One Response to Corbett Predicts The Future!

  1. PeterBDunn says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

    Clause 61

    The 1215 document contained a large section that is now called clause 61
    (the original document was not actually divided into clauses).
    This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time
    meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the
    Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered
    necessary.[17] This was based on a medieval legal practice known as
    distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch.

    Distrust between the two sides was overwhelming. What the barons
    really sought was the overthrow of the King; the demand for a charter
    was a “mere subterfuge.”[18] Clause 61 was a serious challenge to
    John’s authority as a ruling monarch. He renounced it as soon as the
    barons left London; Pope Innocent III also annulled the “shameful and
    demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear.
    ” He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired
    John’s dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church’s authority over
    the King and the ‘papal territories’ of England and Ireland, and he
    released John from his oath to obey it. The rebels knew that King
    John could never be restrained by Magna Carta and so they sought a
    new King.[19]

    England was plunged into a civil war, known as the First Barons’ War.
    With the failure of Magna Carta to achieve peace or restrain John, the
    barons reverted to the more traditional type of rebellion by trying to
    replace the monarch they disliked with an alternative. In a measure of
    some desperation, despite the tenuousness of his claim and despite
    the fact that he was French, they offered the crown of England to
    Prince Louis of France.[20]

    As a means of preventing war, Magna Carta was a failure, rejected by
    most of the barons,[21] and was legally valid for no more than three
    months.[22] The death of King John in 1216, however, secured the
    future of Magna Carta.[23]

    http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=75500

    Results within Legislation – Statute Law Database

    As you can see, there is a 3 year limit on prosecuting treasonous acts.
    This means that any treason alleged must have occurred since June 2007.

    On top of these little hurdles, the prosecution must prove beyond any
    reasonable doubt that the person committing treason had both the actus
    reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). There are strict legal
    guidelines on these matters which Albert Burgess, despite his police
    training, has missed completely. A person would need to know that his
    action constituted treason and must have wanted to commit treason.
    The act complained of must contain all of the elements of treason laid
    down in any of the statutes. Nothing Albert Burgess has said has proved
    he has ever considered this little difficulty.

    http://forum.no2id.net/viewtopic.php?t=16121

    http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/8895847._Don_t_get_ideas____council_leader_s_warning_to_anyone_considering_joining_tax_rebellion/?action=complain&cid=9220436

    Interestingly and significantly, a similar relationship exists between the Declaration of Rights, 1688 and the Bill of Rights, 1689.

    The Declaration of Rights was an agreement made between
    the King William of Orange (and equally with his wife Queen Mary) and the people of England, which was a condition
    on the couple accepting jointly the throne of England and was, by their hands,
    binding upon all their heirs and successors to the throne and is therefore still in force today –
    a position which has been reinforced in the Coronation
    Oath of every subsequent monarch of England and the UK.

    The Bill of Rights, 1689 is an almost identical
    Act of Parliament passed several months later.

    Regarding Magna Carta Winston Churchill wrote, in his History of The
    English-Speaking
    Peoples,

    “…and when in subsequent ages the state, swollen with its own authority,
    has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the
    subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made,
    and never, as yet, without success.””

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s