MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT – PROPERTY VALUATION AND ASSESSORS COURSE-TRAINING

 

One acknowledgement to the long history that governs ‘Property Valuation’, either for Investment or Taxation purposes, as public records, through the writings of renowned scholars, which command attention for specialized skill of study and practice. Thou, has become necessary to realize, the sensitivity of the work of ‘Valuers’ who count on their skills, professionally, for accurate assessment, in the true ‘value’ of properties, using the scientific methods of quantification in costing, as well the art of qualitative method of measurement, taken into consideration ‘the property’, the location, and impact from the environs, to it pricing effects.

A poor Inspection or incorrect Judgemental value of a property, can cause severe economic damage to the owner, difficult to redeem, with a consequence of long-term Court disputes, and irreparable grievance, against the developmental impacts of a Nation. 

The competent ‘Valuers’ remind themselves, any form of Investment guarantees or taxation rating, significantly depends, on the value judgement document, from a ‘property assessor’, thereby, an incompetent valuing reports, triggers a wrongful rating fees against the property owners or facility managers, by governmental Institutions. Therein, a worthy property, will be unable to yield dividend to the owner, rather, becomes a cost burden or liability, against the sacrifices and labour commitment of the owner. Thou, by implicit, affect Community and Socioeconomic development, on a reasonable grounds that, owning property, is cost burden, with the presumption of  property rating fee, an extortion under a legal cover. A motive the training exercise, seeks to abort.

The invitation to participate in the rigour course training, if, you meet the criteria for admission, is to set the qualified candidates apart, in holding the sacred office of the Local Government property assessor, and inspection, to the highest proficiency, for the benefit of the property development industry of Sierra Leone. The training, is one of the unique extra-mural courses, of intensive study for a month, with a Job contract, available after the completion of the programme, accompanied with an issued Local Government Assessor license of practice. 

The 2^nd batch of Classes, start on the 23^rd of March 2026; in a special designed Campus for such training at the Sherrif Town, Congo street, Latter-day Saints Building, at the Bo District, Southern Province. Source for further information, <ppsp.councilproject@yahoo.com.>

The curriculum for the Course training, could be access via  https://www.academia.edu/145187679/PROPERTY_VALUATION_AND_ASSESSMENT_COURSE 

If, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, expresses an interest to participate in the Course-training, after meeting the eligibility criteria, Perpetual Education Fund (PEF), has been negotiated for, and accessible, as an opportunity to apply for the grants. You could access the link via https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/life/education/perpetual-education-fund?lang=eng

------------------------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu DBA, Ph.D. SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, Fellow, University of Sierra Leone.

Project Consultant [etsenzu.africalaw@gmail.com.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES :

Ministry of Local Government and Community Affairs, access the link via < https://mlgca.gov.sl/>

Freetown City Council (The Political Administrative City), access the link via < https://fcc.gov.sl/ >

Bo District Council (The Commercial City), access the link via < https://bodc.gov.sl/ > 

 

WHISTLEBLOWING VS. DEFAMATION

 [The Preliminary]

In the data-base epoch, comes with enormous advantages, and equally, in that same measure, has presented a consequence, which strikes with ignorance and lack of understanding, of the strings that binds the ‘Right’ and ‘Responsibility’, as well the ‘Task’ and ‘Duty of Care’ in contemporary society.

[Whistle-blow]

The action of a 'whistle blower', is a deliberate and meticulous steps, taken by a person in spirit of good fate, to reveal information from private Institutions or public organizations, operational deeds, established to be, illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe, unethical, or fraudulent. In furtherance, the action of unveiling the secret acts, should follow the due process, by furnishing the discovered  information to the ‘Rightful’ stakeholders, who have the ‘Legitimate’ authority, to respond technically on the discovered  information, for the Interest of common good. While the ‘Blower’ anonymity and security, is safeguarded in surety; and the ‘Culprit’, is apprehended, under a due process of the Rule of law, to satisfy the moral conditions of the law, in both side of the equational demands.

[Defamation]

On the other hand, defamation is an act of unveiling information, with conscious intentions, or politically calculated efforts, in pursuit of propaganda, to injure a third party’s reputation, which invoke a legally redressable injury.

And due to the objective agenda of defamation act, the communication channels, depends mostly on recipient audience, subtle to manipulation, and appeal to the persuasive context, of the delivered information.

Defamation law, in response to the defamation act, has a long history, dating back to classical antiquity, with ‘libel’ and ‘slander’, being legal subcategory of defamation act, thou, gave birth to, it doctrine of common law, in the late 18^th century of England, which led to the Act of 1881 French defamation law, the Slander of women Act 1891 of England, and the charge against, defamation of a Public figure, U.S. Supreme Court decision on the 1964 case, New York Time Co. Vs. Sullivan.

 

 REFERENCE TO FURTHER SOURCES

I. Johnson, R. A., Whistleblowing; when it works and why. Lynne Rienner Publishers. 2022, ISBN:978-1-58826-139-7.

II. Salmon, W. J., The law of Torts: A treatise on the English law of Liability for Civil Injuries. Stevens & Haynes Publishers. 1907, p.385.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photo, is the Courtroom of International Court of Justice © ICJ Archival Library

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, DBA, Ph.D., SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, fellow, University of Sierra Leone. Fulbright Research Fellow, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, USA.

 

THE ROSICRUCIANS AND ADVANCEMENT OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION

 An inquiry into the history and origin, of the Rosicrucian order, there is sufficient evidence, as testament to, the emanation of the philosophical writings from Philo Judaeus, who was a Jewish Philosopher, trained in Hellenistic Culture of Alexandria, the culture of Ancient Rome, and to large degree Ancient Egyptian religion, with focus in Judaism, Jewish traditional literature, and Greek philosophy. He was born in c.10 - 15 BC in Alexandria, and died in c.45-50 AD. His Ancestors and family genealogy had social ties and connections to the priesthood in Judea, under the Hasmonean dynasty of Rome. And was serving as the Principal representative of the Alexandrian Jewish Community, before the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula.

Philo Judaeus writings and philosophical works, were extensively influenced by Plato, Homer, Euripides and Demosthenes, as his teachers. And was regarded as the most important representative of the Hellenistic Judaism, and the forerunner of Christian theology. Thou, accorded as the father of the Rosicrucianism, which led the true birth of the Rosicrucian order c. 1 BC, with an evolving doctrine of Hellenistic Judaism, Neo-Pythagorianism, Cynics and Stoicism. Among these inter-linkages of philosophical doctrines, Stoicism which was the school of philosophy of Greeco-Roman antiquity, became prominent in Rosicrucian order, with the teachings inspired by Socrates and Diogenes of Sinope, in the era of c.300 BC to 200 AD. Having their core doctrine, emphasized on ‘duty of man’ to the universe.  With the central tenet of the doctrine, which declares, and I quote; ‘through reasons, mankind can come to regard the Universe as governed by fate,  and that regulating one’s life, emulate the grandeur of the calm and order of the Universe. As well, learning to accept events in life, with stern and transquil mind, as an effort, to achieve a lofty moral worth.’

The aftermath death of Philo Judaeus, and the era of early 17^th Century AD, emerged the advent of new Rosicrucian order, of a brotherhood, declaring themselves as Fama Fraternitatis, with their manifesto print in the year 1614, claiming their branch of Rosicrucian brotherhood, could be traced to the founder Christian Rosenkreuz (1378 - 1484), as a German Nobleman, and a former Monk, with their mission to extend the old Order, and zealously apply themselves in the deepest secrecy to the study of Nature, and her hidden forces, and to make their discoveries and inventions, known to the Order, and profitable to the needs of humanity. Thou, sought to invite all of the scholars, and rulers of Europe at that time, to favour the cause, with a Lutherian Theologian of Wurtemberg, Germany,  John Valentin Andrea (1586 - 1654) a lead advocate.

Followed with the Confessio Fraternitatis, with their manifestor print in the year 1615,  and then, in the year 1616, came with an anonymous volume, which was published, as a manuscript titled Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz, a publication, noted to have been influenced by the work of hermetic Philosopher, Heinrich Khunrath (1560 -1605) of Hamburg, Germany. The outcome of public works of these remnants, ignited a serious ridicule, and a public fraud, thou, in the diminishing of their credibility, resulted in re-birth of itself, as a Pseudo-Rosicrucian societies of occult descent, with some kind of extravagant manifestations. Onwards to the year 1750, began the newly emerging Rosicrucians, fusing themselves into Freemansonry, as a society in her early birth, of the year 1717 AD. Which created a Masonic Rosicrucian Societies of prominent existence in England, Scotland and United States.

Walking into the epoch of the 19^th to 21^st Century AD, is the rise of three diverse Rosicrucian branches, with the structural forms as follows;

I.    The first branch, is the Esoteric Christian Rosicrucian groups, who profess Christ, with the teachings relating to inner teachings of Christianity, the Benedictine order, founded in the year 529AD, a Monastic order in the Catholic Church, following the Rule of Saint Benedictine, which emphasis on prayer and work, with vows of stability, obedience and conversion of life. The Dominican order, a Roman Catholic mendicant order, founded in the year 1216 AD, renowned for intellectual rigour, study and commitment to truth. Focus on Education, Theology and Philosophy. The Jesuit Order, or Society of Jesus, founded in the year 1534 AD, with the mission on Education, Intellectual rigour, mission work, social justice, operating under a fourth vow of obedience to the Pope. The Mount Ecclesia Rosicrucian fellowship, founded in the year 1909 AD, with a mission of preparing the individuals through harmonious development of mind and heart, in a spirit of unselfish service to mankind, and all-embracing altruism.

II. The second branch, is Masonic Rosicrucian groups, such as the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia of England, founded in the year 1865 AD, with a mission to serve as a scholarly society for Master Masons. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, founded in the year 1888 AD, to focus on the study and practice of ceremonial Magic, Qabala, Tarot and Occultism. The Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, is a non-sectarian, Philosophical and Educational Rosicrucian organization, founded in the year 1915 AD, whose mission, is to promote the study of Metaphysical, Mystical and Natural laws, for spiritual development.

III.  The third branch, is Intellectual Rosicrucian Groups, such as the Intellectual Creed Society, founded in the year 2021 AD, with the mission, to organize professionals of high scholarly pedigree, for the re-birth of the original philosophical Rosicrucian doctrine, which stemmed from Stoicism, to advance the cause of human civilization and humanitarian healing, rooted in superior scholarly talents, from various field of human studies, and endeavours, to complement the efficiency of contemporary government performance, towards, enhancing the welfare, of the open society.

 

REFERENCE

[1.] Beit-Hallahmi, B., ‘AMORC Rosicrucian Order’ the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active Religion, sects and cults. p.17. New York, Rosen Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-8239-2586-5

[2.] CIA Report, ‘The Rosicrucian Order’, 1955, April. Access through CIA-RDP78-02771R000200430004-6.

[3.] Encyclopedia Britannical Editors, ‘Philo Judaeus’ 2020, May.

[4.] Gruber, H., ‘Rosicrucians’ the Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol.13. 1912. New York, Robert Appletion Company.

[5.] Massimo, I., ‘Rosicrucianism III’ 19^th to 20^th Century. In Haneegraff, Wouter, J., Faivre, A., Van den, R. B., Jean-Pierre, B. (eds.), Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esoetricism, Leiden, Boston. ISBN: 978-90-0414371-5

[6.] Senzu, T. E., ‘ The Constitution’ Intellectual Creed Society-branch of Rosicrucian Order. 2026, February. Accessed from < https://baa-jurists.blogspot.com/2026/02/intellectual-creed-society-branch-of.html>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, DBA, PhD., SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology. The Supreme General for the Intellectual Creed Society-Branch of Rosicrucian Order.

THE COMMON LAW AND EQUITABLE DOCTRINE

During the evolvement of the English Jurisprudence, in the Anglo-Norman era of 11^th Century, equity emerged, as a distinct field of law, from the English common law, due to the kind of relief, and grant of the Court. Equity doctrinal origin, is obtained from the writings of Aristotle Corpous Aristolelicum (384 – 322 BC), and the Roman law from the Twelve Tables, to the Corpus Juris Civilis, Circa 449 BC to 529 AD. However, a noticeable development of contemporary Equity doctrine, as a coherent body of law, administered simultaneously with the English common law, started from the English Court of Chancery, with the absolute purpose of granting legal remedies for cases, which the common law was inflexible, and couldn’t fairly resolve the disputed legal matters.

The English Common law, under the Anglo-Norman Royal Justice, were administered by three Central Courts, which were, the Court of the King’s Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Exchequer. The evolving challenge with litigants, were the ‘writs’ and ‘procedures’ required of the Courts, which equally affected the quality of Judgement of the Courts, thou, created a circumstance, whereby Plantiffs were unsatisfied with the legal remedies, from the Common law Courts, and construed the verdict of that Courts, as unfair judgement, hence, appealed, by petitioning the King, which resulted the Kings Council, to be assigned in hearing such petitions, under the Chairmanship, of the Lord Chancellor, literally, considered as the ‘Keeper of the King’s Conscience’. The cause of such actions by the Chancery, were practically considered, as moral justification of the Chancellor, to intervene in such petition cases, as a conscionable form, in other to protect the ‘conscience’ of the King, as right before God. And, most appointed Chancellors of that era, were known of being theologically and clerical trained in the Roman law, as well the developed canon laws, hence, the style of adjudication by the Court of Chancery were of ‘aequitas’, imbued of the Judicial powers of the Roman Magistrates. Onwards to the 16^th Century AD, Equity in principle were perceived to be derived from statutory interpretation from ‘aequitas’ of Roman law, to empower the Chancellor, in exercising unbounded discretion, which  allowed them to easily mitigate cases, out of the rigour of Common law adjudication, of the English legal system, of which the common law Courts, relied on the substance of the case, rather than solely form; a sharp contrast uphold by the Court of Chancery, at then, to exercise arbitrary decisions of ‘conscience’ by Clergy men, of no legal training, as argued by Judge Coke. The very cause that necessitated the year of 1615 conflict between the Common law Courts, having Sir. Edward Coke of the King’s Bench, as the Chief Justice, and that of the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, presiding for the Chancery Court; a circumstance that attracted an extensive criticism on the Court of Chancery, as a result, gave birth to Equity primacy, to be enshrined in the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, in the laws of England, with the effort to fuse the two Court, the Court of Common law, and that of the Equity Court, into a single unified Court system.

Australia, are among the few Countries, known of strong Equity Jurisprudence, emanating from the English legal system. In the year 1972, her Supreme Court introduced reform to it Act 1970, which empowered both the Equity and Common Law division of the Supreme Court, to grant relief, in either equity or common law, thou, made a categorical emphasis, where there was a conflict between the Common law and Equity, equity will always prevail. However, in the Courts of Scotland, considers Common law and Equity, as inseparable, with her Court of Session, exercise equitable and inherent jurisdiction.

 With that of India, the Supreme Court, adhered to the doctrine of equity, as a form of Common law, however, relied on the 1963 specific Relief Act of India Parliament, to enable the equity concepts codified, and made statutory rights.

 In relation to the United States Supreme Courts, on equity doctrine, they opted to have a wide discretion, to fashion relief in cases of equity. As established in the ruling of the Willard vs. Tayloe case, 75 U.S. 557 (1869), the Court decided, ‘that equity relief, is not a matter of absolute right to either party, it is rather, a matter resting in the discretion of the Court, to be exercise upon consideration, of all the circumstances of each particular case.’ However, there are some States in America, that holds separate dockets of Equitable matters, from Common law cases. Thou, the Bankruptcy Courts of the United States, under the Bankruptcy code 1979, is officially considered as, a Court of Equity.

----------------------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, DBA, Ph.D., SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, fellow, University of Sierra Leone. Fulbright Research Fellow, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, USA.

INTELLECTUAL CREED SOCIETY - BRANCH OF ROSICRUCIAN ORDER

 

INTELLECTUAL CREED SOCIETY "De Vir doctus" - BRANCH OF ROSICRUCIAN ORDER

THE CONSTITUTION

 

                                                                                                              Reviewed and Edited By :

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, DBA, PhD., SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology

                                                                                       The Supreme General

                                                                    Badge No (BN): ICS-CA05USA-1985114ETS-20210101001

[1] QUALIFICATION:

I. Upholding superior authority in the field of study and specialty.

[2] BELIEF:

I. We engage in tripartite fellowship of Knowledge, Wisdom and Power till death.

[3] ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

I. Purity of Soul and Mind

II. Holding Good Social Standing of Integrity and Reputation

III. Exercising a philosophical character, as an object of principles to deeds and works

IV. Sound of moral character in relation to sexual conducts

a) Not taken for granted sexual relations

b) Avoid Promiscuity

c) Avoid Incest

d) Avoid sexual rituals or initiations, unless, undertaken at strict instructional guidelines for intended purpose, for the common good. 

[4] RITUALS:

I.    A day fasting and meditation in the first week of every months (12hrs in duration), any change of this procedure to the adept, shall be under strict instructional guide by the Generals, of the various Planes, under a prophetic guidance, and approval of the 'Supreme General' of the Council of Seraphim.

II. (3) Days of fasting and meditation prayer, in special festive moment of the year, for the society, which is programmed within May/June and December/January of every year.

III. In such occasion, consecrated charity and arms are offered, to the less privilege (Orphans), Vulnerables of society, as in (qualified widows, and the oppressed), the marginalized, as in those (in poverty class, or at the base of the social ladder)

IV.  Any additional elementary ritual requirement, in admission to the lower planes initiations, for the society, shall be prescribed, by the General, that Preside on the Court Business of that Plane, subject to the approval, of the 'Supreme General' of the Court of Seraphim.

[5] TENENTS:

I. We are the head, not the tail.

II. We are lenders to nations, not borrowers.

 

[6] PLANES:

I. Seraphim – 7^th Plane

II. Cherubim – 6^th Plane

III. Thrones – 5^th Plane

IV. Dominions – 4^th Plane

V. Archangels – 3^rd Plane

VI. Virtues – 2^nd Plane

VII. Principalities – 1^st Plane

 

[7A] INITIATION:

For an admission into the fraternity, the requirement, is to accept the procedure of ritual initiation of the soul and mind purification, as outlined below;

“3 Days fasting of (24hrs period for each day), with each day fasting, closed with fruits and water, under special administered prayers and psalmists readings, within certain hours of the day and night, under supervision, guidance and Prophetic Instructions, with abstinence from any form of sexual engagement, and alcoholic beverages, in the period of initiation. 

[7B] THE PREPARATORY STAGE:

I.                   ICS-1^st Degree; The Mental orientation, Spiritual 'Faculty' preparations and Laws.

II.                ICS -2^nd Degree; The Power of Execution, Ethics, and Sui generis in Professional service discharge.

III.             ICS-3^rd Degree;  The Final Initiation rites, Vows and Induction.

[7C] RULES GOVERNING THE INITIATED:

I. No initiated member, is accessible to opposing initiated order.

II.  Members expressing interest into a new order, will always consult the ‘Supreme General’ for approval, in the interest of their spiritual protection.

III. A spiritual undertaken by a member, outside the order, puzzled with ramifications, could engage the Supreme General, for clarity, prior to, in avoiding unexpected consequence. 

[7D] PERMANENT RELIEVE AS AN INITIATED MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY

 Any initiated member of the order, is granted access to personal Psalmist number, unique to thy soul, as a code for Private Prayers and meditation, which the 'Supreme General', has it documented on his data-base, hence, member seeking for a permanent relieve from the society, the initiated member, therein, pray with it, under a (12) hours dry fasting, and the request, shall be granted.

[8] PLANE TRANSITIONS:

I. For, the initiated and the adept of the society, to rise from the 1^st Plane to the 2^nd Plane, shall depend largely on the quality of one service to his/her family (if any), herein constituted marriage, the community of volunteering service, and by extension to the society as a whole; and commitment to follow, the body of philosophy and principles of the order, which may take not less than (24) months of supervision, under the Council of Virtues.

II. To transition from the 2^nd Plane to the other Higher Planes, shall be based on, one quality of scholarly works, and moral discipline. Which, such promotions shall never take less than (12) months, of indirect performance assessment, and a recommendation of a fellow, from a succeeding Higher Plane, under a formal application, with majority supporting vote of that Plane, which the adept aspire to be, and finally, under the approval of the 'Supreme General', who superintend over all the operations of the Society.

[9] EXERCISING OF POWER:

       I.  A Plane, as a chapter, shall only be constituted, only if, it has not less than (5) qualified members.

[10] FRATERNITY PHILOSOPHY:

 I. The Journey of Intellectualism, is a process that requires time for maturity, passion for resilience, and curiosity for innovation, in favour of human civilization, hence, we are the altar upon which, the selected few, are nurtured into Ancient wisdom.

[11] SUPREME GENERAL:

In the  existence of the Society, the Presiding Supreme General of all the Planes, shall be a single qualified, and a Seraphim Court crowned ‘Lord’ of Life-time, with the title ‘Supreme General’, who oversee the entire management of the Intellectual Creed Society, until, his demise or subject to reasons, sought to be relieved and replaced.

[12] QUALIFICATION TO THE COUNCIL OF DOMINIONS   

I.    In admission to the Council of Dominion, one should be a doctoral fellow, with a specialized field of study, and publication(s) that attest the depth of knowledge, and significant impact to the society, for the advancement of human civilization.

II. One should meet all the basic initiation and ritual requirements of the Council of Archangels.

III. One should have a historic records of being with the Society, for at least two (2) years, committed to it body of philosophical principles and traditions.

 

 [13A] QUALIFICATION TO THE COUNCIL OF THRONES :

 [A] Acknowledging the strength of the fraternity at the Council of Thrones, to be qualified and conferred upon, the fellowship of Thrones, and it powers. The following shall be the qualification criteria;

I. The adept, should be among the leading scholars of his/her field, with at least one (1) outstanding book published.

II. Not less than (5) academic impacts papers published, in the field of study. 

III. A lead Intellectual advocate, and consultant, in the field of study.

IV. A man or a woman of high moral standard, and spirit of nobility

V. One should be a professorial fellow 

[14A] QUALIFICATION TO THE COURT OF CHERUBIN:

 [A] The highest and the sixth Plane of the fraternity, shall be, the Court of Cherubins, and to be admitted, is to meet the following criteria;

I. One should have been in a good standing at the Council of Thrones, not less than (5) years of services.

II. One should have not less than (3) quality books published, in thy field of expertise.

III. Not less than (10) quality academic papers, published to thy credit.

IV. A person of high Social standing of nobility, and an intellectual advocate of thy field.

V. And recommended by a fellow at the Court of Cherubins and endorsed, accordingly.

[15A]  QUALIFICATION TO THE COURT OF SERAPHIM:

[A] Shall be the final Plane of the fraternity, and it admission, will require a properly constituted ‘Supreme General’, to that office, which shall always be by revelation or prophecy, attested by seven other fellows of Cherubin Court, who swear an oath, to the sincerity of their 'staff of office', with the Heaven and Earth bearing witness, such that, contrary to their oath of attestation, shall  pave a consequence of death, as atonement, to the sanctity of that office, including the 'Supreme General' himself, in committing a sin, to conspire in desecrating the office. Whenceforth, under the covenant, becomes the Trustees of the office, for it sanctity of administration.

[15B] When the ‘Supreme General’ is rightfully constituted to his office, the Seraphim Court, he, shall in a minimum period of (70) days, and a maximum of (140) days, constitute five member committee, to set-up the Seraphim Court, in administering the Business of the Planes, in accordance to the constitution, and traditions of the Society.

[15C] The Altar of the Court of the ‘Supreme General’, is required to have four cardinal poles, as in the North, South, East and West. And, any qualified ‘Supreme General’, worthy of that office, with his loyalty to the Higher Order of Most Reverence names of the Heavens, twelve of those names as outlined, and manifested to him, to design and constitute the Altar, as follows; The God of Elohim, The God of Adonai, The God of Mekaddishkem,  The God of Immanuel, The God of  Rohi, The God of Ropheka, The God of Yireh, The God of Nissi, The God of Tetragrammaton, The God of Shalom, The God of Tsidkenu. Subsequently, the General shall experience the manifestation of the authorized Angles, that rule over the North Pole, The South Pole, The East Pole and the West Pole, herein,  Angle Uriel- Tetragramaton,  Angle Sariel- Ropheka, Angle Haniel-Adonai, Angle Raphael-Yireh, Angle Raguel-Elohim in that order; and Angle Gabriel, the superintending ark-lord of the Court of Tsidkenu, in conformity to the rules governing their space and services to humanity, to advance civilization within the light years, of a given dispensation, with the Altar of the General, serving as a point of covenant engagement. Having their allegiance fixed to the Central Throne of the heavens, in all of their undertakings with the General. When successful at that stage of engagement, they shall then manifest themselves, by the authority of their names and 'rod', staffs’ or 'snipers', as well, spiritans in their constituted host of Angelic Courts, which they preside upon, and their ministry, to complement the office of the ‘Supreme General’ in serving humanity, and advancing civilization.

[16A] CEREMONIAL CONVOCATION:

 [A] As an order, we shall publicly congregate for our works, in accorded festive programs, to promote the contribution of our scholarly body of works, as impact to humanity, and society as a whole. Which will be a festive, accessible to all initiated members, appearing under the following costume colours;

I. The ‘Supreme General’ and his Seraphim Court- Convocate with a Blue-Black Gown and white scarlet robe

II. Cherubin Court - Red-Black Gowns with white scarlet robe

III. Throne Council - Yellow-Black Gowns with white scarlet robe

IV. Dominion Council - Pale Ash Gowns with white scarlet robe

[16B] The rest of the Ranking members shall be required to put-on, a formal dressing code, in a corporate colour of the fraternity, in accordance to the agreed material texture designs, and colours as follows;

V. Archangels Council - Corporate Dress in Pale (Light) Blue Colour

VI. Virtues Council- Corporate Dress in Pale (Light) Red Colour

VII.  Principalities Council - Corporate Dress in (Deep) Red Colour

[17] BENEFIT OF THE ORDER AND TO THE OPEN SOCIETY:

 I. The effort, is to defend and protect membership welfare, in the open society, in all works of life, predominantly, in the area of Socio-economic, Law, Politics and Business.

II. We nurture the ‘selected’ to become great leaders, in their field of study, and practices to the open society, to advance civilization.

III. Grants support, are offered to members qualified, worthy to attain, the superior course of the creed.

IV. We recruit where necessary, University graduates, with exceptional intellectual talents, having discipline and moral conducts, to be sponsored, and nurtured, to the higher order of the fraternity, to advance the course of human civilization.

V.  Members are entitled to their political interest and affinity in the open society, but the Intellectual Creed Society is apolitical in practice, and in principle.

[18A] THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

[A] This Unit, is assigned with a special duty, to discharge all punishments, in accordance to the rules, procedures, and spiritual guidance of the creed, against fellows, who engages in acts, considered as, sin or desecration to the fellowship of the order, adjudicated under the staff of justice, principle and fairness.

I.  Any actions, and deeds of a fellow, that brings disrepute and public dishonour to the order.

II. Upholding a questionable moral character, that bring disrespect to the candidate(s), and the society as a whole.

III. An allegation(s), and indictment(s) against a fellow, shall be subjected to, rigour investigation(s), to be presided, and adjudicated by a tribunal, and pass verdict, to determine the disciplinary punishment, within the order. Beyond the Order, shall such cases, be tried by appropriate governmental Institutions of mandate; which, the Order shall conform, in accordance, to the constitutional requirement, of the Jurisdiction.

 

SIR. EDWARD COKE, MAGNA CARTA AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

 The English history circa 10^th to 14^th Century AD, is culminated with series of civil wars, and knight crusaders. The inquiry into the era of Norman-Angevin to Plantagenet dynasty, gave birth to the signing of the Magna carta. The refinement of text to the Magna carta, for certain right and liberties, through series of negotiations, with then existing English Monarch, the Subject, and the Roman Church, from the year (1215) to (1225); formulated a charter that will become a symbol, and a defense, during a battle of oppression, between the governed and the governor. And, in the year (1628), the rivalry that was emerging between the English Monarch and the Subject, set-out the doctrinal tone of the Magna carta, to give birth to the ‘Habeas Corpus’ Act, and the ‘Petition of Right’ in the English Common law, as an initiated efforts of Sir. Edward Coke.

Thou, is the rise of an ardent advocate, for the right of Englishmen, and Judicial Independence, under a ferocious Monarchy, with strings of conspired attacks, on the grounds of Royal prerogative, against the efforts of Sir. Edward Coke. And in the detest of King James I of England, recognized him, as the father of the 'Common law'.

Who then is Edward Coke? He was born in 1^st February 1552 in Mileham, Mid Norfolk, to a prosperous Barrister, and a Bencher of Lincoln’s inn, Mr. Robert Coke, and to a Mother, Winifred Knightley. Edward Coke, early Education at the age of 8years, started at Norwich Free Grammar School, established by Herbert de Losinga, Bishop of Norwich. In his 15^th birthday, in the year 1567, he was successfully admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge. And spent 3years of his academic study there. Onwards, in the year 1571, out of Trinity College, got himself admitted to Clifford’s inn and Inns of Chancery, to learn the basics of the law, as initial legal education, before transfer to the inns of Court.  And finally, on the 24^th April 1572, at the age of 20 years, having completed his basic legal education, was further transferred to the Inner Temple, which initiated his second phase of legal education for the next 6 to 7years, and called to bar as a barrister at law, in the year 1579 at his 28^th birthday.

His legal talent in handling notable cases, earned him a political favour, to be elected and serve as Solicitor General, which was later followed with another promotion to the office of Attorney General, under the appointment of Queen Elizabeth I, at the year 1594 in his 42^nd birthday. His prosecutorial skill and success, resulted, in his further promotion by the succeeding King of England, after the death of Queen Elizabeth the first, King James I, to the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in the year 1606, at his 54^th birthday, as well knighted by the King. In assumption to that office, he uphold the pledge of exalting and protecting the Right of the Englishmen, and importantly, the wrong application of the law at the Ecclesiastical Court, established by the Monarch, with nearly unlimited power, used in a form of coercion, persecution, and forcible self-incrimination in religious trials, during his era. Barrister Nicholas Fuller, a victim, was in the custody for contempt of that Ecclesiastical Court, of English realm, as the Court of High Commission, which Edward Coke defined the suits running in that Court, as Notorious suits, and went ahead to issue a writs of Prohibition against the Bishop Richard Bancroft, who was leading that Court, and summoned them before the Court of King’s Bench, with Coke arguing that Ecclesiastical Courts jurisdiction, was limited to cases of Church Administrative breaches, beyond, was to be left for Common law Judges, carefully trained, to interpret the law.

 In his brief for the case of Prohibition, reminded the King James I, in his own person, cannot adjudge any case, either criminal or civil, but ought to be determined, and adjudged in a Court of Justice, accorded to the law and custom of England. And the Monarch, was not subject to any individual, but to the laws of the land.

In the year 1613 at the age of 61years, Sir. Edward Coke, the Chief Justice for the Court of Common Pleas, dedicating all his efforts and services, in protecting the Rights of the people in England, was transferred to the Court of King’s Bench, in this instance, with the expectation of loyalty to the Monarch, than to the Common law, but the stance, of Sir. Edward Coke was an entrenched principle, and went ahead to remind King James the first, and I quote him ‘With all pleading cases before me, I shall do what be fit a Judge to do.’

Onwards, necessitated an unrest fume between Sir. Edward Coke, and the Royal Court, until the demise of King James I, in the year 1625, and the successor, was his son, King Charles I of England. In his reign, were series of Monarchy repressions, through the raising of taxes without Parliament approval or sanctions, and imprisonment without trials, which the Judges of the Court of Common pleas, and the King’s Bench declared, the actions of the King, as illegal, as a result went ahead to dismiss his appointed Chief Justice Sir. Rannlph Crewe of the Court of Common Pleas. And proceeded, to use the Martial law, for the continual imprisonment, against those who disregard the King’s order, for tax payment, thereby, relying on the soldiers of his realm, to intimidate the citizens.

Therein, the emergence of Sir. Edward Coke, in his famous declaration through a writs, and I quote, ‘In the house of an Englishman, is to him a Castle’. And went ahead in a spirit of the House of Commons, to respond to the actions of King Charles I, insisting the validity of the Magna carta, which expressly forbade the Imprisonment of freemen, without a trial, and in the clause 39 of the 1215 Charter of the Magna carta, subjecting the sovereign to the law. And went ahead to prepare the Resolutions, which led to the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, with a section of the Resolutions captured as follows;

‘No freeman, is to be remanded or detained in prison, or otherwise restrained by command of the King or Privy Council, or any other, unless some lawful cause be shown.’ And went ahead to argue,

‘the writ of habeas corpus cannot be denied, but should be granted to every man, who is remanded or detained in prison or otherwise restrained by the command of the King, the Privy Council or any other…Any freeman, so remanded or detained in prison, without cause being stated, should be entitled to bail or be freed.’

Sir. Edward Coke, reminded the King, Imprisonment in law, is a civil death, and a prison without a prefixed time, is a kind of hell.

King Charles the first, recalcitrant to the Resolutions from Sir. Edward Coke, through the House of Commons, resulted in the initiating of the ‘Petition of Right’ in a writ, for the Rights and Liberties of Royal Subjects, which became codified as Parliamentary privilege, with a section captured as follows, and I quote ‘the ultimate sovereign, lay with the common-law, not merely, was this superior to the civil or cannon law, but both the Parliament and the King, were subject to it authority’.

Furthermore, in reiteration to Sir. Edward Coke dissent, as then, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common pleas in England, during a declaration by the Court on Dr. Bonham’s case in the year 1610, Which, I quote, ‘When an Act of Parliament is against Common Right and Reason, or Repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common law will control it, and adjudge such Act to be void’.

And became a tradition uphold by the Court, and carefully expounded by Sir. William Blackstone, in pursuit of the law as a shield, to protect the Right and Freedom of the Englishmen, and I quote him ‘Parliament was a sovereign law-maker, preventing the Common law Courts from not only throwing aside her mandatory works, rather, to review the statutes in a fashion Edward Coke suggested.’

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir. Edward Coke Photo © Gilbert Jackson 1615, Guildhall Art Gallery, UK.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, DBA, Ph.D., SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, fellow, University of Sierra Leone. Fulbright Research Fellow, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, USA.