Lawful Rebellion Guide v6

LAWFUL REBELLION -A guide to overcoming the Treason of government when the sovereign fails to

uphold the law

Compiled by; a lawful rebel.

Our coat of arms contains;

the red border signifying the Royal Command;

the green cross symbolizing true, peaceful Christianity;

the tablets of the Ten Commandments, representing Gods law;

the crown of a sovereign to uphold the law;

the symbol of the hand of living men, pledging allegiance to the barons'

committee as commanded in Article 61;

the Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta, bearing the Royal seal;

the multi-ethnic handshake showing that the Royal Command is to "all

those of our land", and that race makes no difference.

There was a fish that went to a Queen fish and asked;

"What is the sea?"

The Queen fish said:

"You live in the sea, you eat in the sea, you breathe in the sea, you

have your being in the sea, you were born in the sea and you're

going to die in the sea. The sea surrounds you as inseparable from

your own being."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent/

Links to this book

Word format;

https://www.facebook.com/download/1561647267442824/LAWFUL%20REBELLION%20GUID

E%20V6.0.doc

Text format;

https://www.facebook.com/download/593959377406866/Lawful%20rebellion%20guide%20v6.0.t

xt

Blog post (Always the latest version);

http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-guide.html

Printable shield designs here:

http://coffinmansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lawful-rebellion-printables.html

6th posting; 07/04/15.

Added sections; 22, 23, 24.

PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.

IF PRINTING FOR HANDOUT, JUST PRINT THE NECESSARY SECTIONS

(INTRODUCTION, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 21), or the ones you feel relevant.

DON'T FORGET TO LEAVE THE GROUP LINK IN


*There may be repetition of text found elsewhere in section 13, as it has been left complete so it may

be printed out on its own and complete.

Contents

DUE PROCESS OF LAW - an opening message

1. INTRODUCTION

2. WHAT IS OUR LAW?

2(a) what about atheists?

2(b) what about other religions?

3. WHY LAWFUL REBELLION?

4. THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND in

September 1993

5. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT BY THE MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY, WHICH PRECEDED THE

2001 BARONS' PETITION

6. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INVOKATION OF ARTICLE 61

7. THE PETITION FROM THE BARONS AND LETTERS FROM BOTH PARTIES IN FULL

8. WHO SIGNED THE PETITION?

9. INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER INTO LAWFUL REBELLION

10 ADDRESSES OF BARONS TO SEND OATHS TO

11 INVINCIBLE NOTICE TO REMOVE ANY AUTHORITY FROM POLICE, BAILIFFS OR ANY

OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR CROWN INSTITUTION

12 LAWFUL REBELLION NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR COURT DECISIONS

13 DANIELLE DELIONESS LR PROCESS AGAINST C COURT AND WESSEX WATER.

14 MAGNA CARTA 1215 ARTICLE 61

15 MAGNA CARTA 1215 FULL TEXT

16 THE CHARTER BREAKER'S CURSE

17 MAGNA CARTA QUOTES

18 LAWFUL REBELLION FACTS

(AS USED IN AFFIDAVITS)

19 ARTICLE 52 OF MAGNA CARTA 1215

20 CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS TO PARLIAMENT'S POWER

21 IS ARTICLE 61 OF THE MAGNA CARTA 1215 VALID TODAY?

22 A TREASON, WITHOUT PRECEDENT

23 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW BEFORE MAGNA CARTA

24 WHAT TO SAY IF DRAGGED INTO COURT

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

-An opening message from Danielle DeLioness Davidson, someone who has been through the fire.

Due process of law here;


Article 61; Magna Carta. This ancient law was invoked by constitutional protocols on the 23rd March

2001; it is now the supreme law of this land. Not to be underestimated, it gave the power of our

common laws back to us, and means the crown has no authority over anyone standing under article 61.

Its the origination of all our law and in reality cannot be repealed as it predates parliament.

The fact is that our government have been committing treason most importantly, drawing us into the

EU without our consent, this they knew about. It has been eroding our rights and laws ever since.

Since Article 61 was invoked its unlawful to vote and unconstitutional to vote. Its been unconstitutional to vote since 2001 as that was when Article 61 was invoked according to constitutional

protocols; however Government has been committing treason since 1911, first with the Parliament Act

which unconstitutionally took away the need for the Royal Assent. Royal Assent given to any act of

parliament meant it was in keeping with the constitution that is meant to protect our rights and

freedoms in this country and the commonwealth. Without apparently needing Royal Assent meant the

government could make up any random unlawful statute it thought it liked. The fact that this has been

going on makes all those politicians working unconstitutionally and against the law of this land.

I have used article 61 to rebut a warrant from the county court (over contempt of court), in process of my council tax, and we successfully seized our town hall. Article 61 works as it is the law. This may

sound confusing to some but its very simple, this is the lawful rebellion. If you are interested in the lawful remedy (really its your lawful duty to do so) please see this group and its files.


We need to have a peaceful lawful rebellion to restore the rule of law; there is no other way to get

justice, without the treason issue being remedied. Whilst we still have criminal courts in place we will

never see justice. Article 61 gives us lawful excuse to rebel.

There is a process and method which is honorable, lawful and peaceful which involves informing

others of the truth and evidential facts, as well as dissent. People who join the group above can find out

more there, there are many discussions but it is fairly simple and can be used with effect immediately

for personal circumstances involving corporate bullies and institutions gone outlaws, which will in turn

affect the whole as is its intent, written in law.

...., friend, if you are asking for a constitutional reform, you must defend the realm, by standing under

Article 61. As that is the lawful duty of every man woman within or without the realm. This is the letter

of the law; you wont get a reform unless you follow it by the letter. Lucky for us Article 61 was invoked making it the supreme law of this land. Have you read what article 61 demands? Use the

rebellion to create the revolution, as you've said before the answer is to not comply, well, thats what the law tells us to do as well in the form of the rebellion.

Our ancestors did not fight their way to freedom and use their wisdom and intelligence for their

descendants to be treated like this. It is royally wrong, and we will bring these criminals to trial in

properly convened courts de jure, together we can make sure this happens.

But you have to use the remedy they left us for institutionalized treason, to restore the rule of law, and

to compile evidence against them and also to educate them, and also its your defense, (as youre doing what the law demands).

We are letting parliamentarians bomb people, cover up for pedophiles, turf people out of their houses,

nick homeless peoples food, and they are meant to be our representatives and public servants, but they

are not.

Due process of law here

Kind Regards

Danielle

1. INTRODUCTION Our law is lost!

Over centuries, our law has been abrogated by successive governments which have enforced

statute law and procedures that are not lawful. They have given the power of the creation of

money to private institutions thereby allowing the creation of debt for the benefit of those

institutions, and thereby reducing the people to being slaves of those institutions. Many

people are aware of this.

Unlawful statutes have been used to commit many injustices against people.

The management of the criminal takeover of our government has involved many despicable

practices, to bribe and to create blackmail levers on those involved.

Now even the power of law in the UK has been given to the EU, which is a foreign

corporation.

THIS IS NOT ALLOWED BY OUR LAW AND IS INVALID AND VOID FROM THE

BEGINNING.

The Monarch is our only protection from unlawful governance. The very contract which we

each have with the Monarch, which gives the Monarch authority, is that the Monarch will

uphold the law. This is why all legislation is supposed to be given Royal Assent before it

becomes law, so that the Monarch can, indeed MUST refuse to pass any legislation which is

not lawful;

Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice. (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)

Nichols v Nichols 1576

Lawful rebellion is a process written into our law 800 years ago, which provides the only

remedy we have when the Monarch has broken the contract to uphold the law.

It is a process which must be formally invoked by a petition to the Monarch from the Barons'

committee, and this was done on 23rd March 2001. It allows us to seize castles, buildings and

lands in order to restore the law, but in order to do so lawfully we must have taken the

necessary step to place us under the protection of that law, which is to send an oath of

Allegiance to a member of the baron's committee. By doing that we remove our constitutional

allegiance and subjugation to the Monarch. This does not make us subjects of the barons; it

means that we swear to follow their direction in order to restore the law.

When there are enough people in lawful rebellion we can peacefully and lawfully seize the

buildings of power and restore the law.

2. WHAT IS OUR LAW? In order to be beyond reproach our actions must be both lawful and constitutional. Therefore we cannot

just "make up" which law we claim to be bound by.

The law in England was written in the DOOM BOOK. All subsequent law must agree with this law,

which has been re-affirmed in documents such as the MAGNA CARTA. We call it the "common law",

but it must not be confused with;

1. The Commonwealth Laws Common Law being the Statutes passed by Westminster since Henry 3rd in 1224 right up to the present day have never honored the Golden Rule of Law that all are equal under true law and none are above it; and

2. The very fact that there are dozens and dozens of different definitions for Common Law, with none

of them matching; the very fact that some claim it is the collected precedents of the courts, while others

refer to the body of statutes of their own country; while others again speak of Common Law in terms of

only the maxims embedded in both as if it is somehow equivalent to Natural Law means there is no

clarity even to what Common Law is meaning it cant possibly be Law, because any law that is unclear cannot possibly be true law.

(More on this here: http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/06/there-is-nothing-lawful-about-common-law.html)

From Wikipedia:

The Doom Book, Code of Alfred or Legal Code of lfred the Great was the code of laws ("dooms",

laws or judgments) compiled by lfred the Great (c. 893 AD) from three prior Saxon codes, to which

he prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses and incorporated rules of life from the Mosaic Code and

the Christian code of ethics.

The title "Doom book" (originally "dom-boc" or "dom-boke") comes from dom (pronounced "dome")

which is the Anglo-Saxon word meaning "judgment" or "law" for instance, see lfred 's admonishment: Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom

one doom to your friend; another to your foe! [1] The following reflects Mosaic Law: "You shall do no

injustice in judgment! You shall not be partial to the poor; nor defer to the great! But you are to judge

your neighbor fairly!" (Leviticus 19:15).

F. N. Lee extensively documents Alfred the Great's work of collecting the law codes from the three

Christian Saxon kingdoms and compiling them into his Doom Book. [2] Lee details how Alfred

incorporated the principles of the Mosaic Law into his Code. He then examines how this Code of

Alfred became the foundation for the Common Law. The three previous codes were those of

thelberht of Kent (c. 602 AD), Ine of Wessex (c. 694 AD) and Offa of Mercia (c. 786 AD).

In his extensive Prologue, Alfred summarized the Mosaic and Christian codes. Michael Treschow

reviewed how Alfred laid the foundation for the Spirit of Mercy in his code:[3] Treschow states that the

last section of the Prologue not only describes "a tradition of Christian law from which the law code

draws but also it grounds secular law upon Scripture, especially upon the principle of mercy".

References 1. Thorpe, Benjamin, ed. (1840). Ancient Laws and Institutes of England: Comprising Laws Enacted Under the Anglo-Saxon

Kings from thelbirht to Cnut, with an English Translation of the Saxon; the Laws Called Edward the Confessor's; the Laws of William the Conqueror, and Those Ascribed to Henry the First; Also, Monumenta Ecclesiastica Anglicana, from the Seventh to

the Tenth Century; and the Anciety Latin Version of the Anglo-Saxon Laws 1. G.E. Eyre and A. Spottiswoode. p. 55. Retrieved

13 November 2014.

2. "Alfred the Great and our Common Law" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-11-19. [Dead link][Self-published source]

3. Michael Treschow, The Prologue to Alfreds Law Code: Instruction in the Spirit of Mercy, Florilegium 13, 1994 pp79-110.

2(a); what about atheists?

There must be a model for law.

If your model is based on the concept that there is no God, then there is no good or bad, right or wrong,

only matter in motion. Whatever is is. Defacto.

If your model is based on the concept of a Divine creator then each of us that lives has been given the

gift of life by God and that gift forms a contract.

Our life is given in trust from God and no man may intercede in that.

We have the duty to God to respect all others, as the life they hold in trust is Divine as is ours, and that

is why we have the "Golden rule", to treat others as we would have ourselves treated.

So no matter what your spiritual beliefs may be, to use the divine model as a basis for law is essential if

you are to avoid the rule of psychopaths, who will always be more cohesive, determined and actually

ruthless than normal people in their struggle to control absolutely everything. The only way that such

people have been able to operate is by abrogating God's law.

God's law must not be confused with so-called law from the Catholic Church, which is not an

instrument of God, and has been opposed to the God-given freedoms of man from the beginning. This

Vatican canon law, or Admiralty law which has been exercised throughout the world is not true law at

all, it is a system of rules for dead things. The ones who purport to control the dead things in their so-

called "law courts" wear black robes. This distinction is important because A Papal Bull was issued

claiming to annul the Magna Carta and we must be clear that no Papal Bull has jurisdiction over our

land. This has been the very argument since the Magna Carta was written.

2(b) what about other religions?

The constitutional law of England has a long history and was based on Christian beliefs. Those beliefs

provided a sound code for people to live by, and it was only by abrogating that code that the ruling elite

have been able to treat us unjustly.

This is not a matter of what religion you believe, it is a matter of understanding that the Traditional law

of the land is based on Christian concepts (which were intended to find common ground amongst all

religions). When we were invaded, the foreign kings had to agree to accept our law, and so too anyone

who has ever come here to be a part of us is expected to follow our law. It has always been that way. If

you do not agree to this, you do not agree to law at all.

3. WHY LAWFUL REBELLION? 1. This is by ROYAL COMMAND from the Magna Carta 1215, Article 61.

"all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the

twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our

command, to swear as aforesaid.

2. The Article was properly invoked when the Barons presented a petition to the monarch in

accordance with Article 61, for the Treason of government to be addressed, as our land has been placed

under the rule of a foreign power by our government, and that petition was then replied to by the

monarch, who stated that the queen would not address the grievances, but instead take the Treasonous

advice of parliament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html

3. This means that the power of Royal Assent has been lost. The Royal Assent exists so that the

monarch may ensure that only lawful acts are passed through parliament. Without Royal Assent our

law has no protection from abrogation by PSYCHOPATHS. Furthermore, the most important function

of the monarch is to protect the law.

*DO NOT PROGRESS UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND POINT (3)

(Royal Assent was actually unlawfully removed long ago; however it is only through the petition made

according to Article 61 that this has now been formally evidenced).

4. In the present situation, the law commands that we each remove our constitutional allegiance to the

monarch by swearing allegiance to the Barons' committee for the purpose of bringing about the

restoration of law. By so doing we remove ourselves from the authority of all Crown agencies. (The

law does not state that we must each swear an oath in front of a convened baron's committee. We can

swear our Oath, in front of witnesses and then send the witnessed oath to a member of the Barons'

committee, and that act HAS LAWFUL STANDING).

5. Being in LAWFUL REBELLION means that we must not cede authority to the TREASONOUS

GOVERNMENT in any way, whether by paying taxes, signing petitions, voting etc. ANYTHING

which cedes authority to agents of the Crown or its bodies including their unlawful courts

(administrative courts have no authority in any case, yet they claim it and so are therefore unlawful) is

now DISALLOWED BY LAW. (It is understood that in order to live, people are forced to cede

authority in some way, such as using their paper money, because one would die otherwise. These

things are all done under duress and therefore have NO STANDING IN LAW. In other words you have

lawful excuse).

WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND ALSO that even without the invocation of Article 61, the funding of

crime, terrorism and Treason are ALL ILLEGAL UNDER STATUTE LAW and therefore nobody

should be paying taxes or funding or otherwise supporting the government in any way, in any case.

DO NOT PROGRESS UNTIL YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD POINT (5).

6. THE BARONS HAVE RUN AWAY. They have not acted as commanded by Article 61, after their

petition to the Queen was dishonoured. As it is a LAWFUL ROYAL COMMAND which they have

ignored it is our duty to either compel them to obey or if that is impossible to somehow ensure that the

posts of the baron's committee are filled with people who will act under the law and obey the Royal

Command in Article 61.

7. The barons represent the people in their interface with the Crown. The authority of the barons comes

from the sovereignty of the people. Just as with the delinquent Monarch, when the barons abrogate

their duty they lose their authority automatically, and that sovereignty returns to us.

8. Point (7) creates a unique circumstance in a constitutional monarchy, where sovereignty is passed

through barons to the monarch, whereby the people find themselves holding their own sovereignty in

their hands. We are at this point all actually sovereign individuals.

9. Article 61 says we can seize the buildings of power, and in doing so we may eject the Traitorous

regime (or compel the monarch to).*(actual wording: "shall distress and harass us by all the ways in

which they are able [9]; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions [10], and by

any other means in their power").*

We just need the numbers, as all action must be peaceful and in accordance with the law. Our job now

is to draw all people to stand under Article 61. A copy of an oath which has been sent and proof of

posting proves that you are standing under Article 61 and places you under the full protection of the

Magna Carta 1215.

10. The EU troops or the UN "world army" will descend on us to impose global governance via the EU

if they get the excuse to intervene, and there will be slaughter and the loss of anything we ever cared

about just like you have seen recently in far too many places. The ONLY way to prevent this is to stick

to our World-known and respected CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and insist on restoring it. Any other

kind of action, including especially the street protests that enemy agents like Russell Brand will have

people doing will only give the enemy a chance to stage provocations and create an excuse to act. And

should we all behave anyway, beware, for the main modus operandi of our enemy is to stage faked

events and broadcast them as news to created a precedent.

We must peacefully occupy the buildings of power when we have enough people to do so, and we must

be prepared to be absolutely ruthless if we have to stop agitators amongst us from causing trouble. We

have to understand this. The agitators are the enemy and they must not be allowed. If you are not

certain about this beforehand, you will fail to act appropriately when necessary. However you prevent

agitators from creating violence, you can rest that you are doing so to prevent greater harm. Nobody

wishing our success will create violence in our lawful rebellion.

11. If everyone hides away and ignores the situation then provocations will be staged and we will get

the intervention forces anyway.

4. THE TREASON CASES LAID BEFORE THE COURTS IN

ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND in September 1993

The following are the charges which Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter laid before the

magistrates court in Hexham, Northumberland on 9th September 1993, under Misprision of Treason.

The charge of misprision is applicable to those who know of acts of either treason or terrorism and who, in the event that they did NOT report them to the proper authorities, would themselves be guilty

of those crimes.

All the informations laid before the magistrates were preceded by the following words:

It being an offence at Common Law (see Halsbury 4th edition vol 11 at 818) for a person who knows that Treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he can to a

justice of the peace, we hereby lay the following information.

Case 1:

Whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the treason Act 1795 within the realm or withoutto deviseconstraint of the person of our sovereignhis heirs or successors.

On 7th February 1992 the Rt. Hon Douglas Richard Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and

Commonwealth Affairs, King Charles Street, London SW1 and the Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Anthony

Aylmer Maude at that date Financial Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury, Parliament Street,

London SW1 did sign a Treaty of European Union at Maastricht in the Netherlands, according to

Article 8 of which Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union (confirmed by the

Home Secretary in the House of Commons: Hansard 1st February 1993) therefore subject to the duties imposed thereby, subject to being arraigned in her own courts and being taxed under Article 192 of the integrated Treaty and thereby effectively deposed as the sovereign and placed in a position of

suzerainty under the power of the European Union.

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of

treason.

Case 2:

Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdometc. Hurd and Maude.etc. did sign a Treaty of European Unionaccording to Article 8 of which every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union and according to Article 8a of which such citizens shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of any member state and according to Article 8b of which such citizens shall have the right to vote and according to

which Declaration on nationality in the Final Act the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state

concerned.

And that therefore the British people and Parliament will have no right to determine the numbers or

identity of non British nationals to whom other European Union member states can give residence

rights and voting rights in the United Kingdom.

And whereas according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 The Laws of England are the birthright of the People.

And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch77, 89)

has stated that

And a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence.

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of

treason.

Case 3:

Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereuntoshall be capable to bea Member of either House of Parliament And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution of the country is an act of treason.

And whereas the term municipal has been defined by the European Court of Justice in 1972 as meaning national: ..the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law whatever their nature, can be involved., and similarly defined by Lord

Justice Cumming Bruce giving the majority verdict in McCarthys v Smith 1979 ICR 785,798:

If the terms of the Treaty (of Rome) are adjudged in Luxembourg to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970, European ? Law will prevail over that municipal legislation Hurd and Maudeetc. did sign a Treaty .etc. according to Article 8b of which Every citizen of the Union residing in a member state of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as

a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides.

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said the Rt. Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.

Case 4:

Whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchy in which Her

Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign and Head of State and a democracy, whereby the people of

that United Kingdom rule by delegating their authority for periods of up to 5 years to the Parliament

and Government in London.

And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 The laws of England are the birthright of the people

And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch 77,89)

has stated that

As a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence.

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the Constitution is an act of treason.

..Hurd and Maudeetc did sign a treatyetc. according to Article 8 of which the British people, without their consent have been made the citizens of the European Union with duties towards the same

and according to Article 192 of the integrated treaty the British people can be taxed directly by that

European Union without further process in the Westminster Parliament and according to Article 171 of

which the British State can be forced to pay a monetary penalty to the European Union.

Therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurdetc.

CASE 5.

Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II swore at Her

Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects according to their laws.

And whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 within the realm or withoutto deviseconstraint of the person of our sovereignhis heirs or successors

Hurd and Maude.etc. did sign a Treaty.etc. which extended the powers of the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament in the new European Union to make and enforce in the United Kingdom laws which do not originate in the Westminster

Parliament. And that this loss of democratic rights was without the express consent of the British

people.

And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 The Laws of England are the Birthright of the people

And whereas Lord Justice Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch

77,89) has stated that;

As a matter of law the courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence.

Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason.etc.

CASE 6.

Whereas it was established in 1932 that No Parliament may bind its successors (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation IKB 733)

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.

Hurd and Maude etc. .did sign a Treatyaccording to which Article Q of which the Maastricht Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period and from which there is no right of nor mechanism for secession.

Therefore Hurd and Maude are guilty of treason etc..

This is one of the more extraordinary aspects of the Maastricht Treaty since it provides a direct parallel

with that other Union, the American Union signed by the Southern, confederate states on the assumption that they could leave that Union whenever they wished. But they had omitted to ensure that

both the right to and mechanism for withdrawal were included specifically in the Union declaration. As

a result, the American President Abraham Lincoln (inaugural address 4th March 1861) justified war

against the southern states by saying:

No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union It was this issue and not the question of slavery (for which Lincoln had expressed accommodation in

his inaugural address) which caused the American Civil War in which 600,000 died. The northern

states were engaged not on a moral crusade but on an imperialist adventure, using the industrial and

military might of the North to conquer the largely rural, raw material producing south.

Although the European Union as yet possesses no significant armed forces, this is the ultimate intention

and an embryo Franco German force has already been set up. The possible exit from this Union of Britain, the second biggest paymaster, with the richest coal, oil and fishing reserves in Europe and with

the worlds largest investments in the American economy might one day tempt this new breed of Eurofascist to use the logic of Abraham Lincoln.

CASE 7.

Whereas it is established by a statute in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) confirmed in 1297 and last

reviewed at the passing of the Statute Law Repeals Act 1967 that:

No freeman may bedisseisedof his liberties or free customsnor will we not pass upon him but by the law of the land. This most durable pillar of the constitution is destroyed by a Treaty of European Unionetc..which disseises all free men of their liberties and free customs under the law of this land by subjugating their

Government to the extension of the powers of the European Commission, Court and parliament (in

which latter the United Kingdom members form a minority of 87 of 567 voting members). Under

Article 192 of the integrated treaty our free men are open to be taxed without further process of the

United Kingdom Parliament and according to the Declaration on nationality in the Final Act of the treaty the number and identity of non British nationals given residence and voting rights in the United

Kingdom will not be determined by the British Government. And further that the treaty extends

majority voting in the Council of Ministers thus permitting other states to determine laws which govern

British people. Under Article 8 of the Treaty free men are required to become citizens of the European

Union subject to the duties imposed thereby.

And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.

Therefore Hurd and Maude.etc

CASE 8 (IN SCOTLAND).

Whereas it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795:

within the realm or withoutto devise.constraint of the person of our sovereignhis heirs or successors. and to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom

and whereas to destroy the constitution per R v Thistlewood 1820 is an act of treason.

Hurd and Maude etcdid sign a treaty.for an unlimited period and without right of or mechanism for secession. This treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby

it is established per Article III of that Act the people of the United Kingdom be represented by the one

and the same Parliament and none other and per Article XVIII that no alteration be made in laws which

concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.

Under the treaty, the rule of a Parliament other than that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is

established where under, contrary to the Act of Union, subjects within Scotland become subject to laws

made in an assembly in which their representatives form a minority seven fold more slender than in the

parliament of the United Kingdom.

Therefore Hurd and Maude.etc

Since the United Kingdom has no formal codified constitution in the manner of the USA or Germany,

we rely on certain critical statutes and precedents in case law to formalize and hold fast for future

generations the wisdom of the laws which have established and guaranteed our rights and liberties and

the institutions of parliament, government and courts.

It is one of the major safeguards for the people that past rights are enshrined in specific statutes and

specific clauses. Imprecise words, confused sentences and contradictory clauses are a danger since they

allow potential tyrants to exploit or bypass uncertainty in the law. It has therefore always been accepted

as vital that any repeal of a statute or part of a statute should be made specific in new legislation. This

is not just to tidy up the law books but more important so that everyone voters, Parliament, ministers and journalists should know precisely how their historic guarantees are being affected.

But in the text of the Maastricht Bill laid before Parliament there was no mention of any of the many

contraventions of historical statutes by the terms of the Treaty. The only reference to another Act of

Parliament was to that of the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act, the terms of which would

have been contradicted had a specific Parliamentary approval not been obtained.

The British people were deliberately kept in the dark about the destruction of their constitution and how

the Maastricht Treaty and the European Community Amendments Act effectively threw out many of

the most important statutes in British Parliamentary history. The first strategy of the tyrant is secrecy.

The second is to lose the detail in a mass of superficiality and generalization. Both were evident in the

passage of the Maastricht Treaty Bill.

Some statutes within the British system of an informal constitution could perhaps, at some stretch of

the imagination, be regarded as less critical. But this could certainly not be said about the Union with

Scotland Act, for in 1706 the Scottish people decided to share a Sovereign and a Parliament. Since the

new Parliament of the UNITED Kingdom was to be in England (and the physical existence of the

Scottish parliament dispensed with) the terms of the Act of Union were absolutely vital. The Act is the

nearest we possess to an actual constitution. The Scots, effectively, gave up their Parliament only in

return for the guarantee that the new (English dominated) Parliament would not curtail or in any way

diminish their rights. If they did so (as has now happened under the Maastricht Treaty) then the Act of

Union would be null and void and not only would the United Kingdom cease to exist but so would the

authority of the Parliament at Westminster which was spawned by the Act of Union.

This is exactly what has happened and the British people, once the full enormity of the betrayal has

dawned upon them, will exact a terrible revenge on those who purport to be their democratic representatives.

5. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT BY THE MAGNA CARTA

SOCIETY, WHICH PRECEDED THE 2001 BARONS' PETITION Sovereign Authority We have already argued that the ultimate powers of sovereignty remain in the sole possession of the

monarch. Indeed, it is the unique covenant between sovereign and people that stands as the bulwark

supporting our constitution and rights.

The sovereign is the court of last resort, the only person who can stand finally between the people and

renegade politicians. Indeed, we would go further. It is the sovereigns sworn duty, as laid down in Magna Carta (see above).

The Coronation Oath is a contract for life between the sovereign and the nation.

The present Queen swore:

to govern the peoples of the United Kingdomaccording to their laws and customs. She also swore to preserve for the people all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.

The Coronation Oath is not a contract between the sovereign and parliament. It is a contract between

the sovereign and each individual subject. It cannot be broken by a vote in parliament. It can be broken

only by the sovereign or by the individual.

Like all contracts, if one party to the contract believes the terms are at risk, the other party can be called

to account.

As we have indicated already, today just as for nearly a thousand years, if an individual believes his

freedoms, rights and liberties are at risk, the sovereign can be called upon to protect those rights as

promised in the contract.

Likewise, the sovereign can call individuals to arms to protect the realm.

We know of two occasions in modern times when the covenant between sovereign and subjects first

established in Magna Carta, and renewed in every Coronation Oath since, has been put to the test by

one party to the contract or the other. Conveniently, the two examples come from opposite sides of the

covenant.

1975 - Australia. The Governor General, acting on behalf of The Queen, dissolved the Australian

parliament and called new elections, when the then government attempted to pass legislation which

was held to infringe the rights of all Australians.

1982 - Falklands. Sovereigns call to arms to prepare and despatch a task force to rescue the Falkland Islanders whose rights and sovereignty were threatened by war.

Actions of this kind enhance the status and strength of the monarchy, and re-affirm to the nations subjects that their rights and freedoms are being preserved. They also demonstrate in a modern context

that Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are alive and well.

The sovereign is the ultimate protector of the nation and guarantor of the rights of each individual, and

those responsibilities are the sovereigns, and the sovereigns alone.

At least one constitutional commentator (Allott) agrees with us:

"For parliament to develop or improve on a fundamental right is one thing. But to enact legislation

which expressly removes an already existing fundamental right, and to have that enactment blindly

upheld by a court, is quite another.

If there is one thread which runs through the whole turbulent history of British constitutional development, it is the belief that we (parliament and the courts) are the servants of fundamental

constitutional rules which were there before us and will be there after we are gone.

The Ultimate Test

Despite all those rights, freedoms and protections, established over centuries, today our common laws,

rights, freedoms, liberties and customs are being demolished with the speed and thoroughness of a team

of statutory bulldozers.

Long ago, Magna Carta dealt with the problem of a sovereign acting above the law. Later, the

Declaration of Rights confirmed the estates of the realm and their relationship to one another - a series

of checks and balances. Today, that relationship has been seriously undermined. We now have a House

of Commons acting above the law, plainly contemptuous of the (remaining) powers of The Queen and

the House of Lords.

Such an overwhelming concentration of power in the hands of the executive, especially one with a

huge parliamentary majority, means that we are currently faced with an extreme example of what Lord

Hailsham famously called an elective dictatorship.

Writing of Magna Carta in his History of The English-Speaking Peoples, Winston Churchill said:

and when in subsequent ages the state, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and

again been made, and never, as yet, without success.

The Magna Carta Society, and tens of thousands like us, believe the time has come - indeed, it is

overdue - to put the great principles and rights enshrined in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights

to the test once again.

Eventually, the issue of the EU's right to rule over the UK must be tested in the highest court in the land

and - given the speed and comprehensiveness of present EU legislation and its destructiveness - that

test must be made as a matter of the highest priority.

Already faced with the most fundamental concerns for the structure and protection of this nations constitution it now appears that the battle over the EU has developed a second front - the dismantling of

our parliamentary institutions and the most cavalier disregard for our constitution and rights.

Given the extracts above, there is good reason to believe that, under Magna Carta, 25 hereditary peers

can convene themselves as a quorum, and sit as a House of Lords, despite the recent passage of a bill

purporting to restrict its hereditary numbers.

We have reason to believe that such a quorum can be assembled.

Furthermore, under the terms of Magna Carta, that House has an obligation to hear petitions brought by

free men, and take them to The Queen, who - equally - has an obligation to hear them.

That is the ultimate consequence of the unique contract first established with Magna Carta and renewed

at each coronation.

To those in government and the judiciary who might try to argue that we no longer have the right of

petition and appeal to The Queen, there are serious questions to answer:

When do they claim that right was taken away? By whom? And how? On whose authority? And by

what right?

(We believe the last monarch to receive and act on a petition was Queen Victoria, and we can find no

evidence of any attempt to prevent or hinder any such petition subsequently. Nor does there appear to

be any legislation which attempts to defy the contract made between sovereign and subjects in Magna

Carta and the Coronation Oath. We acknowledge that it has become custom in the last few years for

petitions to be passed to ministers of the crown for action, but that is not to say that the monarch can no

longer act in her own right. Indeed, in current circumstances, the ministers themselves are party to our

complaint, and cannot therefore deal with the matters complained of.)

In any case, the sovereign cannot be absolved from her obligations, responsibilities and duties to her

subjects, and certainly not on the mere advice of ministers. Otherwise the Coronation Oath would be

meaningless.

Which is why we are preparing a petition to be submitted to the hereditary House of Lords for

presentation to The Queen, based on the following terms:

We the undersigned seek to draw attention to and seek redress from the imposition of foreign laws, directives, regulations and judicial decisions by and from the European Union and its institutions, to the

detriment and prejudice of your sovereignty and to our rights and freedoms as defined in Magna Carta,

the Declaration of Rights, and by the customs of your people, and which you, our sovereign, swore to

uphold and preserve inviolate in your Coronation Oath of 1953.

If Magna Carta stands, we have a right to enter such a petition.

If it does not, this kingdom stands in dire peril, the executive have some momentous questions to

answer, and all free men of this kingdom should hear the call.

Whether Magna Carta stands or not, action is needed, and we intend to take it.

The Magna Carta Society

OTHER ACTIONS

The objective of this document has been to make a case for the constitutional repudiation of the United

Kingdoms membership of the European Union.

There are, of course, other means by which the UKs membership of the EU may end - the government of the day might withdraw; the EU might throw us out (we should be so lucky); parliament might vote

for repeal of the 1972 Act; private prosecutions of government ministers for treason might be

successful. Any one of these events would have much the same practical effect as we seek.

Whichever event prevails, we argue that there are other actions, legal and otherwise, which need the

urgent attention of those in a position, and with the knowledge, to take them:

Immediately

1. Determine how best to test in the courts the claim that European law is supreme in the United Kingdom.

2. Examine the direct conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counselors and EU commissioners. At

the very least, we advocate that those who have taken the commissions euro should be publicly stripped of their status as privy counselors.

3. Examine the constitutionality of the two separate recent attempts made by parliament acting under

instructions from the EU and the European Court of Human Rights to interfere with the oath of

attestation made by all members of the armed forces. The first involves the setting up of an embryo

European Army, and the second with the setting and interpretation of standards of behavior likely to be

detrimental to the efficiency of the forces. In both these actions parliament appears to have exceeded its

authority, and had the effect of compromising the sovereignty of The Queen.

4. Examine the issue of citizenship (Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty - "Citizenship of the union is

hereby established"). British citizenship (we prefer the term subject of the crown) is a birthright. Citizenship is not in the gift of a self-appointed foreign institution, which in any event is unaccountable

to the British electorate and, we argue, has no standing here.

The notion of dual citizenship, implied under this Treaty, is nonsensical. Across the world, applications

for dual citizenship are entirely voluntary. Furthermore, the European Union is even now only an

association of sovereign nation states. It is not in itself a state, much as it might like to pretend

otherwise. It is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. At the very least, therefore, that legal non-

sequitur needs to be

disputed in the courts, with the outcome providing individual subjects with a practical and effective

means of rejecting so-called citizenship of the EU, and all its pathetic paraphernalia - passport covers,

driving licenses and the like.

5. Examine the constitutionality of the 1975 referendum and the referendum proposed on the euro, both

of which concern changes which appear to have been forbidden under our constitution and, if possible,

instigate proceedings to have them set aside.

6. Investigate potential cases of treason against all the plenipotentiaries acting under the royal

prerogative and who signed the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam on behalf of the United

Kingdom.

7. Test the legality of all new EU legislation, directives and regulations, as attempts are made to

introduce and enforce them. To date, insufficiently vigorous opposition has been applied. There are

huge battles ahead, including: the euro and tax harmonization, weights and measures, a European

defense force, Europol and Corpus Juris. As the EU attempts to enforce its policies and law on the UK,

contrary to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and common law, each and every one must be

disputed to the utmost of our resources and will-power.

Post-Membership

8. The restitution of the constitution will release an avalanche of cases of maladministration, involving

whole industries (fishing, for example) and many thousands of individuals and businesses, and going

back over many years.

The desire for an immediate and gigantic bonfire of EU inanities will need to be balanced with an

equally important desire to achieve rapid but orderly abolition of (now) illegal regulations. An

immediate moratorium on enforcement seems the most practical and desirable first step.

The vital issue of making good the damage suffered by the people will come a close second. This might

perhaps be addressed in much the same way as restitution and reinstatement was handled after the

second world war, with the state leading a programme of national re-building. What redress do the

people whose livelihoods have been damaged or destroyed over the last 30 years have against

government ministers and enforcement agencies past and present? And how can it be delivered quickly

and fairly, without time-consuming and expensive civil proceedings? It is possible that justice itself

will demand that the state foots the bill.

We urge that a powerful independent body be set up as a matter of the highest priority and charged,

primarily, with determining the best means of achieving rapid and equitable redress for all those

affected by the enforcement of EU law, regulations, directives and judicial decisions in the UK since 1

January 1973.

9. Investigate potential cases of treason against all prime ministers since 1972

10. Investigate, with a view to prosecution, the past actions of ministers and officials who exceeded or

may have exceeded the authority delegated to them by the people, and who attempted to defy the clear

intentions of the constitution of the United Kingdom.

And Finally 11. The people are sovereign. The monarch is the embodiment of that sovereignty. So it was and still

should be. But these tenets of the constitution have been seriously threatened by the erosion of the

checks and balances between the sovereign, the houses of parliament and the people - an erosion which

has been insidious, lengthy and allowed to thrive by the negligence of the people, who have failed

sufficiently to exercise vigilance.

It was 473 years after Magna Carta that a further treaty became necessary between the sovereign and

the people. Another 312 years have passed since the Declaration of Rights.

Events of recent years, and the momentous issues raised in this document, convince us that a new treaty

between the monarch and the people is now essential. It should re-state the true relationship between

sovereign, the two houses of parliament and the people, re-establish the checks and balances between

them, and re-affirm the covenant between sovereign and subjects.

Nothing else will do.

___________________________________________________________________

This document was researched and written by the founding members of

The Magna Carta Society

signed:

25 January 2000

Founding members of The Magna Carta Society:

David Bourne Mike Burke

Idris Francis Adam Hartman

John Hurst Bob Lomas

Brian Mooney Ashley Mote

Bob Sims Bryan Smalley

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely

David Robinson.

++++++++++

Email from Inspector Nicholson:

Good Morning David,

I so sorry for my elusiveness over the last few months, but the service has undergone a massive

overhaul over the last few months which has led to a big impact on my time.

Anyway David, another apology in that having sought advice from the Police Federation, I am not able

to get involved or encourage my staff to do so, as it is apolitical matter and we need to remain

impartial.

Good luck though David, and I will watch with interest as to how things develop.

Inspector Mark Sarah Nicholson

+++++++++++++

My reply....

Dear Mark Nicholson,

By your comment it seems that the politicians of this country are above the law if they are not to be

investigated for crimes against the state i.e. treason, then they are free to do whatever they like without

penalty. I cannot accept that as a reasonable response from you and I must (under the constitutional

laws of this country) remind you that we ALL have a duty under the law to stand by the constitution

under the tenet of Article 61 since the time it was invoked (23rd March 2001).

We are all equal under the law and you sir have a duty under Oath to act according to the law without

fear nor favour, The facts are the facts and cannot be denied. The treason being committed (along with

many other crimes) is EVIDENTIAL and also the FACT that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has been

invoked.

As is the case within a regime of institutionalized treason your superiors (police federation) cannot be

relied upon to give you lawful advice and, the Nuremburg trials at the end of world war two show that

'just following orders' is no defense in law. The Misprision of treason Act also makes those who have

been informed of the treason facts, to be liable under the law if the crime is not then reported to a

justice of the peace.

I find your response disappointing as I did when I found that you had not provided the constables under

your direction with the information that I supplied (in disc and literature format) as you said you would

do in a previous email.

I would like a recorded interview with you so that you can defend the position you are taking on this

matter with clarity and, documented evidence that your position is lawful.

David.

6. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 61

Media Coverage

1. Peers use Magna Carta to oppose EU charter

By Sarah Womack, Political Correspondent 12:00AM GMT 07 Feb 2001

A GROUP of peers will today use ancient rights granted under Magna Carta to urge the Queen to block

further European integration.

Their petition, presented under Clause 61 of the ancient charter, asks the Queen to withhold Royal

Assent from the Nice Treaty. It has the backing of 65 Euro-sceptic peers led by Lord Ashbourne and

has been organised by Sanity (Subjects against the Nice Treaty).

Clause 61 of Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in June 1215, permits the Sovereigns subjects to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition which four of their number are then obliged to

take to the Monarch who is obliged to accept it. She then has 40 days to respond. The enforcement powers granted by King John when he signed the Magna Carta were last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.

Lord Ashbourne, a Conservative hereditary peer ousted from the Lords under Tony Blairs reforms, said: These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed. Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1321462/Peers-use-Magna-Carta-to-oppose-EU-charter.html

2. Peers petition Queen on Europe

By Caroline Davies 12:00AM GMT 24 Mar 2001

FOUR peers invoked ancient rights under the Magna Carta yesterday to petition the Queen to block

closer integration with Europe.

The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne

were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the

Charters Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be

defended.

The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede,

allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their

number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the

Glorious Revolution.

The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that

quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queens private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of

members of the public.

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy

fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Cartas provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing

castles, lands and possessions until they have redress;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html

Magna Carta Society Research Paper proving the invocation of Article 61;

http://magnacartasocietyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/magna-carta-society-research-paper.html

7. THE PETITION FROM THE BARONS AND LETTERS FROM

BOTH PARTIES IN FULL The Petition;

A Petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta,1215

February 2001 To Defend British Rights and Freedoms

Maam,

as our humble duty, we draw to Your Majestys attention:

1. the loss of our national independence and the erosion of our ancient rights, freedoms and customs

since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community (now the

European Union) in 1973;

2. the terms of the Treaty of Nice, 2000, which, if ratified, will cause significant new losses of national

independence, and further imperil the rights and freedoms of the British people, by surrendering

powers to the European Union:

a) to enter into international treaties binding on the United Kingdom, without the consent of your

Government;

b) to ban political parties, deny free association and restrict the free expression of political opinion;

c) which can be used to introduce an alien system of criminal justice, abolish the ancient British rights

of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with

powers of enforcement;

d) to create a military force which will place British service personnel under the command of the

European Union without reference to British interests, and contrary to:

I) the oath of personal loyalty to the Crown sworn by British forces,

ii) the Queens Commission, and

iii) the United Kingdoms obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;

e) which remove the United Kingdoms right to veto decisions not in British interests;

3. the creation by the European Union of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which purports to give it the

power to abolish such rights at will;

4. the unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative to

a) suspend or offend against statutes in ways which are prejudicial and detrimental to your sovereignty,

contrary to the Coronation Oath Act, 1688;

b) subvert the rights and liberties of your loyal subjects, contrary to the ruling in Nichols v Nichols,

1576;

5. Your Majestys power to withhold the Royal Assent, and the precedent set by Queen Anne under a similar threat to the security of the Realm in1707;

WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from

any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the

United Kingdom have given clear and specific approval; to uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms

and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which you,

our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June1953.

We have the honour to be Your Majestys loyal and obedient subjects.

(signed)

Notes: (Provenance unknown, but possibly from the MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY).

The House of Lords Records Office confirmed in writing as recently as last September [sic] that Magna

Carta, signed by King John in June 1215, stands to this day. Home Secretary Jack Straw said as much

on 1 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force. Halsburys Laws of England says: Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.

The Treaty of Nice signed by the British Government in December 2000 includes:

Article 24 transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified

Majority Voting.

Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with

ambassadorial status.

Article 191 assumes for the EU the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Articles 29 and31 establish common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust).

Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the

door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing

and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol

law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article

280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at

least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.

Article 17 establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that: The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed. Her Majesty The Queen is Commander in Chief of all her armed forces and Colonel in Chief of 46 of Her

Regiments of the British army, every other regiment owing its loyalty directly via another member of

The Royal Family as its Colonel in Chief to Her Majesty.

The loss of the UK veto applies to 39 new areas of EU competence, including indirect taxation, the environment, immigration, trade, employment, industrial policy, and regional funding. The EU also has

plans for QMV to be expended to other areas not agreed at Nice, and without further treaty

negotiations.

Charter of Fundamental Rights signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000.

Article 52 purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will, effectively making them

meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human

rights [i.e.: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also

contrary to Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Clause 61 of Magna Carta was last invoked when the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on

behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London

in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England, and lost the

confidence of the people. His act of abdication was to throw the Great Seal into the Thames and flee

the country.

The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice. (The Royal Prerogative is the power delegated by the sovereign to ministers to sign treaties on behalf of the nation.)

In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent

that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queens half-brother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign.

Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the

monarchy. Thus, parliaments will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.

Addressing both Houses of Parliament on 20 July 1988, at an historic meeting of both houses to mark

the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights, Her Majesty said that it was still part of statute lawon which the whole foundation and edifice of our parliamentary democracy rests.

The Declaration of Rights spelt out the details:

the said Lordsand Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit andmake effectual provision for the settlement of the laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observedand all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.

Both Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are contracts between the sovereign and the people.

Because they are not statute law they cannot be repealed. Both proclaimed what were taken to be self-

evident freedoms which exist by right. Equally, both were based on a concept of permanence.

List of Signatories

Peers signing the petition:

Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel)Lord Hamilton

of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.

The petition was also signed by:

Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of Romney, Earl

Kitchener, Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart, Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne,

Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of

Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton), Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as

Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle. The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart

title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of 1707.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Letter To The Queens Private Secretary

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB

Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen

Buckingham Palace

London

23 March 2001

You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty.

Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and

freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be

considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution

and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition

to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years clause 61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delayAnd we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if

any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the

Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence(which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct

conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the

Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty's Coronation Oath and the Oaths of

Office of Her Majesty's ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they

are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty's obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen

has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in

Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all

rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.

From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce

from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise

any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty's promise to her

loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely, it is their duty to advise in

accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or

remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents precisely

such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are,

generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself . De prerogativa Regis is merely declaratory of the

common law

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the

security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance

and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in

return, the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for

the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary

demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options

appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an

election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce

new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the

issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide

whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be

curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option exists.

As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and foreign power and authority may

forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person,

prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or

exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this

realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever.

So it is clear that no-one neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We

inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future

generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish.

Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliaments power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn

obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary

obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for

the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations.

The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps

clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect

us from government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition

highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the

political freedom of Her Majesty's subjects.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level

[i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to

forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It

also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions taxation without representation and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her

Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the

question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite

which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables,

sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?

These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority

without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)

2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie

as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of

Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is

further protection of our common law rights.)

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her

Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by

contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted

earlier, we the undersigned, and others have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops

..until redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects.

Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Reply

I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.

The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her

Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of

Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this

entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.

8. WHO SIGNED THE PETITION? Lord Ashbourne, The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard (as Lord Oriel)Lord

Hamilton of Dalzell signed and presented the petition at Buckingham Palace.

The petition was also signed by:

Lord Sudeley, Viscount Cowdray, Viscount Norwich, Lord Napier & Ettrick, Earl of

Romney, Earl Kitchener,Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Ailsa, Lord Sandys, Earl Cathcart,

Lord Oaksey, Lord Milne, Lord Newall, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, Lord Dormer, Viscount

Exmouth, Lord Wise, Earl of Devon, Earl of Cromer, Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton),

Lord Sandford, Marquis of Aberdeen (as Earl Aberdeen), Lord Strathcarron, Lord Craigmyle.

The Countess of Dysart also signed, but the Dysart title is Scottish and pre-dates the Union of

1707.

9. INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER INTO LAWFUL REBELLION The barons have run away, but we need proof that we have pledged allegiance in order to be

lawful. So a copy of your oath and proof of posting are what you are after. Much more

information on the PRACTICAL LAWFUL DISSENT PAGE.)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/388605611224816/

You need to send this letter to one of the barons listed in the next section.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oath of allegiance

[ Put the title and address of the baron here ]

From : (Your name and address).

Date: _____________

Sent by recorded post No.:___________

Dear [ Title of baron],

In full knowledge of treason being committed in Parliament, by delivering the

Sovereign Peoples of this Common law land into the hands of foreign powers, in

understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the office of Sovereign,

from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into

lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons'

committee whom invoked lawful rebellion, in accordance with article 61 of Magna

Carta until such times as redress of these present wrongs is achieved and for as long

as the committee of the barons abide by the constitution without deviation.

Sworn and subscribed on the (Date).

Signed: _____________________

Witnessed by: _____________________

Witnessed by: _____________________

Witnessed by: _____________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The witness is optional, but 3 makes it fully lawful. Photocopy it before you send it. Make 2 copies.

Get a friend to post it (at the counter, costs 1.72 recorded delivery). Photocopy the receipt. Get your

friend to write this:

I XXXXXX of (address) confirm that on the (date) I placed the document "Oath of

allegiance to the Barons" signed by XXXXXXX in an envelope addressed as follows;

[ Put the title and address of the baron here ]

and I posted the envelope by recorded delivery No. ___________

Signed__________ Date_________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Photocopy that. Now you keep a copy of the oath, the postage receipt, and the signed witness statement

saying that it was posted in your pocket.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*Alternatively, because at least some of the barons are 'turncoats' and dishonourable, declare that you

are standing under article 61 to the corrupt judiciary or the imposters within Westminster in a lawful

Notice or Affidavit (any public servant or alleged authority figure will suffice), stating that you back

the invocation of article 61 if not the barons whom invoked it. The whole point is to be able to prove

'intent' so that it cannot be propagated that we are outlaws. We stand fully under the common law as it

demands we must, and have a lawful duty with 'lawful excuse' to reject any and all alleged authorities

that operate under the crown.

10 ADDRESSES OF BARONS TO SEND OATHS TO

Earl of Shannon (as Lord Carleton),

Pimm's Cottage, Man's Hill, Burghfield Common, Berkshire RG7 3BD

Tel: 01189 832399

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Craigmyle

Scottas House, Knoydart, Invernesshire PH41 4PL

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Strathcarron

3 Elizabeth Court, Milmans Street, London SW10 0DA

Otterwood, Beaulieu, Hampshire SO42 7YS

Tel: 01590 612334

+++++++++++++++++++

Marquis of Aberdeen

House of Formantine, Methlick, Ellon, Aberdeenshire AB41 7EQ

Tel: 01651 806897

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl of Cromer

6 Sloane Terrace Mansions, London SW1X 9DG

Drayton Court, Drayton, Somerset

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl of Devon,

Powderham Castle, Exeter, Devon EX6 8JQ

Tel: 01626 890253

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Wise

- died 2012 Christopher John Clayton WISE 3rd Baron WIES (has yet to establish his claim to the title

and appear on the Roll of the House of Lords) b 19 March 1949, unm. His brother and hp is the Hon

Martin Highfield WISE (b 1950) unm. No others in line of succession to the barony.

+++++++++++++++++++

Viscount Exmouth,

The Coach House, Canonteign Falls, nr. Exeter, Devon EX6 7NT

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Dormer

Yew Tree Cottage, Dittisham, Devon TQ6 0EX

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Barber of Tewkesbury

still sits in the house of lords but has had a leave of absence since April 2011

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Newall

18 Lennox Gardens, London SW1X 0DG

Wotton Underwood, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 0RZ

Tel: 01844 238376 Fax: 01844 237153

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Milne,

188 Broom Road, Teddington, Middlesex

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Oaksey

Hill Farm, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9HS

Tel: 01666 577303 Fax: 01666 577962

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl Cathcart,

Gateley Hall, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5EF

18 Smith Terrace, London SW3 4DL

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Sandys

Died feb 2013 On the death of the 7th Baron Sandys the Barony of Sandys passed to his third cousin

three times removed, Nicholas Wills [Hill], 9th Marquess of Downshire, a great-great-great-great-

great-grandson of Baroness Sandys.

+++++++++++++++++++

Nicholas Wills [Hill], 9th Marquess of Downshire,

Clifton Castle, Ripon, North Yorkshire HG4 4AB

Tel: 01765 689326

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Ailsa,

Cassillis House, Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7JN

Tel: 0129-256310

+++++++++++++++++++

Lord Napier of Magdala

The Coach House, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1HU

Tel: 01672 512333 Fax: 01672 512333

E-mail: [email protected]

+++++++++++++++++++

Earl Kitchener

Died Dec 2011 O

Documents

Lawful Rebellion Guide v6