It is not my intention to to offend, anger or upset anybody, especially given that fact I admire and respect the efforts of certain people concerned and affected by the subject matter of this article. However, it is highly likely that I will, nonetheless, upset some delicate sensibilities by stating nothing more than I have expounded for the past six years, to just a handful of people who were ready to listen; whilst others will naturally affirm my findings, having already identified for themselves the inherent problems of trusting that strangers are telling the truth, rather than deceiving themselves or others, whether knowingly or not.
What is “Lawful Rebellion”?
Lawful Rebellion; oxymoron; a contradiction in terms that is often used to describe a 21st century movement which relies upon Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 for its foundation, yet it does not appear to have existed as a concept prior to a sudden explosion of interest in it on certain internet forums between 2008 and 2011.
It is fair to say that all those who claim to have entered “Lawful Rebellion” and/or granted their “allegiance to the barons” in the form of sworn affidavits, which were either sent to the queen or her government ministers or both, are entirely reliant upon the veracity of the following interpretation of the English common law:
Under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, it is perfectly lawful to rebel against the unjust laws of a tyrannical government.
Unfortunately for all purportedly lawful rebels, Article 61 was concerned with the right to distrain and distress the English monarch, king John, as was forcefully demanded in the summer of 1215 by other aristocratic men, whose Northern ancestors were allocated lands and resources stolen from the indigenous people of these islands in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, collectively known as “the barons”.
Under extreme duress at the sharp end of a deadly blade, the illegitimate king John, who had previously claimed the throne in a coup d’etat whilst his brother Richard was slaughtering Muslims for the Holy Roman Church in the Third Crusade, before inheriting it upon his bother’s actual demise in 1199, reluctantly made a solemn oath and agreed the following terms:
Since, moreover, we have conceded all the above things (from reverence) for God, for the reform of our kingdom and the better quieting of the discord that has sprung up between us and our barons, and since we wish these things to flourish unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we constitute and concede to them the following guarantee:- namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and secure the observance of the peace and rights which we have conceded and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours; in this manner, that if we or our chief Justiciar or our bailiffs or any of our servants in any way do wrong to anyone, or transgress any of the articles of peace or security, and the wrong doing has been demonstrated to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us or our chief Justiciar, (if we are out of the kingdom), and laying before us the grievance, shall ask that we will have it redressed without delay. And if we, or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom) do not redress the grievance within forty days of the time when it was brought to the notice of us or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom), the aforesaid four barons shall refer the case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons with the whole community of the land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely by taking of castles, estates and possessions, and in such other ways as they can, excepting (attack on) our person and those of our queen and of our children until, in their judgment, satisfaction has been secured; and when satisfaction has been secured let them behave towards us as they did before. And let anyone in the country who wishes to do so take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons in the execution of all the aforesaid matters and with them to oppress us to the best of his ability, and we publicly and freely give permission for the taking the oath to anyone who wishes to take it, and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it.
Whether their cause was legitimate or not, the list of names immortalised as parties and witnesses to Magna Carta 1215 amply demonstrates that it was most certainly an unlawful rebel alliance of barons, bishops and abbots, who coerced the king at knife-point to seal, under oath, the resulting unlawful agreement, in an effort to usurp John’s autocracy to their advantage, to reclaim lands they never had the right to claim as their own [which had been re-stolen by the king’s men to raise money to pay for fruitless wars with France]; and to protect themselves from criminal prosecution for capital acts committed against John and his off-and-on papal lord, who was far from Innocent, despite his given name.
Why did the barons force John to seal an agreement under oath which neither side was willing to keep?
In the event one widens one’s research far enough, it is possible to identify that the covert aim of the barons was most likely to impose conditions upon John which all the parties present at Runnymede knew the king would never adhere to, except under force and duress, in order to ultimately depose him of his despotic power and stolen wealth, by raising an army large enough to annihilate his depleted retinue [the most treacherous crime a vassal can commit in any feudal system of government].
The 1215 document contained a large section that is now called clause 61 (the original document was not actually divided into clauses). This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary. This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch.
Distrust between the two sides was overwhelming. What the barons really sought was the overthrow of the King; the demand for a charter was a “mere subterfuge”. Clause 61 was a serious challenge to John’s authority as a ruling monarch. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London; Pope Innocent III also annulled the “shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear.” He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John’s dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church’s authority over the King and the ‘papal territories’ of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it. The rebels knew that King John could never be restrained by Magna Carta and so they sought a new King.
England was plunged into a civil war, known as the First Barons’ War. With the failure of Magna Carta to achieve peace or restrain John, the barons reverted to the more traditional type of rebellion by trying to replace the monarch they disliked with an alternative. In a measure of some desperation, despite the tenuousness of his claim and despite the fact that he was French, they offered the crown of England to Prince Louis of France.
As a means of preventing war the Magna Carta was a failure, rejected by most of the barons, and was legally valid for no more than three months. It was the death of King John in 1216 which secured the future of Magna Carta.
On the ground of coercion alone, Magna Carta 1215 must be deemed a nullity from the outset, in the obvious absence of a voluntary meeting of the minds between John and the barons; and its void execution resulted in declarations to that effect being made by John [upon the departure from London of the barons] and then pope Innocent III in 1216 [who also rescinded his previous ex-communication of John from the Holy Roman Church, in return for the king’s renewed declaration of fealty]. None of these men had a legitimate claim to the lands and resources of the British Isles, or to the subjection of its population, but both pope and king laid claim to ownership of it all.
In other words, none of the parties to Magna Carta 1215, or the party who purported to annul it by papal decree, were representing the interests of the people of these islands, who were once again plunged into war by the actions of aristocratic criminals who had already stolen the means of self-sufficient subsistence from them, thereby causing widespread poverty and hardship.
It is well known that in such circumstances men will take up arms against their common enemy and risk their lives in so doing, but only when such allegiance puts food on the table for their families and there are no other options available. To accomplish their aim, the barons therefore required a sum of money which was way beyond their means, in order to successfully conscript a force of men to be reckoned with on the battlefield.
The barons almost certainly used their demand for the “Great Charter” as a means to attract the support of the people in a civil war they knew to be inevitable because they were fomenting it. This public support was compounded by growing hatred for the notoriously treacherous king John, who looted all the wealth he could by employing private mercenaries [still known as Sheriffs] to steal all the property of anybody who failed to pay the heavy taxes he imposed upon them, in order to recoup the financial losses he had incurred during his unsuccessful wars with France. It was only when this policy encroached upon the property and rights of the merchant classes that the barons raised any form of opposition to it.
When a Charter of Liberties was issued in 1216, it was an attempt by those loyal to Henry [the nine year old king of England, who replaced his deceased father on the throne, at a time when England was largely under the control of Prince Louis of France], to undermine an armed rebellion by the Louis-backed barons, who sought to replace one usurping line of illegitimate kings with another; and for such purposes, Article 61 was omitted from the charter issued in Henry’s name, never to be seen again in any of the subsequent versions that were affirmed by other English monarchs; whilst the pope’s legate declared the boy-king’s war with the barons to be a holy one, thereby purporting to make martyrs out of every man who laid down his life in defence of the ill-gotten gains of church and state. Sound familiar?
King John’s nine-year-old son Henry was crowned King of England in Gloucester Abbey, though much of England lay under the usurper Prince Louis. The papal legate Guala Bicchieri declared the struggle against Louis and the Barons a holy war, and the loyalists led by William Marshal rallied around the new King. Earl Ranulf of Chester left the Regency to Marshall. Marshall and Guala issued a Charter of Liberties, based on the Runnymede Charter, in the King’s name on 12 November 1216 as a Royal concession, in an attempt to undermine the rebels.
The Charter differed from that of 1215 in only having 42 as compared to 61 clauses; most notably the infamous article 61 of the Runnymede Charter was removed. The Charter was also issued separately for Ireland.
Source for historical references: EnAcademic.com
Whilst these historical facts are damning enough, the very drafting of Article 61 was nevertheless a prima facie attempt by the barons to legislate for their rebellion against the monarchy, which is defined thus in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:
REBELLION, crim. law. The taking up of arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
Rebellion against unjust laws enacted by the monarch is, therefore, necessarily incapable, under any circumstances, of being deemed lawful under English common law, which Bouvier’s is an eloquent expression of, notwithstanding the fact that the book is primarily concerned with the laws of the United States.
LAWFUL. That which is not forbidden by law. Id omne licitum est, quod non est legibus prohibitum, quamobrem, quod, lege permittente, fit, poenam non meretur. To be valid a contract must be lawful.
REBEL. A citizen or subject who unjustly and unlawfully takes up arms against the constituted authorities of the nation, to deprive them of the supreme power, either by resisting their lawful and constitutional orders, in some particular matter, or to impose on them conditions. Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, §328. In another sense it signifies a refusal to obey a superior, or the commands of a court. Vide Commission of Rebellion.
Source for legal definitions: Bouviers Law Dictionary
It is, in other words, a lawful impossibility to legislate for rebels to resist the established laws of a tyrannical state within the parameters of those laws, as the barons, perhaps knowingly, attempted in vain to do by drawing up the first charter in 1215, none of which was subsequently considered to have legal effect by the majority of them, upon their departure from London.
Given these well-documented historical facts and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, “Lawful Rebellion” can only reasonably be considered an oxymoron, suitably disguised as a remedy prescribed by law, more than likely propagated by the secret intelligence services, and which too many good, honest and intelligent people have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.
If I were one of your number, which could conceivably be in the region of ten thousand people or more, I would be demanding that its still very vocal proponents deliver an unreserved public apology, having spent the best part of at least the last six years promoting “Lawful Rebellion” as the only remedy worth pursuing, when it is founded upon an entirely erroneous concept.
Whilst those of us who have been advocating the voluntary association of self-governed individuals under natural law have been almost entirely ignored by the very same people, more than likely because we also dismiss all forms of democratic collectivist government as tyrannical in nature – mob-rule by another name.
However, in the most simplistic of terms and for the eradication of doubt:
Just as a citizen-subject-taxslave cannot be sovereign, rebellion, by its very definition, cannot be lawful; and there is absolutely nothing in English Common Law which even substantiates the existence of “Lawful Rebellion” as a concept, let alone a remedy, whether under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 or otherwise.
Anybody not working for the secret intelligence services who tells you anything else is almost certainly relying upon the research of people who haven’t actually researched this subject properly. Either way, their judgment cannot be trusted if they reject the unequivocal points made in this article, to which there is no sustainable rebuttal, as just a modicum of research without prejudice will illuminate for those who actually seek the truth of the matter, rather than information which supports pre-conceived and inherently false rhetoric.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that justice is virtually unobtainable in her majesty’s courts, to all people who seek to obtain it using the traditional methods, but even in the highest court of conscience, “Lawful Rebellion” would be dismissed as a dangerous urban myth at best and a soul-destroying psy-op at worst; whereas, the self-determination of the individual is an unalienable birthright, which does not rely upon any man-made laws for its validity, as myself and others have been arguing since the Autumn of 2008.
How different the current situation we face on these islands might have been, had ten thousand British people revoked their consent to be governed by any external authority, declared sovereign independence and joined a voluntary association of anarcho-nations, instead of swearing allegiance to the self-serving lineage of the moneyed aristocracy, under a repealed article of a nullity at law. A less effective remedy than “Lawful Rebellion” is hardly even imaginable.
Perhaps this was the purpose of a secret intelligence operation all along – to convince capable people who are rebelliously predisposed to take the path of least resistance to the foreign occupation of these lands by unaccountable genocidal technocrats; in order that the final part of the Treaty of Nice was ratified on November the 1st 2014, without any obvious opposition from the inhabitants of these islands.
Despite this depressing tale of dastardly deceptions, shattered hopes and acts of gross futility, a powerfully potent precedent was nevertheless set by a Sovereign Grand Jury of indigenous British people, 21 days before the ratification date, in the form of two sealed declarations which pose the most serious legal challenge to EU hegemony since the creation of the European Economic Community in 1957.
It will of course never be too late for the people of these islands to put aside their differences and unite to End Genocide Now, which I humbly urge each and every one of you, free man, sovereign, citizen and rebel, to help facilitate at the earliest opportunity. Our children’s future depends upon it.
Subscribe, Support & Share