[Ansteorra] To those that would punish, torture or execute the Dutchman Hanse

[Tim McDaniel]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Sher M <runa.herd at earthlink.net> wrote:
> His crime is against The Crown.  He has tried to usurp lands given
> lawfully by The Crown to the True Baron and Baroness of Raven's
> Fort.  Therefore he is stating that The Crown has no authority over
> him or to put it in a manner he would understand, he is thumbing his
> sausage, er I mean nose at The Crown.  That in itself is treason,
> High Treason even.

In all gravity, I hold that it is no such thing.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom#History:_England_and_Wales>
says, and it looks plausible,

     In England, there was no clear common law definition of treason;
     it was for the king and his judges to determine if an offence
     constituted treason. Thus, the process became open to abuse, and
     decisions were often arbitrary. For instance, during the reign of
     Edward III, a knight was convicted of treason because he assaulted
     one of the king's subjects and held him for a ransom of 90
     pounds. It was only in 1351 that Parliament passed legislation on
     the subject of treason. Under the Treason Act 1351, or "Statute of
     Treasons", which distinguished between high and petty treason,
     several distinct offences constitute high treason; most of them
     continue to do so, while those relating to forgery have been
     relegated to ordinary offences.

For the Statute of Treason 1351,
<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517663>
has the original text in law French as an image, and a more recent
translation into English:

     ITEM, Whereas divers Opinions have been before this Time in what
     Case Treason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the
     Request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration
     in the Manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a Man
     doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our
     Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do
     violate the King's lady, or the King's eldest Daughter unmarried,
     or the lady of the King's eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy
     War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the
     King's Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the
     Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be [proveably? probably?]
     attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: . . . ,
     and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King's
     Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or
     Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and
     determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices:

I think it good and wise to so limit the definition of treason, under
which he would be in no wise traitor to the king.

(I would say stronger things, that a man ought to hold to his lord,
and if the lord order him to attempt the king's death, the treason is
on the lord, not the man.  So I think this statute is yet too strong.)

> He admitted that he holds the belief that he owns the lands of
> Raven's Fort no matter what The Crown has stated.

The king has no right to take from a man what is his, except by due
process of law and according to custom.  The proper way to judge this
case, in my homeland under the wise hand of Henry II Plantagenet, is
for the aggrieved party to sue out a writ of right from a royal
justice, and begin a case, to end at last in a judicial duel to end in
the death of either himself or of the person he accuses of being a
usurper.

Danel de Linccolne
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com