The most important FACT in Lawful Rebellion

[HVYMTL]

You've seen the film Braveheart right? If not then perhaps it's time you watched it, it's been out for a long time and if you haven't seen it I'm about to spoil it, you've been warned.

So anyway, towards the end, William is there in the court with massive iron shackles all over him, and they tell him he is accused of Treason against Longshanks.

William responds : "At no time in my life have I ever sworn allegiance to Longshanks" (or something like that)

They respond : "It doesn't matter, he is your king."

The find him guilty of Treason and proceed to cut him into bits, he screams the word freedom and then a few minutes later the credits roll.

So what just happened there?

The Judge found that allegiance is owed to the king regardless of personal beliefs or oaths.

They justified that everyone automatically owes allegiance to the crown using the medieval thinking of good and evil, believing that since the crown is oath sworn to truth, justice, duty, honour etc etc, that it's good to support them in bringing forth those things and evil to oppose them.

So the judge guy probably actually believed William was an evil agent driven in his actions by the devil, and hence had no problem ordering his "purification" on the following day.

In modern times the notion of owed allegiance and duty to the monarch is still supposed, apparently there is still on the books laws about Treason. (See : the videos by Albert Burgess)

So we have a parliament, courts and police who are all acting together in order to enforce the legislations written by Parliament and signed into law by the Monarch, upon the general public, who are deemed to owe a duty of allegiance to the Monarch, and the Monarch's government.

This system has been in effect for hundreds and hundreds of years, the bones of the system date from early medieval times and have not changed at all.

Fossilised they are!

Then in 2001 something changed.

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

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 Charter's 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 Queen's 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 Carta's 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.

The barons judged that the laws of Europe are a direct threat to the rights and freedoms of the British people (including themselves), and so they enacted article 61 of the Magna Carta, and thus the Lawful Rebellion had officially started at the very highest levels.

Now coming back to the point about William Wallace and the owed duty of allegiance to the Monarch, it's quite clear that the Barons have changed the rules.

Clause 61 of the 1215 charter states: "The barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the realm they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and cause to be observed the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present charter". The clause goes on to say that if the king does not keep to the charter, the twenty five barons shall seize "castles, lands and possessions... until, in their judgement, amends have been made". "Anyone in the land" would be permitted by the king to swear an oath to the twenty five to obey them in these matters, and the king was in fact supposed to order people to do so even if they didn't want to swear an oath to the twenty five barons.

So now, duty is no longer owed to the Monarch, but in accordance with the Magna Carta, the very foundation of the concept of Duty to the Monarch, such duty and allegiance is now in fact owed the twenty five rebel barons.

Therefore, in accordance with history and tradition, the barons have effectively shot a cannon through the hull of parliament because when a member of the public is charged with violating a legislation written by parliament, it is no longer true that they are subject to that legislation because they are in fact no longer subject to the Monarch who the parliament, courts and police are acting in allegiance to.

This is why enacting article 61 is undermining the UK's integration with the EU, because as much as the EU has control over parliament via such things as the Lisbon Treaty, the law of the UK is now set such that Parliament no longer has unquestionable authority and jurisdiction over the people due to their owed allegiance to the Monarch

The big problem is the fact that either our judiciary are all pro-europe and willing to commit treason against the Barons (and therefore the people of this country) by continuing to perform their previous duties to the Monarch as if nothing has changed, OR, they are simply ignorant of the facts and thus are carrying on regardless of them.

To make the situation clearer if William had been stood there in his chains and said :

"I was doing my duty under the spirit of the Magna Carta in accordance with, and under the orders of the Barons"

He might well of not got "purified" the following day.

On the other hand maybe the judge would of just ruled him guilty anyway, that's the risk you take when you decide to stand up for what you believe is right, and that is the risk every hero real or fictional faces when they decide to resist tyranny.

[vanilla]

The problem with that being that it's not the 1215 charter that is still on the books, it's the 1297 charter, which doesn't include article 61.

edit: Just realised I posted that at 12:15

[HVYMTL]

Of course it's not in the books, what self respecting tyranny is going to leave such an obvious Achillies heal unguarded?

Never the less, it was part of the original charter and it prompted the barons, dozens of their peers and thousands of members of the public into taking an important symbolic action.

A large fraction, granted not all, of the Police and judiciary are actually decent people who believe in the law and in things like duty and honour and doing what is right.

Now just because shortly after the charter was produced it was almost instantly watered down and mutilated, doesn't mean it has no power. In fact historically whenever it has come into play it has worked, the most notable example being the 'glorious revolution' lead by Cromwell.

It cannot be denied that the effect of the Magna Carta is once again flowing through our people and shaping their thinking, encouraging them to take the rebellion as a serious movement when otherwise it could much more easily be dismissed.

The old bit of paper can't change the lay of the land by itself, but through the power of it's words it provides a very important guide and morale boost.

Being up against the establishment is a hard place to be, it's made just that little bit easier by the fact that it's possible to show that the system itself is divided and has failed to meet up to it's own standards by it's own definition. It provides a firm moral footing to justify being involved in this rebellion, like a compass we can look towards where it is pointing us.

Instead of being a rag tag bunch of easily dismissed mal-contents, we have a historical platform to stand upon. The unfolding of history has clearly led us inexorably to this point and it's up to us where we go from here.

The words of the Magna Carta inspired the barons and their actions were reported and knowledge of that event inspired this very thread.

What will it inspire you to do?

What will it inspire people who are higher up in the structure than us to do?

[atlas_shrugged]

I can confirm that Article 61 is still in the books.

I have been to the British Library near to Kings X and have seen one of the original copies of the Magna Carta.

I also bought a small booklet from the British Library and that has a facsimille copy of the original and an English translation. Article 61 is definitely there.

It is not possible to repeal a constitutional treaty between the King and the barons. It was a done deal. If *they* don't like it then *we* enter lawful rebellion.

[vanilla]

I can confirm that Article 61 is still in the books.

I have been to the British Library near to Kings X and have seen one of the original copies of the Magna Carta.

Obviously it's still on the original copy. Laws don't get repealed using Tippex.

It is not possible to repeal a constitutional treaty between the King and the barons. It was a done deal. If *they* don't like it then *we* enter lawful rebellion.

Look up "parliamentary supremacy".

[HVYMTL]

It really doesn't matter if it's still present or not, because we still know it was there. If a tyranny attempts to destroy all evidence of it's own past it doesn't mean that that past no longer exists.

Article 61 is more than mere ink on paper, it's an idea, a concept larger than mere parchment, which was created by the Ancient Britons in the dark past to illuminate us here in the present as to what the real problem is and what we need to do about it for the sake of the future.

If parliament decided to make a new act and put it down on paper that the term "lawfull rebellion" is outlawed and that all websites containing the term are to be shut down with prison sentences mandatory for anyone who types it into the internet, do we agree that would be a just law? And just because it's written down that it has to be correct and obeyed?

They may take our keyboards...

But they will never take our insight!

[enegiss]

They may take our keyboards...

But they will never take our insight

!yaaaaaay! great line HVYMTL

[HVYMTL]

I just couldn't resist that one ^^

[vanilla]

It really doesn't matter if it's still present or not, because we still know it was there. If a tyranny attempts to destroy all evidence of it's own past it doesn't mean that that past no longer exists.

Is there a reason you bring that up, because putting it on display for public viewing isn't very much like "attempts to destroy all evidence". Just curious as to why you would mention it in this case.

And just because it's written down that it has to be correct and obeyed?

This is a pretty fundamental question and I think the only serious answer is "it depends who you ask". Personally I don't think anything is correct just because it's written down, but some people do. You have to get into what each person understands by "correct", and their personal judgement about what is or isn't correct, or just. This applies as much to the Magna Carta as it does to any modern legislation.

We each have our opinions about what is right or wrong, who should or shouldn't make law, and so on. No single opinion is inherently better than any other because we don't have an objective standard to measure them against.

[HVYMTL]

Is there a reason you bring that up, because putting it on display for public viewing isn't very much like "attempts to destroy all evidence". Just curious as to why you would mention it in this case.

Yes because there is a very real chance that if Magna Carta becomes an actual problem for the system, then they will simply attempt to erase it. The Nazi's burned books... the great library of Alexandra was burned to the ground for the information it contained... these things happen.

And just because it's written down that it has to be correct and obeyed?

This is a pretty fundamental question and I think the only serious answer is "it depends who you ask". Personally I don't think anything is correct just because it's written down, but some people do. You have to get into what each person understands by "correct", and their personal judgement about what is or isn't correct, or just. This applies as much to the Magna Carta as it does to any modern legislation.

True enough. I guess some people like being government regulated slaves, makes them feel comfortable and secure.

We each have our opinions about what is right or wrong, who should or shouldn't make law, and so on. No single opinion is inherently better than any other because we don't have an objective standard to measure them against.

I disagree, there is an objective measurement of good and bad laws ; the society it produces.