severegardenerllama - Tumblr blog

[severegardenerllama]

GDPR They said they knew everything and still acted in all the murder in the library and church squatters. only.

[severegardenerllama]

I am the Emperor God okay? does that make sense? kingship and king blah doesn't or temp and filled later

Perpetual

ween the king as corporation sole and the king as head of the commonwealth – the realm – understood as a corporation.Footnote93 Hale argued that the two capacities of the king, natural and politic, cannot be separated and that the king’s natural capacity is invested with his politic capacity.Footnote94 He did not mention the dignity of kingship, but argued that the king’s body politic is a corporation sole and has perpetual succession.Footnote95 To Hale, the king’s body politic appears to have been in fact the dignity. His work provides confirmation that the dignity had by then been fused with the concept of the king’s politic capacity. Like Coke in Sutton’s Hospital, Hale made no mention of the Crown in relation to the concept of corporation sole. The concept of Crown came to replace the concept of the king’s body politic – understood as the king’s dignity – only later.

[severegardenerllama]

Bilateral for best extension of your own history the way you see it. NFT personal wallet BIS Ai

[severegardenerllama]

got you again

[severegardenerllama]

Fourth amendment rights didn't get a change

[severegardenerllama]

religion

made by man how they understood it.

Don't i never created religion, i created commerce and trade finance in current standing.

Please understand we fought before and I have won on every turn.

[severegardenerllama]

My brain is part of imperium asset brain capabilities and application the idea and concept from real live business and foreign mission goals.

The concept of the Crown as the whole realm, a mystical body with the king as the head, the King, Lords and Commons, and the subjects as the members is less prevalent today. However, the Crown understood in that medieval sense – the Commonwealth advocated by MaitlandFootnote110 – was an enduring concept in past legal thinking and featured in Plowden’s and Coke’s work. As can be found in a case dating to 1365, the realm takes visible form in Parliament: ‘Every one, is bound to know at once what is done in Parliament, for Parliament represents the body of the whole realm’.Footnote111 Perhaps our understanding of the Crown can be actualised to reflect both past understandings of English constitutional legal thought, as well as their evolution into a constitutional monarchy and a democratically elected sovereign Parliament. The Crown in the medieval sense of the whole body of the realm could retain its ‘inclusive character’ and its untapped ‘democratic potential’.Footnote112 In light of a historical constitutional analysis of past dualities in connection with the Crown, it becomes easier to identify these past dualities as current features of the law. A better understanding of these past dualities – notably, king and Crown, the king’s two bodies and the Crown as corporation sole or aggregate – may also allow us to redefine the Crown.

[severegardenerllama]

Data artificial and or brain becase of third eye reference. librarian out of allen confirms, correct.

The concept of the Crown as the whole realm, a mystical body with the king as the head, the King, Lords and Commons, and the subjects as the members is less prevalent today. However, the Crown understood in that medieval sense – the Commonwealth advocated by MaitlandFootnote110 – was an enduring concept in past legal thinking and featured in Plowden’s and Coke’s work. As can be found in a case dating to 1365, the realm takes visible form in Parliament: ‘Every one, is bound to know at once what is done in Parliament, for Parliament represents the body of the whole realm’.Footnote111 Perhaps our understanding of the Crown can be actualised to reflect both past understandings of English constitutional legal thought, as well as their evolution into a constitutional monarchy and a democratically elected sovereign Parliament. The Crown in the medieval sense of the whole body of the realm could retain its ‘inclusive character’ and its untapped ‘democratic potential’.Footnote112 In light of a historical constitutional analysis of past dualities in connection with the Crown, it becomes easier to identify these past dualities as current features of the law. A better understanding of these past dualities – notably, king and Crown, the king’s two bodies and the Crown as corporation sole or aggregate – may also allow us to redefine the Crown.

[severegardenerllama]

Now ask yourself

Where does everyone stand in a court of law? human made still certain top and electronic hits and such for forced manuvers. across all party.

[severegardenerllama]

Separation of church and state. Advising okay but confirmed what? nothing.

UK 007 GCHQ AI update

s inability to counter Muqarrab Khan’s symbolic attacks on the Estado’s dignity thus exposed the viceroy’s lack of political savviness. By negotiating during a moment of fragility in public through formal diplomatic channels, Azevedo allowed the Mughal authorities to downgrade the status of the Estado da Índia. Indeed, as the pamphlet suggests, the negotiations only progressed when the Portuguese turned to Manuel Pinheiro. The padre’s position as an informal diplomatic mediator ensured the necessary discretion to negotiate a treaty under unfavourable conditions without exposing the Estado’s powerlessness to counter Mughal geopolitical goals. As António Bocarro mentioned in his Década, during the initial stages of the Luso-Mughal negotiations, Manuel Pinheiro ensured that the ‘errands and messages’ (recados e mensagens) from both sides reached their destination.124 The mediating function of the padre seemed also to be a request from Muqarrab Khan. According to Bocarro, the Royal Confidant asked Gonçalo Pinto da Fonseca, the head of the Portuguese legation, to use only one channel of negotiation to avoid the involvement of other agents. The intention was to limit negotiations to a restricted circle of reliable interlocutors, mediated by trustworthy agents such as Manuel Pinheiro, and thus prevent a scenario in which the terms and conditions proposed by each side varied according to the different channels. Muqarrab Khan seemed not only to be concerned with the effectiveness of the negotiating process, but also in ensuring that he was able to impede the involvement of other agents with agendas that differed from his own interests. While in the anonymous pamphlet Muqarrab Khan emerges as a hostile figure who was extremely zealous in enhancing Mughal superiority, the Década of António Bocarro offers a more positive portrait of the role of the Royal Confidant. For Bocarro, one of the official chroniclers of the Estado da Índia, the Mughal grandee was still Dom João de Távora. The letters sent from him to Estado officials were extremely cordial and expressed an intention to find a balanced solution to the conflict. The delays during the negotiations were apparently not caused by Mughal hostility, but by the health problems of Muqarrab Khan’s wife. In his letter to Gonçalo Pinto da Fonseca, Muqarrab Khan insinu

The treaty established that the Mughal Empire would not have any commercial or diplomatic relations with England and the Dutch Republic. Indeed, the rhetoric of the first clause presented the EIC and the Dutch East Indies Company (VOC-Vereenigde Oost Indische Compagnie) as a common threat. The events that paved the way for the Luso-Mughal crisis ‘had shown that the English and the Dutch, under the cover of merchants, came to India to settle and conquer these lands, since they live in Europe in great need and poverty’.126 To deter the threat posed by the English and Dutch East Indies companies, the Mughal authorities agreed ‘to not shelter them, nor to provide them provisions or give them any other help’.127 Jahangir also consented that the Estado da Índia could intervene militarily in Gujarat to expel the members of the EIC and VOC. Similar conditions were also established by the sixth clause, which allowed

e Royal Confidant actively explored the possibility of involving the English in the conflict to put more pressure on the Estado da Índia and obtain naval resources to hinder the Portuguese fleets in Gujarat. In a letter to the EIC board, Downton mentioned that after the arrival of the new English fleet in October 1614, Muqarrab Khan, ‘our arch-enemy’, gave him an unexpectedly warm welcome and proposed a partnership against the Estado da Índia. The Mughal authorities were ready to confirm the trading privileges promised to the EIC in exchange for naval support. Both Nicholas Downton and William Edwards mention in their reports that Muqarrab Khan wanted to use English ships to support the Mughal siege of Daman and dissuade the Estado’s fleets that targeted Surat and other Gujarati ports.137 The proposal made to Downton followed a series of previous contacts between M

[severegardenerllama]

Final Word...

This seal, used by emperors of different dynasties since the Qin dynasty (221–207 bce) until the Yuan dynasty (1279–1368), symbolized that Hong Taiji received the mandate of Heaven to be the legitimate ruler of China. As a result, on May 9, 1636, Manchu, Mongolian and Han-Chinese royal family members and officials of the later Jin dynasty made a petition to Hong Taiji and persuaded him to take the throne of the Chinese emperor. On the same date, Hong Taiji wrote a letter to the ruler of Korea, which was still a tributary state of the Ming dynasty, to persuade Korea to change its loyalty toward the Manchus. In the letter, Hong Taiji argued that although the rulers of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties were barbarians, they were able to conquer China and become “Tianzi” (the Son of Heaven, Chinese name for emperor), proving that the mandate of Heaven did not favor anyone except

Case closed via Jesuit INC and other entities.

[severegardenerllama]

The concept of the Crown as the whole realm, a mystical body with the king as the head, the King, Lords and Commons, and the subjects as the members is less prevalent today. However, the Crown understood in that medieval sense – the Commonwealth advocated by MaitlandFootnote110 – was an enduring concept in past legal thinking and featured in Plowden’s and Coke’s work. As can be found in a case dating to 1365, the realm takes visible form in Parliament: ‘Every one, is bound to know at once what is done in Parliament, for Parliament represents the body of the whole realm’.Footnote111 Perhaps our understanding of the Crown can be actualised to reflect both past understandings of English constitutional legal thought, as well as their evolution into a constitutional monarchy and a democratically elected sovereign Parliament. The Crown in the medieval sense of the whole body of the realm could retain its ‘inclusive character’ and its untapped ‘democratic potential’.Footnote112 In light of a historical constitutional analysis of past dualities in connection with the Crown, it becomes easier to identify these past dualities as current features of the law. A better understanding of these past dualities – notably, king and Crown, the king’s two bodies and the Crown as corporation sole or aggregate – may also allow us to redefine the Crown.

[severegardenerllama]

Awesome - King aka Emperor aka All Above All

The latter is expressly said to retain his immunity from suit. As Dicey famously wrote, the king personally cannot be sued for a civil wrong or for a crime, even in the unlikely event that he would shoot the Prime Minister in the head.Footnote109

The concept of the Crown as the whole realm, a mystical body with the king as the head, the King, Lords and Commons, and the subjects as the members is less pr

[severegardenerllama]

Debt asset Asset liabilities

t the only paradigm under which constitutional law is currently operating. The king’s two bodies – often now called ‘capacities’ – can still be found in numerous statutes where the monarch’s personal privileges and immunities are expressly protected and where the Duchy of Lancaster is treated separately from the rest of the governmental apparatus.Footnote107 The distinction, found in the Middle Ages, between the king and the Crown is also relevant. In the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, for instance, where the Crown was made liable in tort as any ordinary person, a distinction is made between the Crown and the king in his private capacity.Footnote108 The latter is expressly said

[severegardenerllama]

mr feather? bird

e Crown in the nineteenth century, the Crown was conceived of not only as the monarch, but also as a corporation aggregate.Footnote101 The Crown which could infringe Mr. Feather’s patent encompassed ministers, officials and civil servants who – because they were all the Crown – could use his invention in building ships. However, only the monarch personally could do no wrong and the petition of right could not be used against her for a wrong committed by crown servants.

The Crown’s transformation from the monarch personally to the whole governmental apparatus went unnoticed. The duality of the Crown, meaning both the monarch personally and the government as a whole, is still part of constitutional law today.Footnote102 Since the turn of the twentieth century, the Crown changes seamlessly from being of as a corporation s

MEXICO ISSUES USING ILLUMINIATI

[severegardenerllama]

Changed to Chairman

Get with the times if you can't proof it

he Crown in the nineteenth century was developed indirectly, in cases where the King or Queen – and, as the governmental apparatus expanded in the nineteenth century, public officers and public bodies – were sued for wrongs. This trend – the definition of the Crown as a by-product of cases and legislation on Crown liability and immunities – continues to this day.

In the first part of the nineteenth century, the petition of right – a medieval remedy whereby a subject could sue to the king directly – was revived. The petition of right was used to sue to the Crown for the wrongs committed by its officials. In Viscount Canterbury and in Tobin,Footnote100 the Crown was still conceived of as the monarch personally and the subjects’ recours

[severegardenerllama]

advising but overlord?

lackstone in his influential Commentaries on the Laws of England of the eighteenth century used the word ‘dignity’ to refer to the office of kingship, or the king’s ‘royal office’.Footnote96 He also took the word dignity in the sense of moral worthiness. In this second sense, Blackstone equated the king’s political character with his ‘dignity’ and described the royal dignity as the king’s higher quality as superior to the subjects, a position justified by the king’s perfection.Footnote97 Blackstone also adopted the doctrine of the king’s two bodiesFootnote98 as had Plowden, Coke and Hale before him, and identified dignity with the king’s body politic by opposition to his body natural.Footnote99 Bu