Magna Carta

"neither We, nor our Heirs, shall procure or do anything whereby Liberties contained

in this Charter shall be infringed or broken; and if anything be procured by any person

And we will that if any judgments be given from henceforth, contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by justices or by any other our ministers that hold pleas* before them touching the points of the charters, they shall be undone and holden for naught.

"Magna Carta is such a Fellow, that he will have no Sovereign" - Source: Sir Edward Coke on the House of Lords' Amendment to the Petition of Rights in 1628

You should pay particular note of article 39, which preserves the Anglo-Saxon common law (aka 'law of the land' or perhaps better described as law that comes out from the land, and is resident always in all places) which includes the RIGHT to be tried by a jury of ones peers. By contrast, statues are law (actually regulations) of legislatures, or are sometimes called "club law".

Article 39 is a very strict limitation on what a [Crown] legislature can write, and indeed many Acts (statutes and regulations) are currently in gross violation of this Supreme Law, and are therefore (legally speaking) of no force or effect. The government must use intimidation and/or trickery to get you to theoretically "voluntarily assent" to a waiving of your inherent rights, or they have no legal (lawful) justification and/or authority. Infringement of a right is an assault under any rational or legitimate system of law, and we all have an absolute RIGHT to use reasonable and effective force to defend ourselves against assault - regardless of the alleged status of the perpetrator (see :Rule of Law). We find just such a remedy and recourse in Magna Carta itself, as referred to in the highlighted link, next paragraph.

This problem of government assault of your rights is further aggravated by the utter failure of the courts (the judges of which are paid and appointed by governments) to recognise and uphold our Supreme Law, which was created for the protection of individuals, when it is raised as a defence of our rights and liberty. The remedy for this failure therefore falls back on individuals to assert and establish the SUPREME LAW, and we are to do so as stated by the remedy outlined in the Magna Carta itself and/or as a common law recourse to any act of aggression, which is what is clearly occurring on a variety of levels. All the moreso as government, once again, trots out their tried and true "liberty in exchange for security" deception, which countless governments in human history have used, to oppress the very people they are supposed to serve, with ever increasing measure, and even brutality.....

The ultimate defence of freedom rests, as it always has, in the hands of like minded individuals who value both 'just law' and individual freedom. It is this defence of the Supreme Law and Constitution that true patriots are called to stand on guard for their country - rather than, for example, merely recite such sentiment at sporting events.

Important notice: Some disreputable lawyers, allegedly representing the Crown, have been documented (in court) using the rough English translation of the Magna Carta, which often incorrectly states the following "save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

Please note that the word "OR" is NOT a correct translation of the original Latin, whereby the Magna Carta was written. The phrase in question is "vel per " and it actually means "in other words", "for example" or "and", but it definitely doesn't mean OR in this context... Common sense would have concluded, even without prior knowledge of the original Latin, that the word "or" would make 'the preservation of a judgment by a jury' altogether impotent - thus violating the clear original intent of the document.

Are these lawyers ignorant, or are they deliberately playing games with the intent of the document? You decide...

39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers, in other words by the {Anglo-Saxon} law of the land. [Emp. added]

This section is an EVER LASTING preservation of common law protections which includes, for example, the RIGHT to "free and peaceful use of the Kings Highways", AND the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for defence of one's person, as well as the nation (and hence its Constitution) from enemies either foreign or domestic - in other words the right to [hence] LAWFULLY resist oppressive and unlawful government.

In fact, it was this very section that was the motive and inspiration for the United States 2nd amendment in preserving our common law "Right to bear arms"... It is hardly a uniquely "American" concept; rather has been in existence in one form or other since the beginning of recorded history.

US Courts also recognize the authority of Magna Carta, and define "due process"... and "Law of the Land" as being the same:

What about this argument that Magna Carta is a 'common statute' that can be "overruled" ?

First we need to establish what a 'statute' is: It means nothing more than a law that is written so as to be easily referenced in a court. Cambridge online defines "statute" to be "a law which has been formally approved and written down". What sets Magna Carta apart from a 'common statute' is the intent of the parties, which established the law, and a government under rule of law to both enforce them, and be held UNDER THEM. This document ensured that no powers could ever be created that would be able to overrule any of the Liberties and Rights contained within its forms.

The whole of Magna Carta, in ALL its forms, as branches of the same tree, is both a statute and Constitution with each holding Supreme Authority, AS IS STATED in each. Without the understanding that Magna Carta -1215, 1225, & 1297 is a constitutional document, there is then no argument for the legitimacy of Crown - so this would not be an advantageous or learned argument for Canada's parliament to put forward. Magna Carta is the 'license' given by the people for the Crown to exist, and legitimacy of Crown (and therefore any parliament under it) is firmly and eternally set within the expressions of Magna Carta - the parties agreed, and the treaty was rooted, and became a living tree. It can be lawfully added to, but it CAN NOT be lawfully infringed or pruned or limited. The fact that Magna Carta was added to in no way diminishes its authority as the Supreme Law - if anything, this only serves to expand its duty as a preservation of our inherent Liberties and Rights. There is, in practical reality, only one Charter, and this Charter was grown over the period expressed in each form, with the 1297 Charter being the inclusive culmination of the fully matured treaty.

Magna Carta is the eternal treaty and covenant made between land owners, the congregation of faithful, free men, and the "royal" family we decided to grant the PRIVILEGE of rule - parliament was, at that time, no part of it, since it did not even come into existence until the later part of the 14th century. Later on, we created a system that maintains the authority to the Crown, and delegates real power to parliament, with each below and bound to the Supreme Law as expressed in our Great Charters.

A statute of Edward III in 1368 declared that, if any statute be contrary to Magna Carta, "it shall be holden for none." In that language, the idea emerged of the works of Magna Carta as a superstatute - the norm against which other laws were to be measured. Measures enacted under Edward III (r.1327-77), known to seventeenth century critics of Stuart absolutism as the 'six statutes', which spelled out precisely the Charter's promise of what was coming to be called 'due process of law'. The third of these statutes expanded, or rather better defined, the numbers protected by Chapter 39 [1215], replacing 'no free man' with more inclusive language, 'no man, of whatever estate or condition he may be'; and promising that no one was to be dispossessed, imprisoned, or put to death without 'due process of law', the first use of that phrase in the statutes, and which refers to Anglo-Saxon tenets.

In the 1215 document we read in chapter 63: "Wherefore we will and firmly decree that the English church shall be free, and that the subjects of our realm shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions, duly and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and entirely, for themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all places, forever, as has been said."

and was further added to in 1297, chapter 37, and included the following...

"neither We, nor our Heirs, shall procure or do anything whereby Liberties contained in this Charter shall be infringed or broken; and if anything be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shall be had of no force nor effect." [37]

For this last form, there was even recorded an exchange of goods, which to our modern society doesn't mean as much as it did then, but was a common practice in acknowledging the finalizing of a blood covenant. The deal was sealed, and you are the heir of this eternal treaty, and its intent is not clouded!

For those that believe that parliament is above the Crown, or believe in the undocumented, unproven and incoherent concept of "parliamentary supremacy".... ask yourselves why the Queen's viceroy was needed for the authority to SUSPEND/SHUT DOWN/CLOSE FOR BUSINESS the parliament of Canada, against the formally expressed wishes of the elected majority of the Members of Parliament??

Did you know that, just like the United Kingdom, Canada has its own Bill of Rights, which grows up from the very root of Magna Carta.... Just look at the specific reference it makes to "free men".

Preamble
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;

And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:

Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Preamble
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law*;

*That 'due process of law' is of course, as we have just seen, the RIGHT to be judged under the framework of our Anglo-Saxon COMMON LAW (aka 'Law of the Land) and by a jury of ones peers thereby and always, is an integral part of that.... as is the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and to use those arms to lawfully defend yourself. This RIGHT is not the exclusive domain of "peace officers" who are little more than our servants working from authority we possess as "free men".

These are not mere words on paper.. These are the foundational and supreme (that means having HIGHEST AUTHORITY) laws of our country, and when a government knowingly departs from these, it ceases INSTANTANEOUSLY to have any legitimate authority. It is operating, from the perspective of the LAW, outside its scope of authority and power... or as we say 'ultra vires'.

This may also be done by legitimate mistake, but regardless of the reason, ANY legislative statute that infringes/modifies/erodes/etc.. any right preserved in Magna Carta - such as your right in Canada to bear arms and conceal and carry for lawful defence - is 'of no force or effect, as far as the LAW is concerned. Furthermore, Police that enforce such "laws" are braking their oath to the Queen and her subjects, and may be lawfully opposed with as much force as is necessary, as prescribed in the Constitution and common law itself [1215].

Lets talk about Rex v. Hess.... setting the authority of Magna Carta in BC courts

As you will note from the 'reasons for judgment' of the BC "Court" of Appeal, the highest alleged "court" of British Columbia is of the UN-learned opinion that our Liberties and Freedoms, as decreed in Magna Carta [by four Kings] as ever lasting, are amendable to simple legislation [Crown statutes].

Is that really true? Doesn't legislation get its "magical authority" from Legislatures who were in turn granted authority [license] by the EXACT same Crown that assented [four times no less] to Magna Carta as the ever lasting SUPREME LAW? See the problem yet?

The Magna Carta was passed and assented to by Crown AND of course British Parliament (see Sir Edward Coke - 1628 [Lord Campbell's Lives, supra, vol. 2 p.13]) on more than one occasion, and adopted into the expanded Constitution of the United Kingdom. Canada's BNA Act provided for "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of United Kingdom" and thereby adopted the same constitutional principles. Magna Carta is our ONLY real Constitution, as it is the only document directly agreed to by the people, and intended to "last forever" in "all places". The 1297 [final version] of our Charter records an exchange of goods in sealing the consent of the parties to the terms of the contract.

Clearly, our Magna Carta was and always will be an integral part of Canadian Constitutional Law, as further witnessed by section 26 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was passed as "the Supreme Law" of Canada by an act of the Parliament of England, signed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the will and consent of the government of Canada. Section 26 recognizes the existence of those "other rights" [or pre-existent rights] which we inherited [by eternal preservation under treaty] via our "Mother of Constitutions" - as the Magna Carta is often referred to. It is your birthright! It is FOR EVER the 'law of the land'! And we are commissioned, by Royal edict, to preserve protect and if necessary DEFEND it by force. This is, then, your expressed right and lawful authority to enforce the Supreme Law if there is evidence of its breach or infringement.

Speaking in Parliament in 1628 Sir Edward Coke said (Lord Campbell’s Lives, supra, vol. 2, p. 13): “In Magna Carta, it is provided ‘nullius liber homo capitatur’ &c. (viz., ‘no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or seized from his free dwelling, etc., except by the legal judgment of their equals or by the law of the land . . . . ‘). What is this (the refusal of the then complacent Judges of England to admit the prisoners to bail) but to declare upon the record that any subject by any such absolute command may be detained in prison forever? What does this tend to but the utter subversion of the choice, liberty, and the right belonging to every free-born subject in this Kingdom?”

A resolution carried by Coke in the Parliament of 1628 which became one of the foundations of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, read (Lord Campbell’s Lives, supra, vol. 2, p. 14):

“That no freeman ought to be committed or detained in prison, or otherwise restrained by the command of the King, or the Privy Council, or any other, unless some cause of the commitment, detainer or restraint be expressed, for which by law he ought to be committed, detained or restrained.”

Among the abuses to which the Petition of Right (1628) was directed was unlawful imprisonment in the name of the King and the Privy Council. After declaring such abuses to be contrary to former statutes and to the laws and customs of the realm, it assumed the form of an Act of Parliament and in express and stringent terms sought to protect the people there from in all time to come. By s. 6 of the Parliament of Win. & Mary, 1689 (Imp. 2nd Sess.), c. 2, it was declared: “That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration [Bill of Rights 1689], are the true, ancient, and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdom.”

These “true, ancient, and indubitable Rights . . . . of the People” were declared by s. 4 of the Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Wm. 111., c. 2 (1700-1)) to be “the Birth-right of the People”.

I conclude that the purported powers in s. 1025A to deny an acquitted person bail, to obstruct and delay his application therefore, and to detain him in custody for an offence of which the Court has acquitted him and when there is no offence charged against him are all contrary to the written constitution of the United Kingdom, as reflected in Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1700-1). I conclude further that the opening paragraph of the preamble to the B.N.A. Act, 1867, which provided for a “Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”, thereby adopted the same constitutional principles, and hence s. 1025A is contrary to the Canadian Constitution, and beyond the competence of Parliament or any provincial Legislature to enact so long as our Constitution remains in its present form of a constitutional democracy. (And see 0 'Halloran J .A., ‘‘Inherent Rights’’ in the Fall, Winter and Spring issues of Osgoode Hall Obiter Dicta, 1947-48.)

[.....] Where did the BC Court of Appeal get its authority? A direct line from English Courts no less....

The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Judges thereof sitting as a Full Court, that were held and exercised prior to April 25, 1907. The old Full Court was not a separate Court, nor was it a branch of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It was a convenient name for the Supreme Court of British Columbia itself, when it sat en banc for the purposes, inter ala, of hearing appeals: and see Gibson v. Cook (1897), 5 B.C.R. 534 at p. 537. By s. 8 of the Court of Appeal Act it is provided that “for all the purposes of and incidental to” inter ala “the execution, and enforcement of any judgment or order” the Court of Appeal shall have the power, authority and jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The effect of these two sections, not to overlook s. 7, is that the Court of Appeal and the Judges thereof, possess to an undefined extent certain inherent, original and general jurisdiction in addition to the statutory jurisdiction to hear and dispose of appeals. In the Royal Bk. v. Skeans (1917), 36 D.L.R. 390, 24 B.C.R. 193, Martin J.A., speaking for the Court, referred to the Court of Appeal having “inherited” the powers of the English Courts of Common Law and Equity. In Prevedoros v. Prevedoros, [19271 3 W.W.R. 755, Macdonald C.J.A., speaking for the Court, based its powers to grant the injunction upon the “inherent jurisdiction of this Court”. In Prudential Loan & Savings Ass’n v. Wheatley, [1934] 3 D.L.R. 776, 48 B.C.R. 401, Martin J.A. (in Chambers) again referred to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

But in particular, by virtue of ss. 6, 7, and 8 of the Court of Appeal Act, the inherent, original and general jurisdiction was passed on to the Court of Appeal and its Judges, from the old Full Court and the Judges thereof, which in turn had inherited that jurisdiction from the English Courts of Common Law and Equity by virtue of the Imperial origin of the Supreme Court of Vancouver Island. When the Colony of British Columbia (the two Colonies of Vancouver Island and the mainland of British Columbia having united in 1866, and their respective Supreme Courts merged) became a Province of Canada in 1871, it carried into Confederation its Supreme Court and its two Imperially appointed Superior Court Judges (Begbie C.J. and Crease J.) with, not only the jurisdiction it had inherited from the Supreme Court of the original separate mainland Colony of British Columbia, and the jurisdiction it (the Colonial Supreme Court of British Columbia) had subsequently acquired, but also all the status authority and original, inherent general and any other jurisdiction it possessed by virtue of its Imperial origin and descent through the Supreme Court of Vancouver Island.

The latter Court was “created direct from England” per Crease J. in the Thrasher case (1882), 1 B.C.R. (Pt. 1) 153 at p. 193. And see also the Thrasher case, pp. 192-4, 210; 5. v. S. (1877), 1 B.C.R. (Pt. 1) 25 at p. 44; Reynolds v. Vaughan (1872), 1 B.C.R. (Pt. 1) 3 at p. 4, per Begbie C.J.; A.-G. B.C. v. E. & N.R. (Jo. (1900), 7 B.C.R. 221 at p. 234; A.-G. B.C. v. Ludgate (1904), 11 B.C.R. 258 at pp. 260, 267, affirmed [1906] A.C. 552, and Sheppard v. Sheppard (1908), 13 B.C.R. 486, at pp. 506-9; and ef. also Foot v. Mason (1894), 3 B.C.R. 146; R. 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1943, and Fenchurch Export Corp. v. Sitka Spruce Lbr. Co., [1947] 2 D.L.R. 143. at p. 150. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Colony of British Columbia and the faculties of its Judges were recognized by s. 129 of the B.N.A. Act.

We need to seriously question, therefore, why the BC Court of Appeal in 'R. v. Jebbett' used a 1914 case [Immigration Act and Munshi Singh (1914)6 W.W.R.(B.C.C.A.] )as an alleged "authority" to make the most outrageous claim that Magna Carta was "not a Constitutional document"; held no protection for the freemen of British Columbia; and was readily amendable to legislation? Is this by ignorance, or malice?

On no less than two paths of authority we see that Magna Carta has been passed on to us through the BNA Act (subsequently s. 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and also by the Court of Appeal Act, overseeing the authority (via Imperial origin) of Superior courts in British Columbia. To say nothing of the fact that the Magna Carta was an edict of King John, Henry, Edward I & III with the expressed and full intent of binding and preserving our rights for ever and ever, as passed on from heir to heir.

Why does the BC Court of Appeal only recognizes the authority of the "Sovereign" when considering restrictive legislation that turns our absolute rights into mere privileges? Without a valid ORIGINATING Constitution, NO legislature could claim legitimate authority - which springs from the people themselves, in any free and civil union.

The Danger of "King Granted" rights is readily apparent; even those promised to last "forever".

After John's death in 1216, Magna Carta was reissued by the Regents of the infant Henry III in 1216 and again in 1217. In 1225, Henry having come of age, he made the final and definitive reissue of the text under his seal. The original 63 Chapters were reduced to 37. But the enduring influence of Magna Carta depended on events that were to occur more than 70 years later.

On this day 12 October in 1297, the Royal Seal of Edward I was affixed to inscribed and attested copies of Magna Carta. They were distributed throughout the land to implement Edward's confirmation of the Charter. By letters patent, he directed his justices to administer the Charter as common law. No judgements were to be given henceforth that were contrary to the Charter - else they would be "undone and holden for naught". Magna Carta, whether as common law or statute, entered the law of the land and, as part of the law of England from that time forward, became part of the law of all those Imperial colonies and possessions to which English law was carried.

Four centuries after the Charter was granted, Sir Edward Coke called it "the Charter of Liberty, because it maketh freemen."

His Majesty King James 1 in 1628, confirmed the ancient rights and liberties of the subject, which were expressed to last forever. The Coronation Oath Act of 1689 BOUND [the king or queen] to preserve unto his subjects those ancient rights and liberties.

The Parliament at Westminster confirmed those ancient rights and liberties in the Statute of Edward 1 of 1297, the Petition of Right of 1628, the Habeous Corpus Act of 1640, the Bill of Right of 1688 and the Act of Settlement of 1700. The Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Bill of Rights bound the members of parliament not to derogate from the Coronation Oath.

At the time of the Act of Union of 1707, the King in Parliament at Westminster was the sovereign of England. It was the duty of that sovereign, imposed by the Constitution of England, to preserve unto the subjects the inalienable constitutional rights conformed upon them. The duty imposed upon the sovereign was, by virtue of the Coronation Oath Act and the Oath of Allegiance, **inalienable**.

The King and his ministers were, subject to the Constitution of England, solely responsible for the administration of government. The King and his ministers could delegate subordinate powers to administer affairs of State, but could not derogate from the responsibilities imposed upon the King and his ministers by the Constitution of England.

The Parliament at Westminster was, subject to the Constitution of England,solely responsible for enacting laws defining the rights and duties of the subject. The Parliament at Westminster could delegate subordinate powers to make rules and regulations, but could not derogate from the responsibilities imposed upon the Parliament at Westminster by the Constitution of England.

The Act of Union of 1707 and the Union with Ireland Act of 1800, creating the British Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom respectively, allowed for expanded representation within the Parliament at Westminster, but did not disturb or purport to disturb the sovereignty of the King in Parliament at Westminster or the responsibilities imposed upon the sovereign by the Constitution of England.

[See letter from Queen Elizabeth II on question of her duty to uphold promise of Magna Carta, which she made before Almighty God and the Church]

At the time of the purported enactment of the Australian Constitutions Act in 1842, the Australian Constitutions Act in 1850, the (Victoria) Constitution Act in 1855, the (New South Wales) Constitution Act in 1855, British North American Act 1867 and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in 1900, the sovereign was Queen Victoria in Parliament at Westminster. **Queen Victoria had, by virtue of her Coronation Oath, sworn to govern the people of the United Kingdom AND ITS DOMINIONS according to the laws and customs of the same [which includes Magna Carta].**

It also warrants mention that our Canada Act, 1982 is not a constitutional document, but a legislative statute of the Parliament of the UK. The Canada Act grants "no additional legislative powers" to any government in Canada (see section 31) and recognizes rights that exists outside the Act itself (see section 26 of Canada Act, 1982)

Likewise, the BNA Act is regarded in law as merely a statute. Or to quote Doctor W. P. M. Kennedy, Professor of Law in the University of Toronto "I think we have got to get away from the idea that the British North America Act is a contract "or treaty". I do not want to go into that, but it is true neither in history nor in law. The British North America Act is a statute, and has always been interpreted as a statute." - special committee on the British North America Act, 1935, p.69.

Clearly they have no lawful mandate to even create a federal government, much less a mandate (an operators license if you will) from the people in the form of a lawfully procured Constitution, by which to write or submit law for the protection of those rights duly contained in the Constitution. Magna Carta is therefore the only existing constitutional document in Canada.

Provinces Completely Sovereign

Since the condition of sovereignty and independence must be enjoyed by the Provinces before they can federate, it was necessary that the British government relinquish its authority over them. This was done through the enactment of the Statute of Westminster on December 11, 1931. By section 7, paragraph 2, of this statute, the Provinces of Canada were made sovereign, free and independent in order that they might consummate the federal union which they wished to create in 1867, but were not permitted to do so.

Since December 11, 1931, the Provinces of Canada have not acted on their newly acquired status; they have not signed any agreement, they have not adopted a constitution, and the people of Canada have not ratified a constitution. Such action should have been taken immediately upon the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. It is by reason of the failure of the Provinces and of the people of Canada to take this action that all the anomalies in our present position exist. We have been trying since 1931 to govern ourselves federally, under an instrument which was nothing more than an act of the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of governing a colonial possession.

John Quincy Adams speaks almost prophetically to us in Canada with his insightful words about the danger of "king granted" rights. History shows, however, that governments of any method of creation have a habit of finding ways to infringe the unalienable rights of man, and pervert their sacred promises and DUTIES to that of tyranny!

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/magna_carta.htm

The conflict between the philosophy underlying Magna Carta and the "traditional American philosophy" was noted in the address by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in celebration of the Fourth of July, 1821, in these words:

"The people of Britain, through long ages of civil war, had extorted from their tyrants not acknowledgements, but grants, of right. With this concession they had been content to stop in the progress of human improvement. They received their freedom as a donation from their sovereigns; they appealed for their privileges to a sign manual and a seal; they held their title to liberty, like their title to lands, from the bounty of a man; and in their moral and political chronology, the great charter of Runny Mead was the beginning of the world . . . the fabric of their institutions . . . had been founded in conquest; it had been cemented in servitude . . . instead of solving civil society into its first elements in search of their rights, they looked back only to conquest as the origin of their liberties, and claimed their rights but as donations from their kings. This faltering assertion of freedom is not chargeable indeed upon the whole nation. There were spirits capable of tracing civil government to its foundation in the moral and physical nature of man; but conquest and servitude were so mingled up in every particle of the social existence of the nation, that they had become vitally necessary to them . . ." (Runny Mead is also spelled Runnymede; emphasis per original.)

To repeat, the traditional American philosophy of Man-over-Government based upon the concept of God-given or "unalienable rights" is utterly antithetical to the philosophy of Magna Carta's Government-Over-Man, with its king-granted rights.

It would appear that the origins of rights are not a security of holding them. Indeed our history suggests the only way man has found to hold his rights is with the defence of those rights by force; however governments have learned better ways of disarming the free people they wish to enslave, and by use of fear, have convinced many that the slavery offered by their government is preferred to that of the "enemy at the gates", whether actual, fictitious, or inflated.

And we will that if any judgments be given from henceforth, contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by justices or by any other our ministers that hold pleas before them touching the points of the charters, they shall be undone and holden for naught.

Do you know the difference between a right and a privilege? There are differing theories and views, but they generally all lead to the same reality.

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or by the hand of the divinity itself: and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." -- Alexander Hamilton, 1775

Rights vs. Privileges

Read the Trociuk case from the Supreme Court of Canada - a 9-0 unanimous decision.

This decision stated that it is unconstitutional to allow a mother to "unacknowledge" a father on a live birth registration and therefore not give him the opportunity to participate in the mere naming of the children.

Now go and download a copy of a Live birth registration and you will see that the provision for unacknowledged is still there. (Years later)

Under common law tenets, when a government openly disregards the law it immediately ceases to become legitimate.

"It's a good day for our country," said David Rubenstein, a lawyer and founder of The Carlyle Group, a private equity firm, told reporters after he made the extraordinary purchase, adding that he had arrived just minutes before the sale and very nearly missed out.

Will you please help us defend your Freedom and Liberty with a donation of your

PART I BILL OF RIGHTS

PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS