What is lawful rebellion? (Or being a ‘freeman/woman’ on the land)
Here, Nancy Baron-Shaw gives a little basic background to it.
(Please note this is not comprehensive it’s just a rough guide)
In the year 1215 the first of our constitutional rights were set down on paper, it was called the Magna Carta, this was basically an oath from the crown (King or Queen) to uphold the rights of the people set down in it, and to look after the people’s best interests. In return for the crown’s promise to the people, they in turn agreed to be ruled by the crown, so it was a contract between crown and people, and it became the law. The crown had a duty to uphold those rights and the Common Law, as did the people, not to cause death, harm, loss or injury to another, nor to be fraudulent in their contracts (in other words be honest and true).
In the year 1689 the Bill of Rights was set down on paper; this endorsed all the rights given in the Magna Carta, plus a few more, both documents containing our UK Common Law, written down and continuing to form our Law.
These two documents are the fundamental parts of our UK constitution, yes, we do, actually, have one. Though many may claim that the UK has no written constitution, this is not true. We have the most respected constitution in the world, which also forms the basis of the constitutions of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.
Rather than being one written document we have several that make up the UK constitution, the primary one being the Magna Carta, plus the 1689 Bill of Rights. (the freeman movement in Canada seems to be gaining respect from some Canadian policemen).
Parts of both the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights state that they cannot be repealed because they are such well-made laws and rights!
Lord Justice Laws stated, on 18th February 2002:
“The special status of constitutional statute follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, and, also the Bill of Rights 1689…Ordinary statutes may, by implication, be repealed. Constitutional statutes may not….”
Now, our ancestors were not daft, they knew there may be a problem one day, if the ‘crown’ became unjust, or turned into some sort of dictatorship, or if parliament were to act against the interests and wellbeing of the people, or become full of corruption, or not allow the crown to keep its oath.
In Article 61 of the Magna Carta it was written that, if this ever happened, citizens could petition the crown to sort out the problem (crown’s or parliament’s – if it was them), following which petition, the crown had 40 days to either fix the problem – or dissolve parliament.
If, in those 40 days, nothing was resolved, the petitioner could then lawfully go into rebellion against both the crown and parliament, until such a time as the situation was resolved.
Because this is lawful, and the petitioner has the right to do it, he goes into “lawful rebellion”, at that point in time he no longer has allegiance to either crown or parliament, since they have become corrupt. He now becomes a hindrance and a rebel, fighting to end the corruption or injustice within the system. It is law that he can do this, and he is, actually, obeying the law by doing so, because it is the people’s duty to fight corruption and uphold the law.
So that’s the basics of it. Because our constitution can’t be repealed it is still valid law.
Now, to do this today, you must first send an affidavit (a sworn oath of truth, the most powerful lawful and legal document you can get) to our Queen, stating that the crown or in this case our government (and its MPs acting for the crown) is breaking the constitutional contract (and they really are breaking it), and demand it be fixed within 40 days. This affidavit must be witnessed, counter signed and sealed by a credible witness (Nancy Baron-Shaw used a solicitor).
This is then sent to the queen, and, if within 40 days the problem is not fixed, a second affidavit is then sent, this time declaring that the problem is not resolved, and therefore the crown (or the government acting for the crown) has broken the contract with the people, and you are therefore no longer going to obey or be ruled by a corrupt crown or government, putting you in a state of lawful rebellion.
Contrary to what any government official may like tell you, this is a lawful action, and it is a binding oath sworn before God (and the witness), it is my right, it is your right, everyone’s right, to do this, but only if there is a genuine breach of the contract.
The powers that be want us to believe that we have no constitution – that in anything we may be planning to do is based on a law which has long since been repealed, or 90% of it.
It’s in their interests to have you believe this, so they can get away with anything they want to do, without the people stopping them.
As you can see from the statement by Lord Justice Laws, it is our constitution and it cannot simply be scrapped by any parliament, not by our self-serving politicians; it remains a valid law to this day, no matter what our politicians say, they have never ever had the right to repeal any of it.
An example of one of the actual breaches we are using for entering lawful rebellion is – corruption in parliament and our government – we all know this is happening, It’s not just the one party, its all of them. There are 650 incumbents – 164 of them are on the Sex Offenders List, for a start.
The fact is that both past and present governments have acquiesced in allowing foreign powers (the European Union) to rule over us. The EU is a hugely corrupt system, and it is not working in anyone’s best interests except for the EU politicians themselves and the weighty business associates supporting them. The EU is nothing but a dictatorship, being run by un-elected leaders – look into it, and you will see that this is the true situation.
When, in 1992, the Tory government, led by John Major, signed the ‘Maastricht’ Treaty, handing over British sovereignty to the EU, they were committing treason!
This is 100% true, they really have committed treason, (take a look at the UKIP website for some very interesting facts and figures. It is beyond belief what the EU gets up to (and I’m just citing UKIP – as they have collected a lot of factual information, not that they are the exception to any other party).
The EU is our people’s greatest enemy, but second to that, our present government and most of the mainstream parties are equally culpable. I know that the police and the Courts are supposed to be non-political, (did you know that both are today registered as ‘limited companies’ in the UK?) but we all have the right to freedom of thought and I am sure you must realize what a corrupt ‘leadership’ we currently have?
When our government does something wrong, they just pretend they haven’t done it, and, if it gets to be too hot a subject, they simply stick a gagging order on it! .
Lawful and Legal What’s The Difference?
There’s a lot of talk on the freeman sites (and other sites) about being ‘lawful and legal’ and discussing the difference between the two, but as there’s not much in the way of a basic guide, it becomes confusing; some will know the difference but for those who don’t here we go. Basically, anything in our constitution including common law is lawful (true law).
Any subsequent ‘Acts’ that parliaments may have subsequently passed are ‘legal’, these will be in the form of acts or statute laws, these “legal” acts should never contradict common law nor what is in our constitution, some of them do, but we won’t go into that here.
We therefore still have, even today, a system in place, extant for over 800 years, that can neither be challenged nor changed (common law and our constitution), therefore should any parliament wish to pass new ‘legal’ Acts, it is bound, by definition, to find a way of making that Act enforceable, whilst still honouring the constitution.
Now, the Royal Navy had already used a legal system called ‘Admiral Law’ to keep its sailors in check and to make sure that officers and navy rules were obeyed. All navy members swear an oath to obey it etc, it becomes a legal contract and so it is enforceable. It applies only on ships and within the navy, but it works well. Because it pre-dated the establishing of ‘parliament’, it was adopted (or a version of it), and thus parliament has since worked using that system to introduce new “legal” statutes.
For the system to work, the people had to accept that it was lawful – and, perhaps since the common man did not know any different, it was simply taken as being right and was obeyed – yet none of the general public (naval personnel excepted) has ever sworn any oath to either parliament or crown, so there is no binding contract between legal acts or statutes and the people, rather we have been duped into obeying them.
A statute or act is in legal terms defined as “an act given the force of law by the consent of the governed”, note it says consent, so if you don’t consent to it and there is no contract between yourself and the other party, then it does not become ‘legal’.
So now you see why freemen (and those claiming to be freemen) may say
“I do not consent, and there is no contract between us, I have broken no law”
when the police are going to arrest them or make them obey an act or statute legislation
An excellent summary of the actual legal position of the common man/woman with regard to the Constitution. Used by kind permission of the writer – Nancy Baron-Shaw
Recommended reading – ‘A Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution’ – Albert Burgess