Unlawful rebellion

 

Here we go—another day heralds the foundation of another libertarian group blog. It is hardly surprising, really; some time ago, Tom Paine discussed the idea that group blogs might be the way forward—an idea that he reinforces with his introduction to Orphans of Liberty.
Whilst I wish the best for the Orphans, but they are fighting a real problem...
I don't know what it is about libertarians but any groupings—whether Alliances or Parties—seem to lead to discord and disagreement. I don't know why this should be—perhaps it is that the nutters seem to be able to shout the loudest.
One of the most vociferous bunch of people around at the moment are the so-called Freemen on the Land. Whilst I enjoy watching their antics, I have always wondered just how sound a legal basis they have for their assertions. But perhaps Captain Ranty's post at Orphans of Liberty might give some kind of indication—especially the section on Lawful Rebellion.

Lawful Rebellion
This is a different kettle of fish entirely.
Lawful Rebels take their guidance, and their instructions, from Magna Carta 1215 Art. 61, which gives all Britons the right, (actually, the obligation), to rebel if the monarch violates her Coronation Oath. She has done so, by herself or by proxy, over three thousand times since 1953. The Labour government tinkered (illegally and unlawfully) with the House of Lords when they passed a Bill of the same name in 1999.
They disallowed (some) hereditary Peers from taking their seats in the HoL despite them having Letters of Patent. In so doing, they diluted the power of the HoL as an Upper Chamber, and as a result, a Barons Committee was formed in 2001. Some 80 Peers got together and selected a Quorum. In turn, the Quorum delegated four Peers to trot up to Buck House to inform Madge that they were dischuffed.
They gave her 40 days to put right the wrongs, (she did not) so they gave her a further 10 days to deliberate the Second Affidavit (known as an Opportunity To Cure), and, although she acknowledged the Barons Committee, she did not correct her oath violations.
Now that all conditions for Lawful Rebellion are met, the way is open for ALL Britons to revoke their allegiance to the monarch and swear it instead to the Barons Committee. Like them, I also sent my First and Second Affidavits to Madge, and more recently I sent a letter to the Barons Committee pledging my allegiance to them. Article 61, never revoked amended or rescinded, gives me the right to ignore any and all statutes issued by the monarch and her government. I am instructed to "..distrain and distress" them in any way I can. Which includes, but is not limited to withholding taxes, and generally being a pain in the arse. I am doing just that.

As you might expect, your humble Devil enjoys watching people make a pain in the arse of themselves—especially when their target is the state—but how much legal basis is there for Lawful Rebellion.
Well, in a nutshell—none.
Why? Surely Magna Carta—that great charter signed by King John I in 1215—is the cornerstone of the liberties of the British law.
Unfortunately not.
Magna Carta was actually revised a number of times—from 1216 until its last ratification in 1423—but the first time that Magna Carta was incorporated into British law was in 1225. By that time, a number of the clauses had been amended or specifically omitted—and Clause 61 was one of the clauses that was removed in 1216.
When researching this, I found a useful translation of Magna Carta, with the omitted [*] and extant [+] clauses marked very clearly. For those that are interested, the only remaining extant clauses—those that have not been subsequently overwritten by other laws and statutes—are as follows:

1. FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

13. The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

39. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

And that's it.
Now, one can see that any copper trying to nick your cash is, in fact, in breach of Clause 39 and it is entirely possible that various agencies—from the Legal Aid to your thieving lawyer—could be accused of breaching Clause 40. Other than that, however, Magna Carta does not actually protect you from an awful lot. If you want to know when these clauses were removed or superceded, Wikipedia has a comprehensive list.
Now, I am sure that many people would say that they don't recognise many of these superceding laws, but they overlook the simple fact that Lawful Rebellion—as defined by Clause 61—does not apply because it was never incorporated into English law in the first place.
So, if you want to indulge in rebellion, by all means do so—but do be aware that your cause is not supported in law.
Any law.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheDevilsKitchen/~3/pKfHqpS0GZ8/unlawful-rebellion.html