October 26, 2010

Ready For Rebellion?

I wanted to say a bit more about Lawful Rebellion.

I can fully comprehend why people are reluctant to become Freemen/Freewomen. It is a drastic step to take if you still need the state. Most of us do in one way, shape or form. Take me, for instance. I have chipped in to my state pension scheme for over thirty years. Should I walk away from that? I still pay tax and NIC's, and council tax, so should I not be permitted to call the police, or an ambulance or a fire engine if I need one? Despite having paid the state to educate my children should I now keep them at home?

No, no and no.

I am still entitled to those benefits if I have need of them. I will have a need until the state agrees with my standing as a Freeman and agrees that I will no longer pay all those taxes and then I will make alternative arrangements. So, it is messy being 100% Freeman. We are lashed to the state in many ways. It's a two way street of course, they need us and we need them. Until we find another way, that is.

Is there another way we can demonstrate our displeasure? In a meaningful way that will draw attention to the wrongs committed in our name? Most importantly, is there a risk-free way of doing this?

Yes, yes and yes.

The answer is, of course, Lawful Rebellion. And I know I bang on about this, but this course of action is not political, it is not to dodge parking tickets, it is not even an act of defiance. It is your solemn duty. It is both a right and an obligation rolled into one. This right, and the attending instructions on employing that right are enshrined in Magna Carta 1215 Article 61. MC1215 is still valid. It cannot be repealed, it cannot be deleted. Find the Great Charter (1215 or 1297) and read the relevant articles. This is not some fuzzy little rule to be dug out and waved around willy-nilly. This is deadly serious. Our Monarch has committed treason. She has diluted her power and stated that a foreign government (the EU) has authority over her, and us. She did this by signing the Lisbon Treaty into UK law. This is in direct contravention of the Coronation Oath that she swore on June 2nd, 1953. There is a remedy in law for this. Exercise it. For the good of our nation.

The wording used in the affidavits is somewhat arcane, but it is using the proper form. You can read and download the two affidavits from here.

Are there any risks attached to entering Lawful Rebellion?

How can there be? You are exercising your right under ancient law. One her predecessors agreed to. One that she agreed to. How can you be at risk by carrying out your obligations? The short, and only answer, is that you cannot.

What does Lawful Rebellion do for you?


Lawful Rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse;
  1. Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.
  2. Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.
  3. To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in any way, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.
(Nicked from here. )

I say this time and time again, and I will say it one more time: Lawful Rebellion is not a way of getting out of debt, or getting out of parking tickets, or a reason to disregard the police, and it certainly does not give you carte blanche to run amok. This is a vitally serious undertaking and you should think hard before committing yourself to this ultimate remedy. You are swearing allegiance to the Baron's Committee which was formed by 65 members of the nobility in 2001, of which four were selected as a quorum to inform the queen that they had entered Lawful Rebellion. Her Maj was given forty days in which to inform the quorum that she was not, in fact, held prisoner by divers persons, and that she would, with all haste, make good on her Oath. She did not do so. Hardly surprising, if she is held captive or has been misinformed and misguided by those evil counsellors. The Barons opened the door, and it is up to those of us who love our nation to follow them through it.

Please read and take on board the information at all three of the links in this piece.

Then, (and I know this is old fashioned), do your duty. Do what is right.

Do what must be done.

And do it with a clear conscience and a happy heart.

No harm will befall you. None at all.


UPDATE: To see our saviour (MC1215) being used as she ought to be, read this! I sincerely doubt that anyone, anywhere, knows this stuff better than John. Please wish him all the best over at Ian's place.


Oldrightie said...

I am so very tempted, CR!

IanG said...

Mmmm.. I wish it was that easy CR, since 17/8/10 I have been in Lawful Rebellion. I've been to court vs DVLA & was just completely ignored - the magistrate even abandoned the court! Days later I get a fine for £300 then a warrant for arrest - the boys in blue could arrive any time soon.

Also fighting 2 congestion charges - bailiffs threatening removal etc & debt gone from £180 to £900+.

So I guess I'm saying if anyone's thinking of going this route (I definitely would) don't expect the corrupt establishment to roll over & die - the fight is just starting!

Captain Ranty said...


Give in to it!


Captain Ranty said...


Safety in numbers.

When there are 100,000 of us, then it will be easier.

We are the Pathfinders. Where we lead, others will follow.

Bank on it.

I am relying on LR (and a few other remedies) in my battle with HMRC. I will win. In law, I have already won, they just don't realise it yet.


defender said...

Have yoou got an email adress for me to send you something

Captain Ranty said...


Sure have:

captainranty at btinternet dot com


defender said...

ranty, check your inbox

Captain Ranty said...


I did.

Nowt there.

Well, there were two new porny emails in the spammy folder. I'll get to them later.

Can you resend?


Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for the kind words.

I dont know why millions more don't do this. Its a simple letter to queenie. Lightning will not strike your house, nor will the spooks come to snatch you at 4 a.m.

Keep researching. You need to live and breathe this stuff before you launch. But when you do....oh boy! It feels fantastic!!!

I think TPTB have already started with the negative campaign. TPUC and FMOTL have forum subjects on it.

Which is great. It shows their fear of us.

Tables turned!!!!!!


Captain Ranty said...

Got it matey.

Check your inbox for response.


Tcheuchter said...

This is all very well, but Magna Carta was signed by a king of England before the Act of Union. What is the position in Scotland?

Captain Ranty said...


When the Act of Union was signed in 1707 all rights the English had were conferred on the Scots, and vice versa.

Besides, she is YOUR queen as well, right?

Her treason is not confined to the English. She broke her oath to all of us.

It is up to all of us to put that right.


James Higham said...

If they can throw the law at us, we can throw the law at them.

Captain Ranty said...

Amen to that James.

Fire with fire.


defender said...

James, they cannot throw the law at us, thats unlawful. It would be up to you to point this out, otherwise you have accepted that they can.
They would have dishonour so its easy to deal with but no one can do that for you..

defender said...

The Beginnings - Rudyard Kipling

IT WAS not part of their blood, It came to them very late With longarrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.

They were not easily moved, They were icy-willing to wait Tillevery count should be proved
Ere the English began to hate.

Their voices were even and low, Their eyes were level and straightThere was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd,It was not taught by the State.Noman spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred, It will not swiftly abate, Through thechill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date That theEnglish began to hate.

FireballXL5 said...

More stirring words Capt. - thank you.

I read the 2001 piece on our noble lords, obviously nothing came of it but did they have another bash when the Lisbon Treaty was presented as a fait accompli? This is where one tends towards frustration because, whilst we may feel (and indeed argue) that the law is on our side we just get steamrollered.

I am unsure if the efforts of freemen and LR practitioners will lead to the changes we desire or if it is purely a device for us, as individuals, to live our lives in the way we see fit and solely for our own comfort.

For my part I have taken some of this ethos on board and adapted my life towards a much less conforming attitude which has given me greater peace of mind a sense of doing rather than sitting on the sidelines moaning. Even the small things, like refusing to give out personal details in a shop to prevent data collection, is something I wouldn't have previously done. Now my life is organised such that I pay no TV licence, council tax or utility bills and, regardless of earnings, I won't contribute to HMRC any further. So the state has already receded in my life.

I have yet to make the final leap in to Lawful Rebellion, I may do it, I would be encouraged to do it if I thought we were starting a huge groundswell of rebellion. I suppose what I'm asking is, are we doing this as an individual "lifestyle" choice or as part of a movement for change?

defender said...

Fireball, in a nut shell you are wondering if you go fullon, what happens when your, so called mates, leg it when they get the call to support you.
I am the in the same delima.
I cant see it being too long before we work something out.
In the meanwhile, keep on keeping on mate.

FireballXL5 said...

Just another point Capt. I find when researching Magna Carta that article 61, along with most others, seems to have been repealed leaving only three articles still on the statute book, namely articles 1, 9 and 29.

What I feel we need to advance our cause is a lawyer inclined towards common law and freeman principles to really nail all these ambiguities once and for all.

Mind, if your good self and John Hurst win your respective cases against HMRC and the council tax bandits, I guess it will eliminate the need for that brief!

Captain Ranty said...

Fireball, Defender,

This is most definitely NOT a lifestyle choice.

If it isn't a movement for change then it is worthless.

Send the paperwork in to Buck House. Only queenie (and you) will know. Queenie ain't telling a fucking soul about this.

There is no downside.


Captain Ranty said...


We'll find out on 5th November!


defender said...

Ranty, what i dont get is this.
I am free as is my right, why is it necessary to do the paper work.
I am excersing my right, that does not require permission.

FireballXL5 said...


Thanks for the words of support, all my life I've avoided the herd mentality - it's never easy going out on a limb is it!

Perhaps the Capt. could organise a xmas party at Ranty Towers so we can all get together and bolster our group support :-)

Indyanhat said...

I will be ther Cap'n, I would not miss this one for the world, I think the establishment have made a huge mistake in taking John to court and they will regret it sorely.
Have done a little post of my own on it!

Captain Ranty said...


You have a standing invitation!


defender said...

have you got a template and can i do it by email, 2010 and all that

Captain Ranty said...


The two pre-prepared affidavits are at the link in the main article.

If you have queenies email address, by all means get electronic on her ass!

Otherwise, we Rebels are old school. Plus, you send it recorded delivery so that she can't say she never received it.


defender said...

Fireball, this will give you some strength
Albert Burgess - A Case for Treason Part 1/4

FireballXL5 said...

Capt. I am currently doing battle on another (unrelated) forum trying to educate the sheep in our ways of freedom, the MC and BoR so how should I combat these replies:

I believe you are giving the 1689 Bill of Rights more importance in relation to human rights as we understand them in modern times than it deserves. In any case, many of the "rights" it granted have already been removed by Parliament, such as the right of the Protestant citizenry to bear arms. To that extent it is not something to be relied on by Joe Public as sacrosanct. It had more to do with cutting down the power of absolute monarchs and giving Parliament the supreme sovereignty. That is also its fundamental drawback because Parliament can rely on the old Bill of Rights as the basis on which it has power to take away any of our rights. I believe you are giving the 1689 Bill of Rights more importance in relation to human rights as we understand them in modern times than it deserves. In any case, many of the "rights" it granted have already been removed by Parliament, such as the right of the Protestant citizenry to bear arms. To that extent it is not something to be relied on by Joe Public as sacrosanct. It had more to do with cutting down the power of absolute monarchs and giving Parliament the supreme sovereignty. That is also its fundamental drawback because Parliament can rely on the old Bill of Rights as the basis on which it has power to take away any of our rights"


"Magna carta was a treaty between the Norman and Saxon lords and noblemen and the King at the time. It actually gave little rights to common people, who were little better off than the animals in the fields as regards rights and legal protection"

richard said...

Right. I'm in. Lawful rebellion it is. If it doesn't work, what's the worst that can happen? Guest of the Greybars Hotel? Big deal.

Captain Ranty said...


The BoR is not my "specialty", but I have heard John Hurst talk about it at length. It seems the key phrase about bearing arms, which your pal skipped out, is "...as allowed by law". John talks about the Firearms Act 1968 which is badly flawed.

However, in Lawful Rebellion the statutes and acts are meaningless anyway. That would include the FA 1968.

I think tha last sentence regarding MC is right, but only to a point. Had the nobles needed to enter LR back in the day, they would have needed the help of the freemen and the serfs. We just volunteered this time around.

I can dig deeper for for more detailed answers if you like.


Captain Ranty said...


Welcome aboard!!

They cannot gaol you for exercising a right.

Actually, once you serve the papers on queenie, they cannot gaol you for very much at all.

And you will be in good company. There are now many thousands of us who have told queenie she is out of order.


vervet said...

CR: "There are now many thousands of us who have told queenie she is out of order."

Is there some way you can support this statement CR ? I'm not disputing, but people who are considering LR, but wavering, could be helped in their decision if the size of the movement can be demonstrated.

Also I don't believe the movement will achieve critical mass unless the individuals act as a body - the MSM and government will most certainly take no notice. Individually you can be dismissed in the same terms as bloggers (spotty youths, Mum's basement, etc., etc.). Even if the small number of court cases catch the media eye, you will be dismissed as eccentrics at the edge of society.

I think that the LR movement now needs the 'Tea Party' level of exposure.

defender said...

""I think that the LR movement now needs the 'Tea Party' level of exposure.""
Vervet, we actually do. The entire establishment are shitting bricks because of them, the MSM hammers them at every opertunity.
They are the EDL.
Check it out for yourself.

defender said...

Ranty, Lawful Rebellion Flag, perhaps you might agree to use it.


Captain Ranty said...


Tis done.



Captain Ranty said...


You are right. We need some accurate numbers.

Oddly enough, the only one with an accurate count is her maj.

This time last year TPUC reported that over 200 people a day were sending in their affidavits.


defender said...

I have a thought,

If a man was to put a sign on the outside of his front door which states.

" Those who enter this door will be entering Common Law juristriction"

or words to that effect

Indyanhat said...

@Defender, you are always in common law jurisdiction, it is the law of the land. The sign on your doors (including car doors) should read


It removes all implied rights of access!

Anonymous said...


re;conjestion charges.

If they do not send you a court date, and they just send bailiffs to your house, then just comply with the bailiffs wishes. Then go immediately to your nearest magistrate court and apply for a “Statutory Declaration”. The Statutory Declaration is your chance to put to the court you was unaware of the trial to convict you, and you were not given your rights to defend yourself. This will overturn the ruling against you and the bailiff must return your money or your goods fore with.

john harris got his van back from the bailiffs using this method.

TTC said...

Howdy Cap'n,

I spent quite a while reading through this article, related links, and some background Google research last night. Utterly fascinating.

I would like to know more about this Baron's Committee... who is on it and where they might be contacted.

If I am tempted to follow my duty, I should know who I'm meant to be switching my allegience to until we get remedy...

Excellent and fascinating post.

Captain Ranty said...


Good of you to say so. Thanks.

I tracked down a couple of the noble ones from the Telegraph story.

I wrote to three of them but alas, they did not reply.

Of course, I used email. Maybe I should have put pen to paper?


The Lizard King said...

DEFENDER 09:01 said

"They are the EDL.
Check it out for yourself."

I`ve checked,I`ve checked out!

defender said...

Lizard King,
and.....lets have it, spill

The Lizard King said...


Spill?....its not rocket science is it,shaven headed,masked thugs,using violence,aggression and intimidation to promote their movement/ideology whatever may turn you on it is turns me off,no surprise there surely.

The LR movement is interesting and Captain Ranty seems sincere and honest as far as I can tell on a blog,the EDL however,who you claim to be the political face of the LR movement are not from what Ive seen.

A large gang of "men" traveling the country fueled by drugs,alcohol and spite using aggression, abuse,and intimidation to bully others,which is all they do, is obviously the way forward in your opinion, it`s a massive FAIL in my book.

It `s a shame,LR could be just the tool to shake up the establishment but you are delusional if you think the British people will come flocking when the odious EDL are LR`s political face as you claim.

Ordinary Joe public doesn`t want to swap government thugs for street thugs.

I checked as you suggested to VERVET,

I checked out.

defender said...

Bye bye Mr Lizard, we will manage without you.

Captain Ranty said...

Just for the record, I have no affiliation with EDL, and to the best of my knowledge, neither does the LR or Freeman movement.


FireballXL5 said...

Looks like Lizard has fallen for the MSM portrayal of the EDL. This was also my first impression, based solely on the usual sources, but once I went looking and read the forum on their website my opinions changed. They do not promote violence but do suffer it courtesy of the UAF.

The Lizard King said...


Who is "we"?,do you speak for all?,are you a leader?

"Manage" what defender?,

"Manage" to alienate the majority of the British public from the LR movement?

"manage" to intimidate ordinary people going about their business?

"manage" to get yourselves on the news fighting and shouting abuse?

"manage" to cost local taxpayers bucket loads of money policing you and cleaning up your mess?

"manage" to get yourselves on a coach and travel from one end of the country to the other?

Whats to "manage" defender?,shaven headed masked thugs have been managing to attack others,disrupt their lives and instill fear throughout the ages.

I would be interested to know whether other LR practitioners consider the EDL as their political face as you suggest.

I honestly believe Joe public doesn`t want to swap government thugs for street thugs,if LR is connected with the EDL then I think the movement will fail,sadly!

What is the EDL,its a roadshow of thugs doing what thugs do,no more no less,whatever message you`re trying to get across is lost in the flurry of punches thrown,the faces of hate,the Nazi salutes,the chants of abuse and in your running street battles with your alter ego the UAF.

Two cheeks from the same backside crapping on our streets!

If I was anything to do with LR I would avoid any association with the EDL,UAF, or any other group,gang or political party right or left.

Isn`t thats the whole point of LR.

@Captain Ranty

It is not my intention to dismiss LR,I`ve been following your progress for some time and I admire your and others commitment,however I am struggling with the LR,EDL connection.

Captain Ranty said...


Like I said, there is no connection.

The two movements (LR and Freeman), although similar, are completely independent.


defender said...

King mong, the EDL is the EDL, they are English men excering their rights as freemen, wether or not they realise it.
They also, from my understanding, standing under common law. Thats fine with me.
Be we, I mean myself and all others who defend the right of free speech and right to assemble to correct a wrongful imposed by those who are traitors and work against common law.
Like I said, we will manage without you.
Constructive arguments are always welcome as far as I am concerned, but being closed minded by not doing any research is holding an un informed opinion.

The Lizard King said...

defender said

"they are English men excering their rights as freemen, wether or not they realise it."

How jolly for them,what about other freemen`s right to go about their business peacefully and unmolested by a large rent a mob of skin heads making and acting on threats and shouting/chanting abuse.

Or is your "freeman" more free than another?

Like CR said "there is no connection" and I believe him,despite your claims,I think LR/Freeman are ideologically poles apart.

defender said...

The King

I do believe that you are too young to figure this out.
Had a quick look at your blog and I see you are stuck on post 1.
Please be confident that by the time you get to post 100 you will write with some understanding of what you are upset about.
Acts of God and natural desasters, we can only defend against.
Your Queen, I am afraid to say is a traitor and does not deserve loyalty.
I am not trying to discourage you from the discussion, what I am suggested is to get a bit more genned up. Study, research, consideration, anguish, facing reality and honesty in your work.
peace and love.

The Lizard King said...


I`ts early days but I hope you enjoyed your visit.

Do you agree that the EDL and the LR/Freeman movements are NOT connected,or do you still claim that they are?

I dont and I dont hear anyone else claiming they are do you?

defender said...

I do not honestly know wether or not they are connected.
However the freeman on the land is a right of every Englishman.
You have a right to condem anything you do not like, however, a freeman has the right to lawfully protest and voice his grievances in any lawful way.
If an Englishman supports the EDL that is his right, as long as he is not behaving unlawfully.
I think the part which you may be overlooking is, if a man EDL or not behaves unlawfully he deserves the full force of the law. And, the same rules apply equally to those who oppose him ie, UAF et al.
The law is the law, the problem for us is that the law that is common to this land is being erroded, ie EU Shria UN.
There can only be One Law, anything else IMO, would lead to anarcy to start with and worse to follow .
It is clear to many that treason has been committed, the evidence is there for you to find. The meaning of treason will need to be clear to you before you start to dig.
I sincerly hope this has been helpful, it is my opinion and understanding.

The Lizard King said...

Defender said
"I do not honestly know wether or not they are connected."

Lets pray not.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Re Fireball XL5’s post about the repeal of Magna Carta, the 1215 version was a peace treaty between the Crown and the people. Parliament did not exist at that time. In 1688 the Declaration of Right was also a peace treaty. There was no Parliament because James II yielded to force majeure and abdicated by throwing the Great Seal of England into the Thames and going to France.
The only relevant laws are the common law rules relating to the ownership of property (settled by trial by combat which the Kings lost) and breach of contract (in the event of a breach the contract is no longer binding). Magna Carta 1215 is an indefinite treaty and that is why Chapter 61 exists covering what to do in the event of a breach.
The Barons in 2001 referred to the Bill and Declaration, not statutes which by the common law can be made and repealed by Parliament without any comeback. Treaties are different.

Regards, John Hurst.

IanG said...

Me thinks it may be time for you to moderate comments CR?

Comments that don't relate to a post piss me off, don't know about you

IanG said...

magnacartasocietyblog John Hurst

Forgive me for prying John but are you the same John Hurst who is fighting the council on 5 Nov?

Magna Carta Society Blog said...


I am indeed. I was referring to FireballXL5's post at 21.09 on the 26th October BTW.

Regards, John Hurst.

IanG said...

Well good luck John, wish I could be there but Wales is a we bit fay especially when I can see it being adjourned. I will be supporting you in spirit, rest assured.

I hope you didn't think my comment at 19.50 was directed at you John, it was directed at the UAF EDL commentators. I haven't a clue what they were going on about & it appeared irrelevant to CR's post.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...


Re your post at 21.51 on the 26th October.

It is the Declaration of Rights that we can rely on, not a mere statute.

Have you seen John Bingleys talk about the Constitution BTW?


The House of Lords library had no transcript of The Declaration it and effectively kept it secret.

Do not be misled by anyone who has not done their own research about this subject. That especially includes lawyers. The Constitution was removed from school and legal syllabuses in the 60's and 70's and there are posters with hidden agenda’s out there.

The RKBA is alive and well BTW. Duress covers it nicely and none of the statutes relating to firearms and other weapons infringe it. Home office policy does but policy is not law.

Regards, John Hurst.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Re your post at 17.29 on 26th October can you contact me at my Blog please? I may have something of interest for you.


Regards, John Hurst.

FireballXL5 said...

John Hirst

Thank you for your comments, although I am still struggling with both the validity and relevance of some of this. It's difficult within the limits of a blog comment section to permit a lengthy and detailed discourse.

My research throws up conflicting evidence and I find it difficult to confidently nail the true position with regard to our rights and which laws are still in force.

I guess we have to accept that there are ambiguities in this and that testing the water, as in your case, will hopefully lead to greater clarification!

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Fireball XL5

Ours is an adversarial legal system and what has not been argued is not decided.

It is easy to determine which statutes are in force from the UK statute law database.

Hansard back to 1803 is online and will tell you whether statutes have infringed the common law. As noted above in relation to the RKBA, you will find that they have not. Other maters, such as trial by jury, have been recently however.

By recently I mean post the 1966 House of Lords Practice Direction that precedent need not be followed in all cases. The new Supreme Court are not happy with that and I aim to give them the chance to make a decision about it. My video covers it:


Regards, John Hurst.

Ticket Office said...

@IanG 19:50,

Pick up your refund on your way out.

Johnny said...

To clarify the 1688 Bill of Rights and arms for defence, the clause is thus:

"7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

However, this must be read in context. It singles out Protestants not because it was intended that only Protestants should have arms but because one of the grievances previously listed in the document is thus:

"6. By causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law."

The Law being referred to is the common law. The Papists were being employed unlawfully as a standing army in time of peace - contrary to common law. In fact the phrase, "as allowed by Law" is not restrictive it is permissive, i.e. what it should be read to say is, "We must be allowed arms for defence as we are entitled by the common law."

This is abundantly clear if you read the document and the contemporary "Statutes at Large" and Blackstone's "Commentaries."

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Johnny!

Always good to get a bit of clarity.

I suspect we are fucked by that all important "as allowed by law" at the end of the sentence.

Do you think that we can arm ourselves regardless of that sneaky wording?