The Rights of Englishmen
Two men were hauled off to Riga, locked up for months, declared not guilty, then called back to be tried again.  They were subjects of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). They have lost a chunk of their lives and a great deal of money in defending themselves against charges for which there was no credible evidence, though one was found guilty on a lesser charge of resisting arrest which he is appealing.
In 1215, King John stated in his Great Charter-
“In future no official shall place a man on trial on his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it”.

A European Arrest Warrant is just such an unsupported statement by an official in another EU state. 

King John went a bit further -
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions... 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  the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”
He also wrote: 
“TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and for our heirs forever, all the liberties written herein, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs”.  

Latvia, into which the men were in effect kidnapped, has none of these protections. Trial is by inquisition, not by accusation. Prosecutors can keep people locked up, sometimes for years, without charge or trial. People in this investigative custody  are not technically “guilty until proved innocent” but must certainly feel as if they are. In some EU countries  such detention has lasted four years. There is no habeas corpus.  Even if declared innocent at trial, prisoners can be re-arrested if the prosecutor wants to have another go. 

The trial is an inquisition, usually with no jury: the judge or judges are all powerful. Whilst the legal systems of  most East European countries are known to be thoroughly corrupt (even the EU Commission accepts this) some very odd things can happen, even in the more established democracies of Western Europe.

I  was astonished to learn from following the Geert Wilders trial in the Netherlands that it is the bench which decides what defence witnesses may be called, not the defence lawyer. That particular trial has collapsed, in part  because the Judge approached one of the defence witnesses at a dinner party to influence his testimony in court. 

The EAW permits arrests without any prima facie evidence to show that there is a case to answer. The alleged offence need not be an offence under British law and need not have taken place in the territory of the state issuing the warrant.

Mr Cameron cannot change this. He can only request the bureaucrats of the unelected EU Commission to review the matter. They can make a proposal to the EU parliament . If the parliament and the European Council of Ministers agree, then perhaps the procedure may be changed.

Long before slavery was abolished in the rest of the Empire our judges, not Parliament,  ruled that any man who set foot on English soil was free just by being here, so great was the power of King John's Charter. “Magna Carta hath no fellow” said Lord Justice Coke in an earlier case. O for such judges today to give us back our undoubted rights and throw off this odious subjection! 

Edward Spalton 29 October 2010


Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Wrong Barons Mr Spalton - It's the Barons of commerce you would need in today's world - and why would they want to change anything when everything's already going their way?

Captain Ranty said...

A lawful Baron's Committee was formed in 2001.

I have entered Lawful Rebellion and revoked my oath of allegiance to HM. I have pledged allegiance instead to the Baron's Committee. The queen has my affidavits.

The Magna Carta, which many people wrongly think is a statute, is actually a treaty. Many chapters of the MC are still in force today. Notably Ch. 61 which is used to enter lawful rebellion.


Derek said...

Bravo CR.

Quote: - "We assert that the crown servants and members of the judiciary do swear and continue to swear Oaths of Allegiance to this nation and will serve our people according to our laws and customs and will be faithful to these oaths in law, action and allegiance. - And that members of our Armed Forces do likewise and continue to swear allegiance to our nation. And that crown servants members of the judiciary and the armed forces do not and shall never swear oaths of allegiance nor any other oath to parliament or other powers. And that parliament does not interfere with the duties and relationships of these oaths, as parliament has no lawful right to do so, nor shall and must never have.

-Any person who breaches these oaths must be removed immediately and must never again hold office or be of service to the rule and government of this nation in any form."

And so it appears our 'leaders' are guilty of MISPRISION OF TREASON. But what court, and what body in this land would undertake such a challenge, when the courts themselves are twisted and bent?
And if not a court - who?

Perhaps if enough people begin to better understand our constitution and Bill of Rights, and those activists with sufficient clout and contact can be brought together and persuaded that here is a possible solution to all the fraud, discrimination, lies and deceit that has taken this United Kingdom and shredded it piece by piece unlawfully and seemingly without challenge from the judiciary, then there may yet be hope for an end to this.

Perhaps one small indicator (though no small thing for the persecuted) might be found in the case of Sandwell Council against Sheila Martin. The combined efforts of Anna Raccoon et al and the use of the blogosphere (what an awful word!) has had an effect that would have otherwise seen flagrant dictatorial practices rule the roost. [url]http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2010/10/blog-society.html[/url]

Communications and intelligence may be the frontiers of freedom. How soon will they be attacked and denied us?

Prodicus said...

-- @ProdicusTweets.

Edward Spalton said...

Over about twenty five years of frequent letters to the local press, I have found editors unwilling to venture into the field of constitutionality. Cabinet ministers become Privy Councillors and swear a good mouth-filling oath to uphold the sovereignty of the Crown against all foreign powers whatsoever. Yet they have been breaking that oath systematically and increasingly over two generations. Editors would either not print the letter or edit that bit out.

However, the times they are a-changing (just a little bit). The second part of the post was actually REQUESTED as an article by the editor of my local paper.

Things can no longer be hidden and the sort of things we have been warning against for years no longer sound so shrill, fantastic or hysterical. In the Eighties we were simply treated as very nasty people who hated foreigners. The shift in public and local media perception has scarcely yet touched the political class which thinks it can carry on "Business as usual"

Related Posts with Thumbnails