Lawful Rebellion is a myth

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

With irritating frequency people post crap on Facebook about Article 61 of Magna Carta and “lawful rebellion”, claiming to be able to legally avoid paying taxes and operate outside the law as long as they write to the Queen to pledge their allegiance and tell her they’re lawfully rebelling against the government.

It’s bollocks.

The fundamental flaw in this lawful rebellion nonsense isn’t that the fascist state will deny people their constitutional right to rebel it’s that such a right doesn’t exist and hasn’t existed since 1297, if ever.

To understand why this lawful rebellion rubbish is … well, rubbish … you need some background. There have been four different versions of Magna Carta, each one being replaced by the next until the 1225 version was reaffirmed by decree of Edward I. There was an Article 61 in the original version of Magna Carta that was issued in 1215 but by the time Magna Carta was reissued in 1216 Article 61 had been removed. It lasted less than 12 months. Magna Carta didn’t actually end up on the statute roll until it was reaffirmed in 1297.

The lawful rebellion cranks come up with a variety of reasons why Article 61 should still be in force but they’re nonsense. A common claim is that parliament can’t repeal Magna Carta because it’s part of the Common Law. Parliament is sovereign, it can and does repeal or amend whatever it chooses whether it’s part of the Common Law or not. The universal right to trial by jury has been abolished and Habeas Corpus has been suspended by Act of Parliament several times. Whether it is considered to be part of the Common Law or not, Magna Carta became a statute in 1297 when it was entered onto the statute roll.

Another one is that Magna Carta is a treaty so it can’t be repealed by parliament. Magna Carta isn’t a treaty which is a contract entered into by sovereign states or international organisations. It was a contract under common law between the King and a group of barons signed at the point of sword. If it was a treaty – which it isn’t – then it was signed under duress and would be invalid under Articles 51 and 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Magna Carta is a statute and parliament has jurisdiction over it in the same way it has jurisdiction over Acts of the English, Scottish and (pre-Republic) Irish Parliaments, Acts of the Rump Parliament and other proclamations and statutes from before and after the civil war.

The oldest statute still on the books – the Distress Act 1267 (otherwise known as the Statute of Marlborough) – predates the British Parliament and the Rump Parliament of Cromwell’s republic yet it is still in force. It doesn’t matter whether the law was made by a King, Lord Protector, English Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Irish Parliament or British Parliament – the law is the law and parliament has jurisdiction over all laws.

To put it quite simply, there is no Article 61 of Magna Carta and rebellion is unlawful. There is no smoking constitutional gun that means you don’t have to pay taxes or fines or obey the law. There is, in fact, only one way to lawfully rebel and that is to be on the winning side so you’re the one who decides what is and isn’t lawful.

Whether you choose to believe me on this is your choice. I have nothing to gain from telling the truth – it’s not like I’m asking for donations to spread the word after all. You can carry on reading the rubbish these cranks put on their websites, try your hand at tax evasion and end up in court where you’ll try refusing to stand for the magistrate to deny him his authority because the same websites tell you that the courts are operating under admiralty law and they only have jurisdiction if you stand up for them and end up getting fined anyway because none of this stuff works. But for the love of FSM, please stop posting this crap on Facebook, starting petitions and sending round robin emails trying to find more gullible people to keep it all going!

Mass Delusion for Dummies

20 comments

  1. Arthur St Hugh (1 comments) says:

    I agree. It is always heartening to read the truth about Magna Carta.

    I would suggest that the word “believe” is the operative word here. Belief in the supposed powers of Magna Carta, or the Bill of Rights or any other piece of paper, is no different than belief in the FSM. However, no one can deny that belief can motivate people. The followers of the Mahdi charged because they believed that bullets would not harm them – in comparison then faith in ‘lawful rebellion’ seems simply pitiful.

  2. gary cheshire (1 comments) says:

    I dont believe in my natural right to freedom, i know it to be fact. Treason has been committed many time by all parties since the 1970’s .You can call lawful rebellion a myth if you choose ,but your belief doesn’t make it fact .Useful idiots everywhere .

  3. rean addy (1 comments) says:

    if an agreement, contract or charter states that clauses and articles can only be repealed or modified with the mutual consent of all parties, then according to UK law, no additional separate agreements, contracts or charters can replace the original agreement. Laws, acts and charters do not become obsolete without repeal and as none of the articles within the 1215 Magna Carta have ever been modified or repealed by any of the involved parties, the Parliament Act of 1297 becomes unlawful.

    • Sabrina Bologni (1 comments) says:

      Erm….where is your reply Mr Wankotsane!

    • Herc from Quatloos (2 comments) says:

      “as none of the articles within the 1215 Magna Carta have ever been modified or repealed by any of the involved parties, the Parliament Act of 1297 becomes unlawful”

      Utter bollocks. Parliament has the power to repeal, modify or create any law, subject only to Royal Assent. And neither Parliament or Monarch can make a ‘permanent’ law, which they or their successors cannot later repeal or modify.

      This is basic democracy. The will of the people expressed through our elected representatives.

      • Pricilla Good (4 comments) says:

        Now one can see why POLITICIAN Stuart Parr (Wonko) puts his little disclaimer at the start.. Stuart, its quite uncomfortable reading.. Stuart, truly? You are a beaten man on this, Article61 was served, LAWFULLY in 2001.. And it stands.. And a recent case from your own estate Brookside can prove this.. The guys case has now mysteriously disappeared after asking Magistrates for their Oaths.. Unlawful magistrates, treasonous Magistrates. I hear the guy has now charged the local bobby PC Clayton with treason, aAND… GOT HIS CRIME REFERENCE NUMBER and he is taking the fight on..

  4. karen (3 comments) says:

    “”they write to the Queen to pledge their allegiance””… You don’t write to the Queen, dickhead.

    • Pricilla Good (4 comments) says:

      Exactly.. The Monarch was written to though, oh yes, of course she was, exactly why CLUASE.61 was petitioned upon the Monarch.. SERVED Madam. 🙂

  5. cmac (1 comments) says:

    The 3 top judges who done a mock trial off the barons in October 2015 found that the barons of 1215 where lawfull in there actions

    • wonkotsane (1130 comments) says:

      Nothing at all to do with this mythical lawful rebellion. In their mock trial they concluded that the barons hadn’t committed unlawful treason in 1215 because the King’s actions were unjust. They didn’t rule that there is a constitutional right to lawful rebellion in the same way that acquitting someone of murder because of diminished responsibility doesn’t make murder legal.

      • Nyceim (1 comments) says:

        A house slave will always defend his right to wash and clasp the testicles of his master, so to earn the respect of his master, hence the reason why they bend knee and clasp hands together to testify. No one needs to have permission for a right as a right is NOT a privilege. A right to rebel against any de facto state/government is a right because a de facto state/government is not a de jure state/government. Simple LOGIC. THEREFORE a de facto state/government does not EVER include the people. There are no public policy rules in effect that govern the people, ONLY legal persons. Now Wonkotsane perhaps you should find a clear definition, consistent with any code, act, statute, bylaw, ordinance, etc., that defines a man. YOU WONT because ALL de facto public policy can only deal in legal fictions (Bill of Middlesex – Judicature Acts 1870…etc). Magna Carta dealt with freehold titles not fictional titles. SO the Magna Carta could be used as it is a law of substance (common law pleas & Exclusive Equity)not fiction. Although you do not need any document to instill the rights (rights can only ever be taken away if you are found to be a criminal in a de jure system)already bestowed upon you as a man, you can use any de jure document that supports the right to be free from a debt based system that uses a juristic personality law of usury to tax its slaves.

        How many branches of government are there Wonkotsane?

        • wonkotsane (1130 comments) says:

          Oh god, you’re one of those. I will reiterate one of my parting comments:

          There is, in fact, only one way to lawfully rebel and that is to be on the winning side so you’re the one who decides what is and isn’t lawful.

          • Pricilla Good (4 comments) says:

            Dear Stuart. Honestly? Lets all enter into the debate.. You have made some very serious allegations in your post, which some could call and charge sedition Sir.. Kind regards

          • Pricilla Good (4 comments) says:

            And very seriously and importantly I inform you, ignorance is no excuse in law. 😉 .. so scrap your pathetic so called get out clause lol.. its embarrassing for you Stuart.

  6. Danielle (1 comments) says:

    I have used lawful rebellion succesfully, because it is lawful and that is something our ancestors have fought for. The barons lawfully invoked article 61 of the Magna Carta in 2001 for good reason, according to constitutional protocols. In their knowledge of the constitutional laws of Britain they could see there was unlawful activity within parliament. There is so much information to learn when it comes to constitutional law. Wonko you need to do a lot more research, I can see this by the half truths, opinion and misinfo you are publicising.

  7. Herc from Quatloos (2 comments) says:

    No Danielle, you haven’t “used lawful rebellion successfully” any more than you’ve flown to the moon in a bathtub. The phrase represents nothing more than a delusional Freeman/Sovereign Citizen fantasy.

    You imagine that your crappy cut & paster internet templates will make you immune from the law? Ask Tom Crawford how that worked out for him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.