‘Lawful rebellion’ is a con. Declare ‘sovereign independence’.

Hi TAP
Please check this article: http://www.thebernician.net/the-rebellious-path-of-least-resistance-to-eu-hegemony/

Also check out Michael’s successes at this link: http://self-realisation.com/category/equity/case-studies/

Cheers
Dave

Whilst these historical facts are damning enough, the very drafting of Article 61 was nevertheless a prima facie attempt by the barons to legislate for their rebellion against the monarchy, which is defined thus in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:

REBELLION, crim. law. The taking up of arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.

arrestthejudge

Rebellion against unjust laws enacted by the monarch is, therefore, necessarily incapable, under any circumstances, of being deemed lawful under English common law, whichBouvier’s is an eloquent expression of, notwithstanding the fact that the book is primarily concerned with the laws of the United States.

LAWFUL. That which is not forbidden by law. Id omne licitum est, quod non est legibus prohibitum, quamobrem, quod, lege permittente, fit, poenam non meretur. To be valid a contract must be lawful.

TAP’s translation – All is legal that is not prohibited by laws, whereby what is done with law permitting, does not deserve punishment.

REBEL. A citizen or subject who unjustly and unlawfully takes up arms against the constituted authorities of the nation, to deprive them of the supreme power, either by resisting their lawful and constitutional orders, in some particular matter, or to impose on them conditions. Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, §328. In another sense it signifies a refusal to obey a superior, or the commands of a court. Vide Commission of Rebellion.

Source for legal definitions: Bouviers Law Dictionary

It is, in other words, a lawful impossibility to legislate for rebels to resist the established laws of a tyrannical state within the parameters of those laws, as the barons, perhaps knowingly, attempted in vain to do by drawing up the first charter in 1215, none of which was subsequently considered to have legal effect by the majority of them, upon their departure from London.

BG

Given these well-documented historical facts and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, “Lawful Rebellion” can only reasonably be considered an oxymoron, suitably disguised as a remedy prescribed by law, more than likely propagated by the secret intelligence services, and which too many good, honest and intelligent people have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

If I were one of your number, which could conceivably be in the region of ten thousand people or more, I would be demanding that its still very vocal proponents deliver an unreserved public apology, having spent the best part of at least the last six years promoting “Lawful Rebellion” as the only remedy worth pursuing, when it is founded upon an entirely erroneous concept.

roger hayes

Whilst those of us who have been advocating the voluntary association of self-governed individuals under natural law have been almost entirely ignored by the very same people, more than likely because we also dismiss all forms of democratic collectivist government as tyrannical in nature – mob-rule by another name.

However, in the most simplistic of terms and for the eradication of doubt:

Just as a citizen-subject-taxslave cannot be sovereign, rebellion, by its very definition, cannot be lawful; and there is absolutely nothing in English Common Law which even substantiates the existence of “Lawful Rebellion” as a concept, let alone a remedy, whether under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 or otherwise.

Anybody not working for the secret intelligence services who tells you anything else is almost certainly relying upon the research of people who haven’t actually researched this subject properly. Either way, their judgment cannot be trusted if they reject the unequivocal points made in this article, to which there is no sustainable rebuttal, as just a modicum of research without prejudice will illuminate for those who actually seek the truth of the matter, rather than information which supports pre-conceived and inherently false rhetoric.

raystclair

In conclusion, there is no doubt that justice is virtually unobtainable in her majesty’s courts, to all people who seek to obtain it using the traditional methods, but even in the highest court of conscience, “Lawful Rebellion” would be dismissed as a dangerous urban myth at best and a soul-destroying psy-op at worst; whereas, the self-determination of the individual is an unalienable birthright, which does not rely upon any man-made laws for its validity, as myself and others have been arguing since the Autumn of 2008.

How different the current situation we face on these islands might have been, had ten thousand British people revoked their consent to be governed by any external authority, declaredsovereign independence and joined a voluntary association of anarcho-nations, instead of swearing allegiance to the self-serving lineage of the moneyed aristocracy, under a repealed article of a nullity at law. A less effective remedy than “Lawful Rebellion” is hardly even imaginable.

Perhaps this was the purpose of a secret intelligence operation all along – to convince capable people who are rebelliously predisposed to take the path of least resistance to the foreign occupation of these lands by unaccountable genocidal technocrats; in order that the final part of the Treaty of Nice was ratified on November the 1st 2014, without any obvious opposition from the inhabitants of these islands.

Despite this depressing tale of dastardly deceptions, shattered hopes and acts of gross futility, a powerfully potent precedent was nevertheless set by a Sovereign Grand Jury of indigenous British people, 21 days before the ratification date, in the form of two sealed declarations which pose the most serious legal challenge to EU hegemony since the creation of the European Economic Community in 1957.

It will of course never be too late for the people of these islands to put aside their differences and unite to End Genocide Now, which I humbly urge each and every one of you, free man, sovereign, citizen and rebel, to help facilitate at the earliest opportunity. Our children’s future depends upon it.

Subscribe, Support & Share

Subscribe To This Blog
Subscribe To The Wake-The-Feck-Up Podcast
Subscribe To The Self-Realisation Community
Support The Mission

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

One Response to “‘Lawful rebellion’ is a con. Declare ‘sovereign independence’.”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Paying taxes has enabled these terrorists to take the power away from the people. We have funded the whole damn demise of our existence. Bloodlines have betrayed and deceived every single civilisation. Time to take them down by shutting off the money tap. Simples !!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.