Chapter 3 – Secret Societies and World Power Structures
Knights Templars, English Common Law & Magna Carta
During the reign of King Henry II (1133-1189) the rights of the Baron landowners had been expanded through legal reforms which set the basis for the Common Law. King Henry II was from the House of Anjou, a Knights Templar dynastic house, which held power in Anjou, France. The House of Anjou is a cadet branch of the French Capetian dynasty. Fulk the Younger was the Count of Anjou (as Fulk V) from 1109 to 1129 and the King of Jerusalem from 1131 to his death. The Knights Templars were the military arm of the Crusades. (1095 AD & 1147 AD), which established the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Middle East. According to the Knights Templar Order website: “King Fulk was one of the first Noble Patrons backing the first two Grand Masters of the Templar Order since its establishment in 1118 AD (1), and essentially served as the 10th founding Knight Templar from 1120 AD. (2)
King Richard the Lionheart died in 1199 and his brother King John (1166-1216 AD) inherited the throne. King John was abusing the landowners with excessive taxation and confiscation of property of both the nobility and the Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, was an early leader in the campaign to charter the liberties guaranteed by the king, for safety and security of the people.
A Knights Templar by the name of Robert Fitzwalter led the army of Knights to King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta. For this mission he was given the title of office “Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church.” Fitzwalter also fought in the fifth Crusade. (3) The meeting with King John was held at Temple Church, headquarters of the Templar Order in London. (4) Today, lawyers of the English legal system (Barristers) identify Temple Church as “the cradle of the Common Law.”
Resistance by King John was so great, the Magna Carta had to be reissued several times and for several years afterward it was amended to appease both the King and the Barons. The push to keep rights preserved was maintained by the Templar House of Anjou. King Henry III (1207-1272 AD) maintained this by appointing William Marshall as his protector. The Marshall Protectorate reissued the Magna Carta from 1215 up through 1225. (5)
In 1297 AD, King Edward I (of the Templar House of Anjou) and following in the footsteps of King Henry III, enacted Confirmatio Cartarum (Confirmation of Charters), which reaffirmed the Magna Carta once again. In 1300 AD, the supplemental Articuli Super Cartas (Articles Upon the Charters) was enacted, which consisted of 20 additional Articles further strengthening the Magna Carta. (6)
In a conspiracy set forth by King Philip (IV) of France, vying for more power, Pope Clement was influenced to annul Confirmatio Cartarum in 1305. (8) It was this same King Philip (IV) of France who ordered the arrest and persecution of the Knights Templars. The reasoning behind this of course, was the legal influence of the knights, for the common good of man. The Knights got their “inspiration,“ from the Red Cross, or the Amanita Muscaria mushroom. This topic is covered extensively in my book Ancient Psychedelia: Alien Gods and Mushroom Goddesses. The right to live freely and the right to private property and the right to trial by jury, and the right to freedom of worship are all rights inherently inspired from the use of the magic mushroom. The idea that all men are equal under god is inspired from the psychedelic initiation and experience. Hence the “red cross.”
(1) Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp. 5-6
(2) M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1978), Volume 6, pp.308-311
(3) Hugh Chisholm, “Fitzwalter, Robert” in Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), 11th Edition, Cambridge University Press, p.449
(4) T.F. Tout, “Fitzwalter, Robert” in Leslie Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography (1889), London, Smith Elder & Co., p.226) (Gabriel Ronay, The Tartar Khan’s Englishman, London, Cassel (1978), pp.38-40
(5) Danny Danziger & John Gillingham, 1215: The Year of Magna Carta, Hodder & Stoughton (2003), p.271
(6) William B. Robinson & Ronald H. Fritze, Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England: 1272-1485, Greenwood Press (2002), “Articuli Super Cartas” at pp.34-3
(7) Sophia Menache, Clement V, Cambridge University Press (2002), p.253
The Magna Carta subjected the Sovereign, (at that time, the King) to the “rule of law” and secured rights to “Freemen.” At the time of the signing, there was a real difference between a sovereign and a freeman. The sovereign was the ruler, and the Freeman was the unencumbered individual. A sovereign is not essentially a Freeman because he has to rule, which is a great responsibility. The Magna Carta paved the way and laid the foundation for our rights under Anglo-American Jurisprudence. It established the Rule of Law and Civil Rights and along with that, the rights to Due Process. It was also the foundation for what became Parliamentary Democracy which would dictate English monarchy rulership.
The following are directly from the Magna Carta and express rights we still hold to this day. 38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his “law,” without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.
This is important because it sets the stage for trial by jury by requiring the act to be proven before the person could be apprehended. In today’s courts, they arrest you first, and ask questions later, based on what the police officer saw or an unsigned or unverified complaint as opposed to one by a real injured flesh and blood person.
39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
This is Trial by Jury and that means a person was NOT arrested first, then held to answer in court, or out on bail, or sitting in jail, while awaiting trial. The case had not been proven against him yet, so therefore, he was still a Freeman until convicted, unless he killed someone and refused to go to court to be held to answer. This is the foundation of Habeas Corpus.
The Inns of Court, or British Legal Association today, called Middle Temple and Inner Temple are both located surrounding the Temple Church. And interestingly, the Guy Fawks Gunpowder Plot was sponsored from the Temple Court, by Templars protesting corruption in Parliament. Again, I quote from the Templar website:
“The brothers Thomas and Robert Winter, who were admitted to Middle Temple in 1590 AD, were both tried alongside Guy Fawkes as co-conspirators and executed with him. Francis Tresham, a member of Inner Temple, was a key conspirator in the Guy Fawkes plot, whose message warning his brother-in-law not to attend Parliament on that day led to discovery of the plot. Tresham was exposed by Guy Fawkes under torture, and he died in prison in the Tower of London.”… (8)
In England, in 1628, the Petition of Right was passed, and in 1679, the Habeas Corpus Act was passed. Both of these documents specifically cited Clause 39 of the Magna Carta previously mentioned.
Sir Edward Coke
Returning again to Mullins book The Rape of Justice, we learn about Sir Edward Coke, the principle architect of the Petition of Right in 1628.
“Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) managed to codify the common law in his Institutes. … As the protege of Lord Burghley, he was named Chief Justice of the King’s Bench in 1613. … Throughout a long legal career, Coke dedicated himself to completing his monumental work on law, first published in 1628 as Coke’s Institutes; it was also known as Coke on Littleton. Coke’s work remains the fundamental treatise on law, although it is seldom taught in American law schools. After the triumph of equity, the system of the law merchant, in our system of jurisprudence, Coke and Blackstone’s works were relegated to the shelves in the rare book rooms.” … “The lasting influence of Coke’s work may be attributed to its firm grounding in both Roman and Anglo-Saxon law. Coke returned to the principles of the ancient Jus Quirites, when he divided the people into two classes, the nobility and the commonality. This was a restatement of the earlier legal division in Rome, the patricians or the gentes, and the plebs. Coke also commented in the Institutes that “the common law of England is called right, sometimes common right, and sometimes communis justitia.” …
Con’t: “On Feb. 26, 1620, he delivered an important speech on the problems of the scarcity of money, a statement which increased the number of his enemies by the number of those whose fortunes were made by trading in money. After much study of the problem, he found that the scarcity of money could be traced to seven causes, which he enumerated as: 1. the turning of money into plate; 2. the use of gold folia in gilding; 3. the undervaluing of silver; 4. the East India Company ‘who intercept the dollars and other moneys that would otherwise come into the Kingdom and bring in for it nothing but toys and trifles’; 5. the excess of imports over exports; 6. the French merchants for wine carry forth 780,000 pounds per annum and bring nothing but wines and laces and such like trifles; 7. the patent for gold and silver lace and thread which wastes our bullion and coin and hinders the bringing of it into the kingdom.’ … “Much of Coke’s definition of the problem facing his nation four centuries ago is applicable to the plight of the United States as we approach the twenty-first century. We too are plagued by an excess of imports over exports. We import not only wine and lace, but oil and many other expensive products. Coke’s emphasis on the necessity of maintaining the nation’s supply of bullion echoes the preoccupation of the Founding Fathers, when they inserted into the Constitution the specific provision that lawful money should consist of gold and silver. However, it was Coke’s open criticism of the activities of the East India Company which caused him to undergo the most severe pressures. This company represented then, and for many years afterward, the secret government of the British Empire. … Chambers Encyclopedia notes that “from 1606, Coke stood as the champion of national liberties, opposing any illegal encroachment of both church and crown.” He openly criticized the Spanish marriage of King James I, who married a Catholic. This marriage resulted in a civil war, the end of the Stuart dynasty in England, and the Glorious Revolution.” (9)
I would like to interject here, that not only Coke, but Mullins, the writer I have been quoting from, both attribute a tremendous amount of power to the British East India Company. They are not the only ones. Buckminster fuller also comments on this power structure in his book, Critical Path. In the next chapter, I will expand on this so the reader can see the interconnectedness of this company with the founding of the United States and the Masonic influence within this corporation.
Mullins continuing on Coke’s influence:
“Legal historians have pointed out that perhaps never before or since has one man made so much law. He denied the right of the king to judge cases personally, or to give jurisdiction to ecclesiastical courts at the expense of the courts of the common law. He asserted that it was unlawful to give a commission (such as a royal commission) the power to hear and determine offenses which should be heard in the ordinary courts. Such practice robbed the citizen of the protection of established law. Coke maintained that no martial law which was executed by military law should be carried out without following the common law process. He brilliantly expounded the common law, simultaneously defeating Sir Francis Bacon’s project to codify the law, a tactic for which Bacon had apparently been engaged by his Masonic conspirators. Coke thus gave us an exposition of the common law which has spread it throughout the English-speaking world. Coke laid down in Peacham’s case (1615) that it is contrary to law to ask the judges separately before trial in a pending case to give their opinions in camera and ex-parte. This practice has become a growing abuse in the American legal system. It was Sir Edward Coke, standing alone, who denied the right of the king to delay or stop proceedings in the common law courts. Coke further denied the right of the King to make law by proclamation.”
(9) The Rape of Justice, p. 32
Con’t: “Coke’s monumental Institutes fixed the common law for the next three centuries, and established it’s supremacy over the Church, the Admiralty, the Star Chamber, and the code system of law which was propounded by Sir Francis Bacon. Coke also established its supremacy over the royal prerogative, through his insistence upon grand jury indictments, jury trial protection against unlawful searches and seizures (from which he himself was not protected), protection against double-jeopardy, and the right of habeas corpus. It seems impossible that one man could have done so much, and thus he remains an inspiration to all who share his passion for justice. Few Americans today are aware of Sir Edward Coke’s influence upon our Founding Fathers. Our historians ignore Coke’s great feat in backing the Petition of Right of 1628 in England, which directly challenged the ascendancy of King Charles I. King Charles not only ignored the Petition of Right, he continued on his arrogant course while his popular support steadily eroded. He was executed in 1649. The Petition of Right later became a major factor in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.” (10)
The Glorious Revolution and English Bill of Rights
In 1689, the English Bill of Rights was passed following the Glorious Revolution. What we refer to as the “Glorious Revolution” took place in 1688-89. King James Stuart of England was a Catholic and this was causing tension between the British Parliament, the Church and the Protestants. It was not a war, or true revolution in a sense, it was only the changing of the guard to a more peaceful ruler-ship. The royal throne of England became the seat of power for William of Orange or William III. His wife Mary was the daughter of King Charles I of England. In order to avoid an assassination of William III by the Jacobites, who wanted a return to Catholic Stuart rule, a Hanover, several degrees removed from the lineage of King William was placed on the throne. In 1714, George I, Duke of Hanover, ascended to the throne of England.
The Bill of Rights required King James to submit to the check and balance of Parliament. It was the first actual Separation of Powers doctrine, which the revolutionaries included in the US Constitution. The rights of the people to elect parliamentary members without interference from the king. Freedom of Speech in parliament. Freedom to petition the king. The right to bear arms for self-defense. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail. Freedom of fines and forfeitures without a trial. Freedom from armies being raised during peacetimes. All of these rights were guaranteed by the English Bill of Rights.
This was followed by the Act of Succession of 1701 which forbid Roman Catholics from ever again being King or Queen. But it also insured that the future monarchs of England would be members of the Anglican Church. During the reign of King Henry VIII (1509 until his death in 1547), he separated the Church of England from papal authority. He appointed himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolved the convents and monasteries. The Anglican Church today is still aligned politically with the King of Jerusalem through the British-Israel movement which backs the state of Israel. Another name for this movement is Zionism.
The Hanovers, The Bank of England and the creation of Freemasonry
Returning again to Mullins for his comments on the Hanovers, the Bank of England and the Creation of Freemasonry in England:
“In 1694, King William III chartered the Bank of England. Since that date, there has never been another revolution in England. A history of civil wars and revolutions against the throne had come to an end. A privately-owned central bank, the Bank of England, now controlled the issuance of money, which had formerly been a royal prerogative. The throne’s goodwill was secured by the assignment of large numbers of shares to the royal family.”
(10) Rape of Justice, p. 35-36
“The sudden access of funds provided by the Bank of England ushered in a great flowering of English culture and international prestige. The Bank’s monetary manipulations created enormous fortunes for its shareholders, and great estates were built throughout the countryside. The fortunate few who had invited William to take the English throne, and who had subsequently been invited to become charter subscribers to the Bank for 10,000 pounds each, made certain the success of the Glorious Revolution.” (11)
“The Hanover family had spent some twenty years diligently preparing their claim to the throne of England. Their official genealogist and historian was one of the most well-known scholars in Europe, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). Liebniz had been Secretary of the Rosicrucian Society in Nuremberg in 1667. He then moved to Frankfort, where he was employed by the Elector of Mainz from 1676 until his death in 1716. Not only did he serve the Brunswick family loyally as their historian; he was also a lawyer, and served them as a judge and administrator. His massive work, Codex Juris Gentium Diplomaticus Hannoverae, not only traced the descent from Henry the Lion, who had married into the British Royal family, it also documented the later developments. Thus, Leibniz, Secretary of the Rosicrucian Society, not only brought the Hanovers to the throne of England; with him came the fraternity known as the Freemasons.” …
“He (Leibniz) was a major influence in the development of legal doctrine, reaffirming doctrines of Christian natural law which originated in the Golden Renaissance of the fifteenth century. His writings shaped the thinking of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in their phrasing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.”…”In effect, Leibniz and his fellow intellectuals, with the ascent of George I in 1714 to the throne of England, became the secret powers behind the throne. In 1717, it was announced that Freemasonry was officially revived in England. From this base of power, Lord Sackville was dispatched to Italy in 1733 to set up Freemason lodges there; in 1735, Lord Derwentwater was sent to Paris to organize a Grand Lodge. The result was the destruction of the monarchy in those nations. Through the secret forces which led to revolution, England was finally able to dispatch its great rival France, and to end her claims to world power. The new order was announced at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when the triumphant Masons, led by the banking power of the Rothschilds, dictated their terms, not only to France, but to the other nations of Europe. Financed by the monetary power of the Bank of England, enforced by the British Navy and the worldwide intrigues of the Secret Intelligence Service, the Masons were well on their way to fulfilling their historic goals.” (12)
Foundations of Freemasonry
First of all, it must be remembered that Freemasonry set up this country, the United States of America. George Washington was a Freemason as were a number of important founders of the country. Freemasonry itself is not a problem, however, it becomes a problem due to the order of secrecy surrounding the lodges. It becomes a perfect breeding ground for corruption, and the Founding Fathers took this into consideration by giving us the Separation of Powers in the Constitution. This would help insure that one branch of government does not control the other two, and there would be equal and proper representation among the people. The problem really started to occur when the bankers and lawyers starting working together to change the money and the laws. There are many good men in Masonry, but if their allegiance is to Great Britain, they are not truly American Masons at all. True American Masons who have allegiance to America are rare, but they do exist.
Freemasonry in America is divided into four main factions. There is the York rite which consists of three primary bodies. Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, Council of Royal & Select Masters or Council of Cryptic Masons, and the Commandery of Knights Templar.
Next, there is the Scottish Rite which consists of a Northern and a Southern Jurisdiction.
Then, lastly, there is the Grand Orient.
The first three degrees consist of the Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft and Master Mason. Upon graduating from the third degree, one can become either a York Rite member or a Scottish Rite member.
(11) Rape of Justice, p. 40
(12) Rape of Justice, p. 42-45
Pages 14, 15, 16 Not Included in Free Edition – To Order the FULL Version in either Softcover or E-Book, Please Visit the Store.