Magna Carta 1215, Article 61
Lawful Rebellion
Rebellion in itself has a number of different meanings and is in fact
quite close to another word that seems to be on everyone’s lips;
Revolution. Defined meaning of Rebellion; Refusal to accept some
authority or code or convention. An act or show of defiance toward an
authority or established government. Defined meaning of Lawful; Being
within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent. (The lawful
refusal to conform to the authority that is unjust)
Under
article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our
Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel
we are being governed unjustly. Contrary to common belief our Sovereign
and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us and
this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the
freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this
country if it falls outside of this simple constraint.
Article
61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that
being quite simply us the people; we have Sovereignty not any Parliament
and nor can this be taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have
taken the people’s Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed by a
Parliament to remove the power the people possess, or to remove the
power from the point of constraint we invested the power in, is invalid
as it falls outside of the constraint laid down by Common/Constitutional
Law.
This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our
freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms to be removed
or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute and subsequent law or
legislation formed by these actions, that effects our freedoms asserted
to us, is quite evidently unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal.
By invoking article 61 we are quite clearly stating that we feel we are
being governed unjustly and after giving the head of state (Her
Majesty) 40 day’s to correct this, if this is not corrected, then we can
simply enter into lawful rebellion and we do this under the full
protection of our Constitutional Law.
Lawful rebellion allows
quite simply for the following recourse; Full refusal to pay any forms
of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit
said unlawful governance of this country. Full refusal to abide by any
Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said
unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.
To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government
of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined
with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom
asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61. Above are listed the
three main ways we can as a people rely upon article 61 and what this
allows for. The British people were given over 700 years ago a Law to
use as there recourse when faced with either a Parliamentary
dictatorship, or a Sovereign trying to rule by Divine Right, which
amounts to the same thing. We have a right, and a birth right at that,
to be governed properly under our birth right law and no other and
certainly not by laws introduced on the pretence of being British Law,
when in fact all laws passed since 1973 have been European laws in the
guise of British law.
We have a right to freedom within our true
law and no Parliament can remove this for they were not present in its
implementation nor did it need any Parliament, or any Parliament
involvement, this was quite simply a deal struck between the people and a
Sovereign, a deal which can never be broken.
The traitors that
reside in the Parliament of this country only fear one thing and that
quite simply is us the people and they know that they can never defend
themselves, or defend their treasonous actions, lies and deceit against
the power of the people, asserted by and given by, the founding document
of our Constitution Magna Carta 1215.
They realize, as many
others do, that once the British public grasps the power of Magna Carta
in both hands and start to use it in their defence; their game is quite
simply up. What does Magna Carta stand for? In stands for freedom, that
the people have Sovereignty that cannot be removed by anyone and it
stands for the only real true rule of law; that no one, without
exception, is above the law.
The Bill of Rights was an Act
of re-enforcement and re-statement of the Common Law of this land. The
Bill of Rights was enacted by Parliament in recognition of the
conditions contained within the Declaration of Rights its preamble
document.
Parliament itself has provided evidence of its own responsibility to uphold Common Law.
FACT! So for an example of their blatant disregard for the Common Law
of this land; the clause that says… That all Grants and Promises of
Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are
illegal and void…
Quite clearly states that all fines given
without first being tried in a court of law are void and subsequently so
are all forfeitures. So why are many people paying fixed penalty fines
and allowing forfeitures of their property before conviction? The simple
answer is you do not know your own laws and the MP’s passing these
Statutes/Acts to make you submit to this are illegally using these
Statutes and Acts to fool you.
This relates to any fixed penalty
fine given to you and any attempt to remove your property before you
have been convicted in a court of law, by a jury of your peers (equals
in status). This pertains to another clause found in Magna Carta 1215,
article… [39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of
his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his
standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him,
or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or
by the law of the land. So any court of law that denies your right to a
jury, is acting outside of its lawful duty to uphold the Common Law of
this land and this should be maintained by all those swearing the
Judicial Oath of Allegiance. Please note a jury is the most powerful
element in any court of law for they have the power to null a case and
even to go against the law if they feel the law is unjust, hence why
juries are being denied in the courts; even more evidence of the power
of the people!!
Let’s take for another example the MP’s Oath of
Allegiance and their blatant disregard for the Oaths they swore and
Parliaments conduct over the past 100 years. All Statutory and
Parliamentary Acts of law must adhere to one simple rule…all
Statutes/Acts of Parliament must only be for the strengthening and
preserving of the Common Law of this land…
Any Statute/Act of
Parliament to the contrary is not valid as proven by…. That all and
singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said
Declaration are the true ancient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of
the People of this Kingdome and so shall be esteemed allowed adjudged
deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid
shall be firmly and strictly Holden and observed as they are expressed
in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall
serve their Majesties and their Successors according to the same in all
times to come.
So all Ministers who have swore allegiance to Her
Majesty are required by Common Law and by the evidence of their sworn
oath, to maintain the format of Government in accordance with the terms
of the Coronation Oath, an Oath taken by the Queen to regulate the
Government in accordance to the laws and customs of the people
entrenched in the Common Law of this land. Any minister who breaks this
oath has removed his legitimacy to his position within Parliament by his
own actions and the evidence of his none legitimacy is in the above.
As Major and Straw have both said on past occasions…Parliament is
without the authority to require the Queen to break the terms of her
coronation oath….this, quite simply, say’s it all.
