Welcome! This site is focused on Restoring the Rule of Law LR big sticker

  • When the people are afraid of government it is called tyranny; when the government is afraid of the people it is called LIBERTY!

We hope that you will be able to locate the information you want; we will do our very best to provide up-to-date information on the standing of the rebellion, the processes we use to defeat the treasonous government, judiciary and police and the mechanisms in place for you to protect yourself and your family against the rigours of modern life in the quasi-police state named Britain!

Let’s summarise aim of this website for you:

  • Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 set out (restate) our unalienable RIGHTS derived from the common law. They are beyond the reach of parliament and they can NEVER revoke (repeal) them. The reason why this is so is the fact that both Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights are peace treaties between the Crown (as an institution, not an individual) and the people who lawfuly rose up and were victorious.

Here is what Blackstone has to say about these events in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:

“On 5 May, the barons, having chosen as their leader, Robert Fitzwalter, acclaimed by them as “Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church,” performed the solemn feudal ceremony of diffidatio, or renunciation of their fealty and homage, a formality indispensable before vassals could, without infamy, wage war upon their feudal overlord. Absolved from their allegiance at Wallingford by a Canon of Durham, they marched on London, on the attitude of which all eyes now turned with solicitude. When the great city opened her gates to the insurgents, setting an example to be immediately followed by other towns, she practically made the attainment of the Great Charter secure. The Mayor of London thus takes an honoured place beside the Archbishop of Canterbury among the band of patriots to whose initiative England owes her Charter of Liberties. John, deserted on all sides, and with an Exchequer too empty for the effective employment of mercenary armies, agreed to a conference on the 11th day of June, a date afterwards postponed till the 15th of the same month.

It was on 15 June, then, in the year 1215, that the conference began between John, supported by a slender following of half-hearted magnates, upon the one side, and the mail-clad barons, backed by a multitude of determined and well-armed knights, upon the other. The conference lasted for eight days, from Monday of one week till Tuesday of the next. On Monday the 15th, John set seal to the demands presented to him by the barons, accepting every one of their forty-eight “Articles,” with the additional “Forma Securitatis” or executive clause, vesting in twenty-five of their number full authority to constrain King John by force to observe its provisions…”.

Blackstone, Great Charter, p. Xiii.

Here is confirmation from Blackstone’s Commentaries that “Right of War” sets lawful title to The Crown and the limitations which bind the King:

“THIS conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government. And therefore, as the English laws still remained in force, he must necessarily take the crown subject to those laws, and with all it’s inherent properties; the first and principal of which was it’s descendibility. Here then we must drop our race of Saxon kings, at least for a while, and derive our descents from William the conqueror as from a new stock, who acquired by right of war (such as it is, yet still the dernier resort of kings) a strong and undisputed title to the inheritable crown of England…”.

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First : Chapter the Third : Of the King and His Title P 193.


  • Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 is the constitutional Security Clause to protect the people from a corrupt or despotic government providing us lawful authority to refuse to cooperate with any Crown agency.
  • Halsbury’s Laws of England at Vol.44 clearly describes Magna Carta 1215 as a “constitutional statute”. It is important to bear in mind that the legal term “statute” has two meanings. The original, which pre-dates the first Parliament in 1297, is “A re-statement of the law by the Sovereign as an exercise of the Royal Prerogatve”. Acts of Parliament are also described as statutes. They can be repealed by the institution which made them by the common law rule that no Parliament may bind its successor.
  • Article 61 was invoked by petitioning of all members of the House of Lords by the Magna Carta Society in 1999. A Committee of the Barons was formed and served notice on The Sovereign in March 2001. The research paper which led to the Petition is at


  • The core of the Petition is as follows:

“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 June 1953.

We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects.


This document has the status of a Judgment by Her Peers (literally) on The Sovereign. Ordinary criminal matters are dealt with by a Judicial sub-committee of the Lords. Matters affecting members, which includes The Soverign, are dealt with by he whole House.

  • The Queen failed to respond within 40 days according to her constitutional AND contractual duty (Coronation Oath). Her representaive claimed that she was bound to follow the instructions of Her ministers and had no veto.
  • The terms of Article 61 (lawful rebellion) will remain in force untill a Constitutional Convention decides otherwise.
  • Anyone who has taken their Oath of Allegiance possesses immunity from any crown or parliamentary mandate, law etc. if committed with the express intention of distressing/distraining the Crown under A.61 This is called “Lawful Excuse.” (But they are NOT excused from common-law crimes and torts, except under duress of circumstance). This means:
    • ALL Britons without exception are obliged by the common law to stand in lawful rebellion or be compelled to do so.
    • All Britons have a constitutional / common law OBLIGATION to disrupt Crown operations/activities to the best of their abilities.
    • All Britons have a constitutional / common law OBLIGATION to withhold taxes to the best of their abilities.
    • All Britons have a constitutional / common law OBLIGATION to seize government buildings and assets and retain possession until redress of grievance to the best of their abilities. This could be any Crown building including Courts, police stations, town halls.
  • We have rebutted court summonses, warrants of arrest and criminal custodial sentences with impunity and will continue to do so until redress of grievance. Some members have had £1000’s HMRC penalties refunded!
  • Halsbury’s vol 44 clearly states (including Magna Carta 1215), that, “the rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental. . .


[on Magna Carta] ‘The greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot’ Between 1962 and 1982. For more information about Lord Denning, click here.

There is a lot more that could be said here but too much too soon. . . Most people seeing this for the first time are, quite frankly, shocked. . . Suffice to say, only those who have taken their Oath of Allegiance are lawful inhabitants of Britain. Lawful rebels are actually the only lawful inhabitants of this country! In the Autumn of 2014 the Glastonbury group disrupted the council meeting and seized the Town Hall under Ch.61. The police were called, they came, they were served notice under Ch.61 and they left without taking any action whatsoever – leaving the group in possession of the building. Why? Because they were acting lawfully!

 Please visit our Facebook page:

Those who govern are not empowered to breach the Constitution or the law and may never lawfully breach their own sworn oaths of office.

Our right to use Article 61:

“Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even He and They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or anyone else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have no force nor effect and can be safely ignored with no legal ill effect. In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby compel any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the properties and persons and families of those [. . . .] who had successfully completed such abrogation, including but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had voted in favour of any such successful attempts at abrogation. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.”

[Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956)]

 On the subject of Magna Carta 1215 Winston Churchill also writes,

“The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, SWOLLEN WITH ITS OWN AUTHORITY, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success.”
[Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956)]

It is up to US now to make certain that this latest appeal does not fall on deaf ears.

The following recording touches on the fraud committed to bring Britain into the EU (EEC).

The following video takes a peek inside the secrets that our government does not want us knowing. Please watch it with an open mind and then go and verify the facts for yourself. If we do not fight back and regain control of our own country, a bleak future awaits us. We the people have the power to hold the British government to account for decades of twisted secrets, child sex abuse and Treason. Come and join the fight and claim back your piece of Britain!
The EU was the brainchild of the Nazis I claim in the video – please see the following document for context:
A Short History of The EU and the Euro by Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc
We also strongly advise you to sit and read Justin Walker’s monumental revelation about how our financial system is a lie and how we are being manipulated. The eBook is entitled, “What exactly is austerity? Answer, it’s just a huge, provable lie.” We have it on good authority that the Conservative government are going to try to stop this important publication from being spread, so please download it and share it far and wide!
Finally, if in doubt about the authenticity of the validity of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, the Thoburn judgment has clearly described these as “constitutional statutes” which are “immune from implied repeal.” This means that no legislation subsequently enacted can in any way alter their legal efficacy. Remember, Magna Carta 1215 pre-dates parliament and therefore it has no authority to abrogate or repeal it. The Bill of Rights binds successive parliaments, whether they like it or not. Often one argument proffered is that no legislation can bind successive parliaments however if you read the Human Rights Act 1998, you will see it does exactly this, nullifying that very argument! Whilst parliament may repeal the HRA, removing that binding, they may not repeal Magna Carta 1215 or the Bill of Rights which makes them binding in perpetuity.


  1. Gary Rowlands

    I’m very keen to find out more about this.

    1. Richard

      I have great interest in the Magna carter but as I am a fire arm and gun holder if I inform the Chief of police I am standing under the magna carter ill they take away my license and confiscate my fire arms ???

      1. Nigel Coleman

        Hi Richard and thanks for visiting.

        The following is meant in the nicest possible way! Currently – and until you submit your Oath, you are an outlaw. Only those who have lawfully stand under A.61 are lawful inhabitants of the country! By submitting your Oath you are simply switching your allegiance from the Crown to the people of the UK. When one does this, nothing happens – you don’t suddenly start getting knocks at the door. Now, since our right to bear arms remains unrebutted from the Declaration of Right 1688, there is no imperative for the police to come and take your arms. If they did this would be tort conversion, along with a number of other torts and you would have a private claim against the individual(s) who took your property. We would say that if you still felt nervous about taking the step to A.61, then do not inform the Chief you have stood under A.61.

        1. Richard

          Thank you for your comment Nigel, If they did confiscate my fire arms could I expect help or advice from your selves on how to start a private claim against them ??

          1. Nigel Coleman

            We would provide as much help as we could muster. We are all in this together, trying to prevent this country from falling off a knife-edge into a precipice. We must all try to help each other defeat what can only be described as a fascist government. If you send off your Oath you are simply complying with the highest ranking law currently in effect, this does not give the police or any other crown ‘authority’ any cause for action against you unless you started treating your arms differently from the rules you currently observe with them. For the record, one of my close friends is also a gun owner (under crown rules) and has had two inspections since standing under A.61. No problems yet.

      2. David Robinson

        Hi Richard, thanks for the question.

        To do so would be an act of treason. It would also constitute other lesser crimes. The police (allegedly) stand under the crown therefore they have NO authority to make ANY demands on you since article 61 was invoked.

        The point is that they may well act against you there is no guarantee? but if you do the process correctly, then whosoever does (whilst on Notice of article 61’s invocation) will be committing high treason by doing so. So far they all back off on this sticky matter…police, bailiffs even judges/magistrates.

        Its like playing a game of chess and poker….they may threaten to act against you but in our experiences they don’t carry out the threats. You also have a lawful right to bear arms in times of institutionalized treason.

    2. Andy Barnes

      As am I ! i have been wondering about ways to go about this for some time , this site seems brilliant ! I am gettin more and more angry with the state of things and want to do something about it ! IM IN!!!!

  2. Tony Crowther

    Which Baron/Lord, do I pledge my oath to?

    1. Nigel Coleman


      Thanks for coming to the website. The process is not about pledging an allegiance to any particular Baron but rather to the Barons’ Committee. Article 61 was put in place so that the people had redress should the government become corrupt or tyrannical – something we now have in spades, especially in light of a quite obviously rigged election. The people assail the Barons who form a committee. That committee then presents a petition to the monarch who is contractually obliged to react accordingly. What we are doing is withdrawing our (presumed) allegiance from the monarch and placing it in the Barons’ Committee for as long as Article 61 is invoked – and no longer than that.

      You are free to send your Oath to any of the Barons listed on the “INSTRUCTIONS to Enter Into L.R.” page – but for the avoidance of doubt, you may be sending your Oath to one Baron but your Oath is not to that Baron but to the whole committee to support peaceful lawful rebellion under Magna Carta 1215, Article 61.

  3. Roger Gough

    Wasn’t habeus corpus given away last year by Parliament?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Roger.

      Thanks for coming to the website. That was the understanding we had (prior to November 2014) but not all aspects that were due to be revoked have actually been implemented. As far as we know habeas corpus still exists – perhaps until 2017 with the next ratification? With any luck we will have succeeded before that deadline.

  4. Nick, Leatherbarrow

    Hi, i just wanted to ask if a persons passport and driving licence would Still be valid,if they stand in Lawful Rebellion.
    Thank you.

    1. Marcus Templeton

      Hello Nick and thanks for visiting our website. Life is infinitely more complex now than when the Magna Carta was signed, the Barons, the King nor the people could have envisaged things like the NHS, air-travel, credit cards, utility bills etc. etc. As of 2015 we are unaware of any large companies standing under Article 61 (or should I say directors of the companies). Your question is more important than you might realise.

      Contrary to popular belief, lawful rebellion is not about anarchy (nor violence), nor about demolishing a system of government – just demolishing the corrupt elements within it; we have a relatively good system, full of bad people. If you were to stand completely and utterly in lawful rebellion in 2015, your life would grind to a halt pretty quickly. You couldn’t go to work because your employer most probably isn’t in LR. You couldn’t stop work and claim benefits because the DWP are not in LR. Nor is your bank, credit card company, telephone provider, doctor. . . Therefore we must accept compromise to continue to function. To this end, once standing in lawful rebellion, we use or accept these services “under duress.” If we are committed to LR, we cannot engage with anyone or anything that is not, thus we continue to use these services under duress and out of necessity.

      One of the common questions that crops up is, “Should I register my baby?” Some people that are truthers in addition to being in LR would automatically say, “No, registration is handing title over to the Crown corporation.” However, if you did not register you child, there would be no child benefit, and the implications for their education and welfare become much more complicated. In LR we would much rather accept the benefits of the State under duress than live a life full of complicated battles to obtain simple services that everyone else takes for granted.

      In short, in LR you continue to use all of your existing licences, documents, passes, cards etc. etc. under duress until such time as the issuer also stands under Article 61.

      1. Phil Nobbs

        Hi, My wife and I have not registered the birth of our child who is now nearly 4 years old. Yet we obtained a passport, child benefit and child tax credits for her. It was not easy, it took about a year to get child benefit, but it was backdated to our child’s birth.

        1. Nigel Coleman

          Hi Phil.

          Congratulations on your victory. When your little one was born, did you get a certificate of live birth from the midwife? Demonstrating a working process is a benefit to us all so if you have any details you can share about how you overcame the hurdles, many could benefit. Thanks for sharing your victory with us!

  5. gene

    hi. very intrigued. very disappointed in the recent election. want to protest or do something against injustice but we all know what good protesting does. what can i do to protect myself against the system that i feel closing in on me?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hello Gene and thanks for visiting the site. The election caught out a lot of people – probably because it was rigged by a corrupt administration. Our constitution provides the only lasting solution and the only interim remedy – lawful rebellion under Article 61 Magna Carta 1215. Please take a look at the ‘How to enter lawful rebellion’ page and send off your Oath to the Barons’ Committee (i.e. one of the Barons who was in the committee!) this gives you lawful excuse (immunity) to break statute law (but I don’t recommend doing this this for newcomers!). Stand with us in lawful rebellion and take back your sovereignty and your power.

      1. Jonathan

        Hi Nigel I am writing to you to ask a couple of questions please…. I am what you would call new to the lawful rebellion and was wondering which baron and where to send my oath of allegiance too?…..I have had a read of the treaty that King John signed in 1215 however will the judges listen to me if I have to go to court of none payments of fines/taxes? thank you.

        1. Nigel Coleman


          All the info you need about how and to whom you send the oath is on the page: whether or not you choose this path is an entirely personal choice. The fundamental argument is that those of us standing with the barons are required to compel everyone else to stand thus however it is not as simple as that as modern life is infinitely more complex that it was in the days when A.61 was written. We must still function in our modern, tyrannical and computerised society and must, if standing under A.61 do many things which are undertaken ‘under duress.’

          The principle followed by must lawful rebels is to refuse to accede to any demands for summons by the courts, using conditional responses to seek proof from the summonsing court that they have any authority whatsoever since the invocation of A.61. The issue right now is that many courts throughout the land are ignoring law, ignoring civil/criminal procedure rules and simply doing what they want, immaterial of whether natural justice is being served – the magistrates courts being the worst offenders. Just last week I witnessed perjury be ignored and dismissed in a magistrates “court.”

          In short, attending a court simply gives in to their jurisdiction, so challenging them is the only viable way forward – but takes a strength of character beyond the willingness of many to weather. We cannot tell you how to proceed, only that the path is not a calm sea by any stretch of the imagination. Picking the wrong battles can result in charges being placed on one’s private properties, even pursuit for bankruptcy if one chooses to use A.61 as a mechanism to refuse payment of certain obligations.

          We all have a duty to stand under the British Constitution but we would never ask anyone to take steps beyond the circle of comfort in which they are able to perform happily. The path of A.61 is not for everyone.

          However, sending one’s oath does not automatically mean one MUST jump right in with civil disobedience. Watch, learn, read, choose one’s battles carefully and wisely, that is the best counsel we can offer.

  6. miguel constantino

    hi, i just want to thank you for providing all this useful information and wanted to know if i can send my oath to the barons as someone who was born in spain but lived in england for the last 40 years.

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Miguel thanks for visiting the site. If Britain is your home (or in fact any of the Commonwealth countries) then you are perfectly entitled to stand under Article 61, birth nationality is not a feature of this article. Welcome to the fold!

      For the avoidance of doubt, once Article 61 ha been invoked (March 2001) everyone in Britain & Commonwealth is obliged to stand under it or be an outlaw. This means that only those who have submitted their oath are lawfully living in Britain!

  7. Jay

    How do i do this oath? i am unclear how to submit the oath.

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Jay and thanks for visiting. The precise method is explained on the following link:

      Simply put, you download the template (or print the hand-written one from online), fill in your name and address, get it signed and witnessed then take a copy of it. Next you post by Recorded Delivery and keep the receipt from the post office. That’s it – you have transferred your allegiance from the monarch to the committee of the barons and now stand under Article 61.

  8. Thomas Kennedy

    Lawful Rebellion, a simple shift of focus. No drama, no fuss. Hangman UCL, at your service.

  9. Danny Carter

    Hi there, I’ve held an interest in breaking the shackles of oppression that hold me down for a while, I can firmly say that I want no part in the facade that is force-fed to us as Democratic England. I’m writing to request more information regarding the legal immunity gained by pledging your Oath of allegiance to the Barons’ Committee. I would like to know if; you are exempt from fines/fixed penalties by statutory instruments that apply to road use and parking, and also if you are exempt from the former while operating a registered vehicle? Thank you

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hello Danny and thanks for visiting!

      Once standing under A.61 we each have ‘lawful excuse’ to commit lesser

        offences (than Sedition/Treason) in the furtherance of the cause. I need to qualify this statement. Britain is a common law jurisdiction and parliament has been trying to codify our common law for 800 years. The end result is a mass of ‘offences’ and some 9600 “laws” (statutes, acts, statutory instruments and regulations). Standing under A.61 effectively puts those of us so standing back under unfettered common law. For the avoidance of doubt, British common law (which is above everyone, the monarch and parliament – since parliament was made by the law it cannot supersede it) common law is thus:

        Cause no harm or injury to another
        Cause no loss to another
        Commit no fraud against another
        Do not breach the peace

        So, within the limitations of the above tenets, we can break any ‘parliamentary law’ we so choose with impunity – so long as that law was not a derivative of the common law. One example might be manslaughter – a parliamentary law (Offences Against the Persons Act 1861) but to commit it one must necessarily harm another, so there are ‘laws’ which we cannot break. To further clarify, one commits ‘crime’ under common law and ‘offences’ under statutory law.

        We have successfully rebutted summonses, convictions, arrest warrants and custodial sentences by conditionally accepting the demands made upon us by the corporate hearings (courts) upon proof that the court has any authority whatsoever since the invocation of Article 61. The cases simply disappear, never to be seen again. Sometimes it takes a few lawful notices, up to and including Misprision of Treason Notices – the courts have NEVER come back to us after one of those!

        On to vehicle related matters, this becomes more muddy. Private parking tickets are never a problem, local authority ones also not too bothersome but where things becomes really difficult is with speeding tickets & motoring ‘offences.’ You see A.61 permits us to distress and distrain the Crown. So yes, refusing to pay penalties for speeding etc. becomes a duty under A.61 but – your driving licence is a contract and contract law is effectively outside of A.61. So, whilst you could rebut a summons, conviction and sentence, the ‘rules’ under which you are permitted to drive on the highways are a matter of contract and even if you have rebutted the court issues away, there is nothing stopping them from cancelling or suspending your licence – or taking and crushing your car. Yes you could stop them under A.61 but life could become very tedious if you are looking over your shoulder for the next time they come for your vehicle.

        The moral of the story is – choose your battles wisely. There is no point in cutting off the nose to spite the face. There are plenty of other areas one can impose A.61 that would not have a derogatory effect on your ability to travel.

  10. Catrina Lumley

    Hi there, I am a full time carer for my Autistic son so we rely heavily on Welfare, ie, Income Support, Child Benefit, DLA and Mobility Allowance, Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit… could I still legitimately claim these under Article 61 of the Magna Carta? I have only recently become aware of the global corruption and Agenda 21 and want to do my bit, not only for Britain but for the rest of mankind and this seems the only way forward to stop the tyrants in their tracks, obviously I still have to put a meal on the table and access local services for my son… also, I was thinking of renewing my Passport and getting my son one in the process, would I have to state on any of the forms that I will be standing under Article 61?

    Regards Catrina x

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hello Catrina and thanks for visiting!

      This is a frustration for a great many in the UK! The answer is quite simple – it should not affect your ‘entitlements.’ Irrespective of whether you are standing under Article 61 or not, we all need to live; food on the table, visits to doctor/hospital, drive on roads or whatever the service should be. When you stand under A.61, you are protected by ‘lawful excuse’ to make mischief with the Crown. To use Crown services when under A.61 you simply do so ‘under duress.’ How you go about this is entirely up to you. Some of our members have announced they are standing under A.61 on their entitlements’ paperwork (but also placing V.C. before their signature (Vi Coactus) to illustrate that they have signed ‘under constraint/duress’ or alternatively simply do not declare it on any entitlements related paperwork at all. Just remember these entitlements are provided under statute law which you have lawful excuse to ignore – so no cause of action arises from failing to disclose.

      1. Catrina Lumley

        thank you for that bit of advice… as I mentioned I care for my disabled son, he is only 12, can he enter into lawful rebellion in his own right or does he have to be older?… he can write his own name, therefore he can sign a document legibly?

        Regards Catrina

        1. Nigel Coleman

          Due to the mechanism of A.61 there is an argument that only people aged over 21 can lawfully stand in their own right. From time immemorial to 1969, the age of majority was 21. This was changed in 1969 with the Family Law Reform Act 1969 which reduced this to 18. At the time Magna Carta 1215 was implemented this was obviously still 21.

          To further complicated things, parliament unlawfully stole some of the authority of Royal Prerogative in 1911 and there are convincing arguments that no statutory law passed since this date is constitutionally lawful – thus the change of the age of majority will not itself be constitutional. So, in terms of British constitutional law, one should presume the age of majority is 21. Any ‘minors’ below this age will be considered to be in the same state as his or her parents, so if you stand under A.61, so does your son until such time as he is old enough and/or capable of making the decision for himself.

          1. Catrina Lumley

            Thank you so much for your prompt replies, I have all the information I need now… just need a new ink cartridge for the printer and I’m good to go. I’m sure I will have lots more questions once I am entered into Lawful Rebellion.

            Regards Catrina x

          2. Nigel Coleman

            We know the templates look ‘nice’ but you can write the Oath by hand. Please make sure you take a copy of the signed, witnessed Oath before you send it as this, combined with proof of postage (Recorded Delivery) is your proof of intent and lawful standing.

            Please come and join us on FaceBook at ‘Practical Lawful Dissent.’

  11. Catrina Lumley

    Hi there (again) Nigel, I printed off my oath, signed it in front of 2 witnesses who then signed it for me, made a couple of copies and posted by Special Delivery (bit more expensive as recorded but more secure) and take copies of proof of posting and put with my other household documents for now… I will be laminating the copies when I get chance to keep them in good nick in case I need to take further copies in the future… Now then, before I went into town I mentioned what I was doing on a local forum and urged others to do the same… I have returned to what I can only describe as a tyrade of abuse… I am for want of a better word being ridiculed by most and being labelled a sponger, I have had enquiries from one chap who is wanting to enter an oath but cannot get his oath sealed with wax and therefore he says he cannot send it… I told him that I had used a template from this page and the procedure I followed… I will take ridicule for the sake of saving our Constitution… I am being told over and over that I am being ‘had’… can you clarify any of this for me, I was buzzing this morning and now I just feel like curling up into a ball and crying x

    Regards Catrina

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hello Catrina.

      We are deeply saddened to hear this story. The unfortunate truth is, the majority of the British population are what we call “asleep.” They are ignorant of the crimes being committed every minute by the British establishment. In the last few weeks we have discovered that most local authorities have two sets of books and have a huge ‘nest egg’ hidden away. These can be found in the annual accounts under “unusable reserves” and, from our research so far, are typically three times the size of the entire annual Council Tax revenue. One South Wales council had an annual C-Tax revenue of £60 million but had secreted away and hidden £200 million. Meanwhile they claim they have to cut another £20 million from services! This is fraud, plain and simple. Evidently the people you broadcast your lawful standing to are not interested in getting some of their money back – as they will most certainly be entitled to with this single discovery. . .

      The point we are making is that you arrived here (most likely) because you instinctively knew that something was very wrong with Britain and couldn’t put your finger on it. No doubt if you broadcast to the same people in that forum that UK’s 7/7 was a false flag event they would ridicule you for that too. Most people who arrive here have ‘woken up.’ They have realised, researched and discovered that the establishment is hopelessly corrupt and then went seeking a solution. . .

      There is a great deal of disinformation being broadcast around the internet but we can assure you that EVERY single assertion you find on this website can be independently verified.

      One does not need to seal anything other than the envelope in which you post your oath – and certainly not with wax! We have no idea where that belief came from; it is entirely unnecessary.

      How are you a sponger? You have now transferred your status from outlaw to a lawful inhabitant. Your accusers and ridiculers should be met with dismay and sympathy for their narrow-mindedness. We certainly feel sorry for them – and we feel thrilled for you – being brave enough to want to stand up to the seemingly impossible corruption endemic in our society.

      We make this challenge now to your accusers – prove us wrong and we will close this website forthwith along with an apology. . .

    2. Eddy Alder

      From my experiences on the internet it is not easy to determine if the comments are coming from real people and if they are, it’s not always easy to determine what the intention of the poster really is. Also human behaviours and attitudes can be really strange and not always consistent. Many people operate through irrational emotional reactions and insecurities such as fear, anger, jealousy, resentment, … Sometimes these people try to ‘put others in a box’, or categorise others by trying to ‘put a label on them’, … this may help them feel more secure and so they can get a delusion that they think they know how others are thinking and operate and so they project some nonsense beliefs onto others, … Also some people, because they’re hiding behind their computer screens can feel more brave and direct and less polite when they’re not communicating face to face in the physical presence of others. Some people behave just like bullies and can be nasty, unpleasant, insincere, rude, sarcastic and aggressive, … probably because they are insecure or have been treated like this themselves, … Sometimes it can seem a lonely, cruel and thankless world, this is why it is so important to be kind, friendly, appreciative, honest in a helpful, supportive and sensitive way to others whenever we can. The journey of being sovereign does not always feel like an easy one. When we choose to be sovereign, we choose to have utmost integrity. We decide to live life being honest, being courageous, being as honourable as we can, following our heart, doing the right thing, being less selfish and more selfless, becoming more aware of our own thoughts, behaviours, attitudes and feelings and that of others, choosing not to get triggered by our own pride or ego getting hurt causing our emotions and thoughts and adrenaline to take over the way we behave, … With choosing to live life being sovereign we become our own leaders, we get motivated to do our own research, ask our own questions, use our initiative more, become clearer and more critical or positive thinkers, our intuition gets better at determining what is truth or b.s., … Other people may agree that life really begins and becomes more interesting, amazing, exciting, expanded, colourful, happier, invincible, rewarding, spiritual, fun, fulfilling, … when we choose to really live it as a sovereign being, so it’s well worth choosing to live life this way. We will probably discover that life in some ways is similar to the messages in films such as “the Matrix”, or “the Wizard of Oz”, … that we have been living in a life of illusions, illusionary fears, constraints, concepts, scams, … When you express to any of the civil servants operating for the system, that you wish to live life in a peaceful, honest and honourable way and you ask them to reassure and prove to you in writing or on video, that what they ask of you is lawful. Explain and prove to them that Article 61 of Magna Carta was invoked and acknowledged lawfully in spring 2001, then tell them that you now stand under Article 61 because you want to remain on the right side of the Law and do the right thing for humanity. Ask them if they are willing to commit treason or whether they will now also stand under Article 61 and ask them to confirm what the highest authority in Law currently is, …

  12. Catrina Lumley

    Hello (again) Nigel, bit more upbeat a few hours on, stayed on the debate on the local forum, if you want to look us up it’s on facebook,SAVE OUR SELBY! S.O.S. my brother started the group over 3 year ago and we now have over 3,400 members… if you wish to join and look at that debate you are more than welcome, I’m on admin so there won’t be a problem getting you on it… I stood my ground, and even though I am still very new to it all I think I managed to get my point across and left them all arguing between themselves, gone from lots of abuse to around 8 likes… the guy who was having problems getting someone to ‘seal’ his document… I messaged him back and let him know how I did mine… got a new friend through it so it’s not all bad… they all seam to think though that I will end up in prison over non-payment… if you do decide to join you could maybe put them right on this… I’ve said my peers wouldn’t let it get that far and that if it did someone would storm the court, to which one answered we could all end up in contempt.

    Thank you for your kind words of encouragement … I was very upset earlier and it made me feel a whole lot better knowing you were in my corner… my dad has semi retired (ex bin man) but still works for the council as a back up driver as and when they need him… he mentioned something the other year about Selby Council having a ‘reserve’ what really annoys me most about council tax is that up to a couple of year ago both me and my son were exempt with him being disabled and then suddenly we were hit with a bill for 8% of our annual bill… when we got our first one I went into the council and enquired about help they were offering and was told it would only be for an interim of 3 months and it would have to be paid back at a later date so I never went down that road… I took my first course of action this morning… as soon as I had my postal receipt I went to my bank and cancelled my Water and TV direct debits, let the games begin… I chose to print off my oath letter, got new printer cartridges as I figured I’d be using the printer a lot more from now on.

    Once again thank you

    Regards Catrina

  13. Catrina Lumley

    Hi there Nigel, just reporting in… I appear to have caused quite a stir among the people of Selby, the argument has now gone from targeting me, to them arguing between themselves… the penny is starting to drop I think, some are openly doing there own research, I think more than anything to try prove me wrong… the debate stands at 133 comments… less trolling now and the debate is becoming more serious… my mum rang me at the weekend as she was concerned I may be being brainwashed??? x lol x Bless her, my dads opinion is the same as mine, I will only do what I want to do… Once I told her what I was doing, she said she was happy to let me get on with it, if it was something I felt passionate about but just to be careful… by going public I’ve affirmed that I intend to stay within the law, that I’m not just doing this cos I’ve nothing better to do… It’ll be a few weeks before I start to get default letters from Yorkshire Water and TV licensing so if I go quiet for a bit i’ll just be taking a bit of time out for me and my boy… will keep you up to date on the S.O.S. debate x

    1. Nigel Coleman

      In the end the British Constitution – and moreover the common law is the guarantor of our rights and ‘liberties.’ The common law has evolved over 1000 years to champion the freedoms we enjoy – freedoms which even as I type are being egregiously eroded by an an executive. Winston Churchill had something to say about this – in the early days of the second world war Churchill was an apologist for the decision to ‘suspend habeas corpus,’ round up and incarcerate people that the state believe were a threat to the safety of the nation (mostly foreign nationals and those with foreign sounding names). By the middle of the war Churchill had become highly dubious about the policy. Some years after the war he wrote quite prolifically. From our perspective in lawful rebellion the most poignant passage (re Magna Carta) he wrote was:

      “The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, SWOLLEN WITH ITS OWN AUTHORITY, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success.” (Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956))

      Those who govern are not empowered to breach the Constitution or the law and may never lawfully breach their own sworn oaths of office. Article 61 was invoked in March 2001 and remains in effect today.

  14. mark

    Thank you for your website and background work.

    I don’t know if it’s significant, but I thought you would probably want to know that I found a typo in your “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure” document. On p1, it says “Royal Mail Recoded Delivery” rather than “recorded”.

    Would such a mis-typed word have any negative effect on the validity of the document?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Mark, thanks for taking the time to visit and thank you very much for the correction, which has been duly applied and the online template amended.

      The typo would not have a deleterious effect on the legitimacy of the document but we strive to make sure that everything is ship-shape nonetheless. Much appreciated for the heads-up.

  15. Anne

    Hi Nigel, someone I know is in serious trouble the HMRC are trying to get an extortionate amount of money from him for pension tax, these include penalty fines as well. We are very concerned they will put a charge on his property or make him bankrupt. We already lost a lot of money from scammers so there will be no pension now anyway. I sent my oath off to the barons last year I’ve misplaced the recorded delivery so I probably need to resend it and he will need to do the same, he works in corporate does this make a difference? He needs some guidance and understand standing under article 61 will help and there is a file / letter to send off to the HMRC but they seem to be a law onto themselves and ignore my 3 process debt collection letters re an overpayment for WTC (which isn’t right but they don’t care, they seem to make their own rules and you have to pay) so will they take any notice if we send the correct file article 61? what is the process, what should we expect, could they bankrupt us regardless, take us to court and if so what would we need to do to stop this as definately do not want to go to court. Thank you

    1. Nigel Coleman

      This is not legal or financial advice. If you sent your oath last year then you will probably know by now that lawful rebellion is not a remedy for escaping lawfully accrued liabilities. Having said that, I would immediately write to them and clearly state, “This account is in genuine dispute” and the first questions I would be asking HMRC is, 1) Please provide the precise law (with references) under which I am required to pay tax. 2) Please provide proof of claim of a lawfully due liability, including a comprehensive breakdown of how HRMC arrived at this figure, along with a lawful bill (as per the Bills of Exchange Act 1882) which include the words “Bill”/“Invoice” and “Value” on the face of it, along with a wet signature.

      Standing under A.61 demands of us that we distress and distrain the crown by any means and that includes refusal to pay tax. The real problem we have right now is that the government are ignoring the constitution and making laws up to suit themselves rather than legislating to protect people and property which is our constitutional legacy. Indeed the latest budget includes measures permitting HMRC to take action which is in clear violation of Magna Carta – our constitution’s primary power. Here we have a situation where government has become despotic and the judiciary is constitutionally obliged to resist or reverse their unlawful decisions but are not acting. Times of turmoil await us.

      Standing under A.61 does not need to have any effect on one’s day to day life as one is permitted to act under duress of circumstance to get through the day in a society where the vast majority are unaware that A.61 has been invoked. Where there is any personal insecurities about whether A.61 would have a deleterious effect on one’s life, then simply do not openly declare one’s standing (again this is permitted with lawful excuse and duress of circumstance).

      My personal opinion is that I would send them a conditional acceptance of the liability upon evidential proof that the crown has any authority whatsoever since the invocation of Article 61 Magna Carta 1215. Whether this is the right course of action for your friend is debatable since to stand under A.61 in order to avoid paying a liability would not be very honourable. Beyond this I can only suggest you look at

  16. John Hurst

    For the text of the Barons Petition in 2001 and supporting research documents see:

    Regards, John Hurst.

    1. Eddy Alder

      Thanks for that link John, there’s a fair amount to read, but what i’ve read so far is well worth reading and very valuable research, cheers and best wishes, Eddy

  17. John Rolfe

    I have my fully authenticated and verified political party,the biggest slant of it is that it would give the People votes on all important issues, so that Parliament would become a debating chamber and then the people would e-vote on all the important issues, I think this would do away with the House of Lords because that role would be taken over by The People. How does this stand with Article 61. I am all for a rebellion.

    1. Nigel Coleman

      This country is a Constitutional Monarchy, based on 1000 years of convention, common law and uncodified constitution. Since the commons started bastardising the constitution (especially after 1911) and then again in the 1990s the executive have amassed enormous power for themselves, passing increasingly fascist “laws.” Until the first past the post system is retired, we will continue to live in an “elective dictatorship” (see Lord Hailsham, 1976 Dimbleby lectures). The only truly democratic way forward is the successful separation of powers of the executive, judiciary and legislature to restore the missing system of checks and balances which have been stolen by a government which has usurped parliament and changed the dynamic of Prime Minister from one of derision and impeachment (250 years ago) to one of absolutist and totalitarian power.

  18. scott mccall

    So if a register withone of the 25 barons thrs me in lr nand once in that if a dont cause harm or steal then am ok with legislated statues n parliment law am under common law as a man not a bit o paper according to admirality law but until a gregister with a baron am still under there maritime law so its the fact a can quote this act 61 to cops n justices n they cant charge me jail me till am in front of a jury and even then a sttand under common law as if its that easy am in is that the right overstanding of this i am not under anything

  19. Eddystone

    Nigel, in an earlier post you refer to ‘legally accrued debts’. Can you define please – also is a ‘statutory debt’ a legal debt?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      A legally accrued debt would come as the result of a contract – a requirement to perform. To answer your question better I’d need to know precisely what you mean by a statutory debt – if you mean something like water & sewage bills or council tax which are set by statute rather than by contract, or perhaps a court fine then these may well be legally accrued debts but not necessarily lawfully accrued. For example, if one were to be issued a fine for committing an offence which was intentionally done under Article 61 with duress of circumstances, then you had lawful excuse and no court in the land is empowered to act (not that it will stop them as they are mostly corrupt and self-serving). The resultant debt would be legal but not lawful. How one contends with this is another matter altogether.

      I refused to pay council tax under A.61. I had a summons to a corporate hearing (magistrates court) which I attended and asked some searching questions of the magistrates. They eventually stopped the hearing and withdrew. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 s121(6) any magistrate that absents himself cannot then return to issue or contribute to a decision. The magistrates did return and issued 608 liability orders (after I had seized the court under A.61). This makes their decision unlawful because they had been put on notice of A.61 and illegal as they issued a decision ultra vires. This has not stopped Mendip District Council from pursuing recovery under the unlawful liability order. Needless to say I will not be paying. . .

  20. Jill

    This fascinating. Am just watching a programme about the Magna Carta. Will research this further. Thanks for the info.

  21. James Love

    Hello there,
    I’ve been researching the whole Magna Carta A.61 issue as it seems to be under some dispute. From what I can gather (from companies such as the BBC whose interests obviously lie in questionable places), many clauses of the Magna Carta were repealed by government. Am I correct in thinking that since the Magna Carta was “made” before parliament was “made” that they have no standing to repeal clauses from the charter?

    I find all of this fascinating and am seriously considering entering into Lawful Rebellion.

    I would also like to clarify some of the procedures. If for example, I was to enter LR, would I still be required to pay a bill for water? Is this a contract or a statute?

    Is there any source of information to find out which services etc that people use in their day to day life are contractual and which are statute and therefore basically inert and do not need to be paid for?

    Thanks a lot,

    1. Nigel Coleman


      Whenever Magna Carta is brought up with any public servant they immediately gravitate to MC1297 because this is the version placed on the Statute books by parliament. However as you have already observed, MC1215 is a peace treaty which predates parliament and is indeed a permanent feature of our common law (as is the Declaration/Bill of Rights), also being a ‘statute in force’. As Parliament had no hand in in MC1215 they have no authority to repeal it, not least of all because there is no organisation in Britain which can repeal the common law – CL can be ‘improved’ by acts of parliament but it can not be repealed – EVER, only infringed – but an infringed common law does not go away, it simply sits in abeyance.

      Many parliamentarians and some constitutionalists argue that parliament is sovereign. Nothing could be further from the truth, for if this was truly the case, parliament could not have delegated authority by Treasonously entering into the E.E.C in the 70’s, thereby giving up some of its claimed sovereignty!

      If MC1297 was indeed the incumbent ‘law’ then the committee of the Barons would not have been able to invoke Article 61 (repealed from MC1297) and the Queen would not have been obliged to have responded to the February 2001 petition (which she did on the 39th day, inappropriately). In summary A.61 is very much in effect and continues to have both legal and lawful effect. Were this not the case we would not have been able to have arrest warrants for contempt cancelled, upon putting the warrant officers to proof of their lack of authority since the invocation of A.61, nor could I have seized Yeovil Court under A.61 in July 2015 without repercussion.

      Moving on to the issue of water, a number of us have refused to pay because as you again perceptively point out, water & sewage services are charged for under Statute (as is Council Tax) and therefore we have lawful excuse to not pay. The water companies completely ignore the Misprision of Treason Notices served upon them and resort to enforcement (debt collectors, county court). A number of us are at varying stages of civil disobedience in this matter, including the above mentioned cancelled warrant for contempt for ignoring a County Court summons. Needless to say the “court” had no authority to issue the summons in the first instance.

      We will not encourage you to follow suit – nor would we attempt to deter you. Civil disobedience is a personal matter and should be given enormous consideration before embarking upon such a path. Just yesterday I was present at a Council Tax liability hearing in which the council official perjured himself and the ‘defendant’ (an ex-MET police officer of considerable experience) insisted that the official be cautioned – this was summarily dismissed and the ‘liability order’ unlawfully issued. I also witnessed a solicitor acting for the council lie point blank to the magistrates with impunity by using a an argument based on an (initially covertly) double-negative argument dressed up as a statutory authority. This was for Powys council, who incidentally current have £370 million in hidden reserves but are making £21M budget cuts.

      There can be no doubt that there is no longer any justice for ‘normal everyday people’ to be found in British “courts” under the present regime and justice must be vigorously sought by the people of Britain before we lose ourselves to tyranny and corruption. The path of the ‘lawful rebel’ is fraught with difficulty but I must stress also remains the duty of every inhabitant of Britain until such time as Article 61 is revoked by Constitutional Convention.

      Good luck whatever you decide to do.


  22. Ollie

    I wish to enter into LR as i believe it is the right thing to do for our country and the people. I am not sure what battles i shall choose to fight as i am not certain that it will not bring lots of trouble once i start that road. i want to be in full understanding of how viable LR is as a defence in court. How much success have you guys had? Are your numbers increasing? Are the Barons accepting oaths still?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Ollie and thanks for visiting. You are wise to consider carefully what battles to fight – not all are winnable and the executive is moving quickly to usurp the rule of law in Britain – for example our right to privacy and free speech which was enshrined in the common law more than two hundred years ago is all-but removed by the unlawful statutes, acts, regulations and statutory instruments which have been introduced since Article 61 was invoked.

      some of the barons are still accepting oaths (you can find that on the ‘how to enter LR page). In truth it doesn’t matter whether they accept them or not since the premise is that one needs to prove intent – so as long as one sends one’s oath and has proof of postage (and preferably proof of delivery) one has adequately proven intent and in common law intent is everything. Article 61 is common law.

      Now, on the matter of court, we do not accept the authority of any current “court” – the court derives its authority from the Queen who, apart from breaching her Coronation Oath several thousand times, also failed to respond correctly to the barons’ petition in 2001, meaning the crown has had its authority revoked and sovereignty rests in the hands of the people who take the oath. This also means that only those who stand with the barons are ‘in law’ and all those who do not are in fact outlaws. For this reason we do not attend ‘court’ and instead conditionally accept any summons or arrest warrant, i.e. we accept the summons/warrant on condition that the ‘court’ can prove it has any authority whatsoever since the invocation of A.61. Arrest warrants have been cancelled on this basis since the argument is unassailable. It takes courage to implement however. 😉

      1. ollie

        I sent 2 oaths yesterday. Lord Sudeley did not accept and i am unsure as yet as to what happened to the one sent to lord Dormer. My thoughts were to first get an oath accepted and then to petition the chief inspector and local council members and declare my standing before taking on any battles. See what the response is and go from there…?

        1. Nigel Coleman

          As we said, being able to prove intent by keeping copies of the the oath and proof of postage/delivery is by far the most important feature of lawful rebellion.

  23. Andrew

    When sending an oath to a Baron do you send the original or a copy? Also is it best to get in witnessed by a Notary Public?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Andrew, thanks for visiting.

      You should send the original and keep a high quality copy for yourself, along with the proof of postage and preferably proof of delivery as you need these to prove intent should you find yourself engaged in a battle involving lawful excuse. Without the proof of the oath and demonstration of intent, you cannot demonstrate lawful excuse in line with the demands made of us by the British constitution. You should have the oath witnessed by non family members and you can download a template from this site.

  24. eddy alder

    Thanks for this well researched information and great website Nigel.
    Would it be enough just to have a signed declaration of intent to stand under article 61 rather than have to send oaths to the Barons Committee?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Eddy and thanks for visiting!

      This is an interesting topic and one that has not been investigated nearly enough. In LR we have been habitually instructing people to submit their oath to one of the remaining barons, doing so by post, using recorded delivery so that each lawful rebel has a paper-trail which unambiguously demonstrates lawful intent to adhere to the British constitution. However in reality it is not as rigid as this – we have encouraged people to follow this formula as a safety precaution because if any lawful rebel chooses to breach statute and claim lawful excuse, there must be a clear and demarcated demonstration that the intent was not to break the law but rather to adhere to it.

      Now, let’s get into the nitty gritty and re-read Article 61 – specifically the section which deals with oath-taking.

      And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress us as much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it.

      Article 61 does not explicitly decree that the oath must be submitted to, taken by, supervised by or otherwise effected by a baron but simply that it must be taken. As such, one could lodge a copy with a solicitor (not our first choice) or other person of consequence, as long as there is proof of the signed and witnessed oath being taken, proof of its existence and proof of it being lodged in some way (e.g proof of postage/delivery). We would argue that the safest route is with a baron but would not argue against an alternative route being taken as long as this was done intelligently.

      1. eddy alder

        Thanks Nigel, that was very clear and helpful

  25. eddy alder

    I have recently made enquiries to three outspoken parliamentarians past and present who appear to have some integrity and backbone, George Galloway, Tom Watson and Jeremy Corbyn, about their position on Article 61 of MC1215. I know they are most likely to be very busy as i haven’t received a reply from any of them yet, but will let you know when or if i hear anything back from them, cheers Eddy

  26. Shep

    Hi All. Firstly thanks for this great website. I have been thinking about LR for a while. I am about to send my Oath off. A few questions. Do I send the original or a copy? Also is it best to get a Notary Public to also sign my Oath.

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Shep and thanks for visiting.

      You should send the original oath and keep one very high quality photocopy (or more) for yourself so that you can reproduce a sound copy at any time you need it at any point in the future. As to the witnesses, there is no need to pay for a Notary (not cheap) – anyone that is not a direct blood relation will suffice as a witness but obviously the less close they are to you (e.g. not best friend) the more valid the witness. We recommend never using blood relatives but have no issue with witnesses being friends.

    2. Nigel Coleman
      1. David Robinson

        Petitions are worthless instruments to use against those that have no morals. They are after all begging instruments when you look at them from a lawful rebellion standpoint. They are also unconstitutional because to lobby the crown/parliament is to recognize their authority when they have none.

        Petitions thus serve as a guide to them, because those that believe in petitions do not understand the implications of what is really occurring, and they like to see people doing things that will make no difference. Petitions are binned with contempt by these imposters. They are ineffective as is marching on the streets. It is better to reject the regime by the use of law, that message really gets to the heart of government etc.

  27. Ollie

    I have sent 3 oaths, two were accepted and i have one delivery signature. My next move is to lobby the chief constable of essex police and local councillors…

    1. Buster

      Thank you for helping Ollie. May I suggest using a ‘Notice of lawful objection’ on the police? Keeping it very simple, something along these lines.

      “I am standing in lawful rebellion under the invocation of article 61 (evidence provided). I do not wish to come into conflict with police constables under your direction so do you object to my standing under said article? ..also where do you personally stand with regard to article 61’s invocation”…..

      Within the fb group page, within the files there is a notice to councillors template, which is what we used to lobby the local councillors…it may offer you some guidance…..thanks again.

  28. wayne

    I made this petition a while back, please have a look.. – repeal all laws above common law.

    1. Buster

      Sorry Wayne….petitions are useless as they are nothing more than begging instruments. We deny any authority to the present government (imposters). We do not petition them it is better to serve Notices of treason on individual politicians. This way we collect evidence against them for their crimes.

  29. ollie

    Hi guys. So I have sent 2 oaths that have been accepted and signed for. Before rocking the boat too much at first – i decided to send an Email to my local MP (David Amess) briefly outlining lawful rebellion and article 61. (although i did not mention my oaths) I told him it was something i was researching and provided details of the Daily Telegraph report by Caroline Davis 2001, and asked him where he stood on this. His reply came by way of letter today. It said simply: “I am afraid i know very little about article 61 of Magna Carta. Nevertheless I shall draw it to a ministers attention.” I also sent a ‘Notice of Lawful Objection’ to the chief contable of Essex police, and he has until tomorrow to reply before the estoppel comes into play. I just wanted some advice if you could; shall i write back to David Amess MP and this time hit him with a ‘Notice of Lawful Objection’ or should i just keep the correspondence going with a letter explaining article 61…? Also – if the chief constable does not reply and the estoppel comes into play – does that mean he tacitly agrees with me (could i then use that document as evidence of my standing to a court?)

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Ollie.

      We would recommend keeping a productive dialogue with the MP, a notice of lawful objection would not serve much of a practical purpose with MPs unless they were actively engaged in an unlawful activity (setting aside the point that simply being an MP and not standing under A.61 is itself unlawful. . .)

  30. Eddy Alder

    Is there any truth that a Police Constable should arrest anyone that prevents them from doing their job properly, i.e. upholding the rule of common law, even if it is a higher ranking colleague, a politician, even a prime minister, the crown prosecution service, MI5, …

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Obstructing the police from fulfilling their duty is a crime. The obstruction must be ‘wilful’, meaning the accused must act (or refuse to act) deliberately, knowing and intending his act will obstruct the constable: Lunt v DPP [1993] Crim.L.R. 534. The motive for the act is irrelevant.

    2. Eddy Alder

      If a police constable that is aware of or has been made aware of an alleged crime being commited such as treason, would it be a crime for that police constable not to take action and investigate that alleged crime properly and would it be a crime if a senior ranking officer, a politician, anyone from the cps or anybody at all try’s to prevent that police constable from doing their job properly by fulfilling their oath to uphold the rule of common and constitutional law and investigate any alleged crime? I think it says somewhere in our British Constitution that all police must know and understand the Common and Constitutional Law?

  31. Eddy Alder

    Is it true that people in positions of influence who refuse to stand under article 61 including local, regional, national and international politicians, community leaders, police, media owners, editors, publishers and journalists, civil servants, religious leaders, education administrators, university professors, academics, historians, solicitors, lawyers, barristers, magistrates, judges, propagandists, … could also be found guilty of treason?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Magna Carta has been confirmed as a special kind of law called a Constitutional Statute and is immune from implied repeal (indeed MC1215 is immune from any repeal since it predates parliament; is therefore common law which cannot be abrogated or repealed). This has been confirmed as recently at the Thoburn judgment.

      “Regarding the conflict between Parliament sovereignty and the supremacy of EU law, the court stated that there is a hierarchy of acts of Parliament and differentiated the constitutional statutes and ordinary statutes. The Constitutional statutes comprise the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Union 1707, the Reform Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972. They are protected from implied repeal by ordinary law…” Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin). (Ignore ECA1972 for now).

      Since the Barons Committee was properly and constitutionally convened; the petition to the Queen was validated approved by Leolin Price Q.C. and Article 61 was therefore correctly invoked in March 2001, this places a legal and constitutional duty on every man and woman in Britain to stand under A.61 or be compelled to do so. Anyone not standing under A.61 is therefore an outlaw and cannot benefit from the protection of the law. Anyone refusing to take the oath – immaterial of status (political, judicial, executive etc.) is a traitor and could be prosecuted for treason at common law when the hammer eventually falls. It should be noted that at common law the death penalty still stands. . .

      There are quite a number of lawful rebels who are taking names of politicians, officials, judges, police etc. who are acting treasonously and they will be pursued vigorously when the time comes.

  32. David Robinson

    I think some clarification on the quote below is necessary here….

    “Regarding the conflict between Parliament sovereignty and the supremacy of EU law, the court stated that there is a hierarchy of acts of Parliament and differentiated the constitutional statutes and ordinary statutes. The Constitutional statutes comprise the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Union 1707, the Reform Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972. They are protected from implied repeal by ordinary law…” Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin). (Ignore ECA1972 for now).

    The ruling of the ‘Thoburn -v- Sunderland City Council etc; Admn 18 Feb 2002’ hearing, was made by a corporate body not a lawful member of the judiciary. Although this ruling makes it clear that Magna Carta is indeed part of the constitution I think it should be made clear that the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972 are NOT constitutional statutes and have no protection from “implied repeal by ordinary law”. As these alleged constitutional statutes do not comply with the British Constitution.

    Whilst I get the reason for the comment, I would not personally use this as evidence of Magna carta being in force today, as by doing so we unwittingly (perhaps) give credibility to the (not) court making this ruling, and also the imposters therein who delivered the verdict.

  33. tony reilly

    hi I am not too clued up on the magna carta so I’m sorry if I seem to be a bit uninformed as to what I am talking about however I do understand what its for and what its publication was intended for.
    my question is
    I have recently been on trial for contempt in the face of the courts to which only yesterday I was found out to be guilty along with another 4 defendants.
    I have got to go to the crown court for sentencing on 22nd December as the trial was held in the civil/high courts.
    while on trial my ex wife the only evidence and witness in the case and hase repeatedly been proved to have lied but the judge has waivered this and she has goneall out to make myself and the other defendants to be of really bad character none of this has been proved. also noted was how the judge seemed to favour her against us and also give her a suggestion on an answer she should give as when being cross examined.this is all in the submissions and I have had enough of my ex partner throwing false accusations to the authorities the courts and it looks like this time she may have got what she has been after for a while which is me being locked up.
    is there any thing in the magna carta that covers this and any advice on how to sign up would be really appreciated.i really do think something needs to be done in this country as this government are just doing as they please and the monarchy are just letting it happen.this trial was held by a single judge with no jury and in front of his honour judge QC.
    thanks for reading this.

    1. Eddy Alder

      Unfortunately Tony you are talking about injustices in a corrupt regime. The only Lawful position to be under at this moment is Article 61 which was invoked Lawfully in the spring of 2001. This website has some excellent information on Magna Carta etc. and it is well worth putting the time in to examine it all in detail. Sorry about the position you’re in, best wishes, Eddy

  34. Eddy Alder

    A few us went to a Magna Carta talk at a local philosophical group. The speaker and a few of the audience made some interesting comments and statements. As per usual it was claimed that in Britain that we don’t have a constitution at all, or we do but it’s not written, … Others said that Parliament ruled supreme and statutes were primary law. The speaker Tony Lane said that the original Magna Carta was annulled by the Pope of that time and only three articles or clauses from subsequent editions of Magna Carta remain valid today, … We had to remind the speaker and audience that our system is described as a Constitutional Monarchy not a Parliamentary dictatorship, democracy or republic, … A Constitutional Democracy clearly implies that we have a Constitution and that the Monarchy is not purely symbolic. It certainly does not imply that Parliament rules supreme or that elected representatives do not have a Constitutional Rule of Law to be guided by. In our Constitutional Monarchy we are all subjects who have tacitly agreed to invest our sovereignty to the role of Monarch who is supposed to protect and uphold the rule of our British Common Law Constitution. The British government is now just an extension of the E.U. government, we are now recognised by the establishment as citizens of the E.U. including QE2. Britain as far as i know has the oldest Constitution that has evolved over time. It includes the ancient Coronation Oaths that were supposed to keep the Monarchs accountable and in servitude, Magna Carta 1215, The Act of Settlement, The Declaration of Rights 1688, The Act of Union, Kings Law, Case Law, … Constitutional Law created by conventions are obviously and logically supposed to be the highest form of Law as they were designed to keep Monarchs and Parliaments and their statutes in check, to separate powers, uphold the Rule of Common Law and keep tyrants at bay. Please correct me if i’ve got any of this wrong.

  35. Cliff

    Does any of this apply to the USA, and how does one go about enacting on it?

  36. Eddy Alder

    Hi Cliff, i’d imagine that this may also be relevant for the sovereign people of USA as the USA has many similarities and historical connections, such as both countries use a law system that in theory recognises all our inalienable rights with Common Law and both countries Constitutions have similarities with Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights, …
    To preserve and uphold our inalienable rights and liberties for everyone and our future generations the rule of Common Law must rule supreme, not criminal tyrannical conspiratorial political, despotic, exploitative and elitist organisations, cartels, monopolies, corporations, banks, family dynasties, elitists, media, ‘scientific’, technocratic, gangsters, mafia, secret societies, religions, military, secretive spying agencies, police, state or federal government, … We are all suppose to be equal under Law, No one should be above the Rule of Common Law and the spirit and intention of Law is to be peaceful, responsible, honest, honourable and cause no harm. Hopefully you can find some honest and informed Lawyers who understand how the USA Constitutional Law works, … Best wishes, from Eddy

  37. Eddy Alder

    At the Magna Carta talk and discussion at the recent Philosophical meeting, there seemed to be confusion between the personalities and behaviour of the people who take on roles in our system and the infrastructure of the roles that make up the system of service. The person serving in the role of Monarch’s is to uphold and protect the rule of Common Law as the main part of that role. The roles should have all been designed to give our countries community the best and fairest system of service including fair Law, protection against tyranny and invaders and any hostilities from our neighbours. The design of the roles were to include the separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, transparency, accountability and a security clause Article 61 of Magna Carta that lawfully allows the sovereign subjects of the realm to rise up and rebel in accordance with Article 61 in the event of treason and tyranny until such a situation has been redressed. Any person that neglects their oath of duties in a given role may be found guilty of negligence or even treason, including Monarchs, Ministers, Bishops, Judges, Police, politicians, Mayors, …
    Also the point was raised about the high amounts of taxation and other charges we and future generations are asked to pay, especially since our ancestors built sometimes with blood, sweat, tears and taxes all the infrastructures of our land. How has it come that administrations that were created to serve the people who live and work in our country have become so corrupt that they have sold off, sabotaged and privatised our infrastructure and institutions and laundered and squandered all the proceeds whilst driving us into astronaumical debt and interest payments, … I’d imagine that our ancestors would feel livid and let down and i’m surprised that not more of our current generations haven’t discovered that Article 61 of Magna Carta has been invoked since spring 2001

  38. Eddy Alder

    The long and the short of it with regards to Common Law and Article 61. In Britain & the world at large, perhaps even the entire multi-dimensional cosmos, we may have gone from being free spirited, nomadic, wise, cooperative and sophisticated foragers or hunter gatherers; to more warrior like, competitive, strategical and aggressively or defensively territorial tribes; to agrarian societies; to hierarchical, feudalistic, culturally enlightened, philosophical, aristocratic, mystical or superstitious civilisations; towards decadent, hedonistic and puritanical society; towards industrial, mining, militaristic, capitalistic, imperialistic, technocratic systems and religious, dogmatic, tyrannical, occult, esoteric, slave based consumerist systems; from regional to nationalistic, continental and global societies, empires, religious empires, to global totalitarian police surveillance states, global elitism, global feudalism, fascism, communism, socialism, philanthropy, anarchy, liberalism, conservatism, expertise, intellectualism, paganism, shamanism, …
    Common Law recognises all of our inalienable rights. Roman law does not but recognises the authority of the state which seeks to dictate and impose bureaucratic rules, regulations and directives, stating what we can do, but more of what we can’t do, …
    Probably since the beginning of human civilisation, generation after generation of our wise ancestors have recognised our birth rights to be free and our duties to cause no harm by being responsible, peaceful, aware, tolerant, honest, honourable, accountable, compassionate, custodians of our planet, this is what many would describe as our common sense natural Law.
    I don’t know completely how much it matters what kind of systems are the most effective and preferable ones for everyone on our planet, whether it be Constitutional Monarchies, Republics, Democracies, Anarchy, Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Meritocracy, … as long as it’s Lawful. I feel that the Common Law should be upheld and protected at all times for everyone and for all time to help protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable people, the young, the elderly, the unwell, the weak, people with disabilities, … from excessive bullying, corruption, tyranny, despotism, mafia, gangsters, … violence, aggression, disharmony, intimidation, torture, murder, kidnapping, all sorts of abuse, exploitation, slavery, disrespect, lack of dignity, …
    I’m not supportive of punishment for the sake of punishment or as a discipline or possible deterrent of crime. I feel that a more common sense approach to crime is better. If someone is provably a danger to others then they must be securely and transparently detained but to dignified standards. I feel reform or healing and understanding the reasons for the crime is the most sensible approach to dealing with and reducing criminal anti-social problems. It’s probably useful to acknowledge that crime can be due to social and environmental reasons, mental, physical and emotional issues, inherited attitudes and behaviour, feelings of unfairness, injustice, repression, oppression, ignorance, bad quality education, lack of access to knowledge/education and other resources. In fact it could also be recognised as negligence or a crime that these environmental factors exist.

  39. Eddy Alder

    Probably just stating the obvious, but there are some pretty unpleasant things continuously happening around the planet.
    In a positive light, we have a beautiful and amazing natural world and humans and other creatures are capable of some pretty amazing and beautiful things and have invented and created some incredible things of benefit to humanity and perhaps our planet. However, I wonder what the consensus is these days regarding whether we can trust any authority at all?
    Can we trust the mainstream media and our politicians to tell the truth at all? Can we clearly determine what are lies and propaganda and what is truth and evidential fact? Can we even trust ‘scientists’ to be independent, scientific and truthful? Can the pharmaceutical $$$ industry be trusted much? Should people question what weird ingredients goes into ‘medicines’, vaccinations? Are some of the treatments really the best way to support our health? How can we help and keep our wonderful immune systems at their optimum best health? Is some of this flooding being helped or made to happen? Is weather and climate engineering possible and to what degree? Is all extreme weather natural, or could it have been engineered? Who really runs the Environmental Agency? How competently and efficiently has the Environmental Agency been doing it’s job over the last few years? Are NATO and other organisations involved in weather and climate engineering experiments? Can recessions, inflation, austerity, markets, currency, … be deliberately engineered? What is false flag and state sponsored terrorism really? Why are so many governments involved in illegal wars and illegally supplying illegal arms and finance to the alleged enemies? Could the ‘Arab Spring’ and other colour revolutions be engineered? Has for example the CIA ever been involved in creating regimes or regime changes? How much are our politicians, governments in charge? Can banks, corporations, lobbyists, secretive think tanks and other organisations also run and influence countries? Can the system of a country still be a democracy if it’s being directed by an unelected World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the E.U., the U.N., the World Health Organisation aka the pharmaceutical cartel, the World Trade Organisation, …? Is any man, woman or organisation above the rule of British Common and Constitutional Law? Answer – most definitely not, please let me know if you know differently.
    Anyone or any organisation acting against the best interest of Britain, the Commonwealth and the people are committing Treason and must be brought to account and arrested ASAP before any of this misery can be brought to an end, before we can stop all this corruption and put things right once and for all. It’s all up to us. We’ve got a lot to lose if we don’t and potentially a wonderful future if we do, for our future generations and for everyone! The longer we allow and leave these corrupt psychos criminals in positions of power and influence, the worst things will get. Article 61 gives us the best and easiest way to get them all arrested and investigated. Ideally everyone in Britain and the entire Commonwealth could stand under Article 61 ASAP and help end the corruption once and for all! How come NASA, … send space rockets up on allegedly nobel missions, whilst global wars, terrorism, corruption, poverty, … rage on around the planet? What is NASA all about anyway? Very happy 2016 hopefully.

  40. Jeff Glass

    Hi, I wonder if anyone could give me a little advice, I have been issued a “liability order” by my local council, (I haven’t paid CTax since 2008) I have sent off my Oath of Allegiance and now stand under article 61. I would just like confirmation that I should now send a Conditional Acceptance letter and the follow up ones…this is my first attempt so a little advice would be much appreciated.

    1. Eddy Alder

      Yes i think a Notice of Conditional Acceptance should be the next course of action Jeff. I think that you need to state that you have become aware that Article 61 was invoked in March 2001 and perhaps provide the evidence or reference of this. Then state that you now stand under Article 61 according to our supreme rule of Law ‘our Common and Constitutional Law. Explain that you do not wish to act unlawfully and state that you will accept the liability order, (make sure you get the name of the person sending you the liability order), on condition that whoever is sending you the liability order, can prove that Article 61 has not been invoked and therefore they can prove that they have the authority to issue this liability order, … Remember to send the notice by recorded or special delivery and keep the photocopies of the notice and receipts safely filed away for evidence and future reference. Probably best to read through the procedure again on the website and the templates. Good luck, best wishes and much appreciation Jeff.

  41. Tony Butler

    Just a small niggle, or two. Your PDF File, “What is Austerity” is being blocked by my firewall as being unsafe to download. (I wonder if Big Bro is playing games and blocking the downloads?
    Secondly, I am practically stone deaf, do any of your videos have closed caption subtitles?

    Apart from that the research and information is superb, an I will be studying it, find out how to format my Oath and submit it.

  42. eddy alder

    I feel it’s absolutely time that everyone got on board with the Lawful rebellion, wake up from apathy, distractions, fears, excuses, avoidance and disinformation, get empowered and recognise, support, uphold, protect and use our Common Law! Article 61 has been invoked we all have lawful excuse, responsibility and duty to do so! We need to see the bigger picture, think of our children’s lives and the future generations, … We probably have the best Constitution in the world. I’m not aware of any Constitution that has a security clause like Article 61 of Magna Carta that commands us all to rebel lawfully if the system is not working properly, perhaps because of an elitist nazi, zionist, jesuit, fabian, … conspiracy to undermine it, …
    We have a great, ancient and wise Constitution, it’s there to be used, we should use it, we urgently need to use it.
    Article 61 has been invoked in March of 2001 like it was last invoked in times of extreme tyranny and disharmony in 1688. Article 61 was created in the first place because the Norman invaders were tyrannical, elitist and did not respect the Rule of our Common Law. The masses, sometimes known as commoners or peasants who dwelled in the forests on common land or lived and worked on feudal estates, villages, towns and cities were evidently not too happy with the Norman’s style of kingship and rule probably preferring the Angle Saxon and pre Roman style. The Norman rulers also appeared to be breaking and disrespecting the Common Law, the Coronation Oaths, … It would have been custom in those times for people to know that no one was above the Rule of Common Law, not Kings, Queens, Knights, Constables, Sheriffs, Barons, Judges, the Church, ‘Landowners’, …
    If we don’t support the corruption, the immoral, unethical, child abusers, treasonous war criminals, psychopaths, sociopaths, torturers, bullies, devious calculating manipulators, exploitative, bigoted, thieves, cheats, liars, cowards, narcissists, megalomaniac, traitors in key positions of influence and decision making, then why aren’t we all standing under Article 61?

  43. Eddy Alder

    I can’t fully understand why some people still believe a word politicians, the establishment and their media tell them, as they can’t seem to help but lie and spin propaganda, …
    Anyway moving to the subject of oaths, some people operating under ‘Common Purpose’ type philosophy, would try to encourage or NLP others to believe that to be truly sovereign would be to relinquish all oaths.
    I disagree, it is important and necessary to make oaths to uphold and protect our Common Law which recognises and protects our inalienable rights. Just as it is important to try our best to honour arrangements and agreements in everyday life.
    Written Common Law, such as that which makes up the British Constitution, e.g. the Magna Carta peace treaty, the ancient Coronation Oaths, the Declaration of Rights, were written or created by Conventions, to recognise, protect and uphold all our Common Law inalienable rights and liberties especially for any vulnerable people, our children, the disabled and our future generations for all time potentially, from any tyrants, traitors, ignoramus’s, bullies, narcissistic mad fools, … , if we keep on the tradition of upholding our Common Law.
    When or if we made an oath to our Monarch, we were making an oath to the position of Monarchy who’s role was to protect and uphold our Common Law Constitutional inalienable rights. It is not an oath purely to a person or family such as the ‘Windsor’ family or Barons Committee, who are supposed to be in the role of selfless service to us all, such as the ‘queen’ or any of the Barons Committee, but it is an oath to the Lawful Role or duty of that position.
    When we ask a Police Constable, … if they are standing under their oath of office, it should remind them what their lawful duties are rather than allow their egos or any corruption to take hold. A true sovereign being would be humble and happy enough to take an oath for the higher good and to help master their ego, rather than the ego master them, and someone in a position of responsibility such as a Monarch, Police Constable, Judge, religious leader, politician, could easily let their ego get carried away and abuse their position of responsibility. Then we could end up with corruption, abuse, weakness, tyranny, …
    Oath’s are important, they can keep us all conscious, aware, safe, protected and in service to the Rule of Common Law.
    It is provable that QE2 has not fulfilled her role as Monarch properly as she has broken the Coronation Oath, perhaps under duress, that has continued to allow a conspiracy to carry on usurping our Common Law and Constitution and allowing devious, fascist corporations, banks, global elitists, traitors, organisations such as the E.U. and U.N., narcissistic fools, … , to try to undermine and ignore our Common Law and our Constitution and instead recognise Roman statist ‘law’, rules, regulations, statutes, directives, … ,as the highest authority in which to govern by.
    This is why Article 61 was invoked in 2001. Our Common Law recognises and upholds our inalienable birth rights. These inalienable rights are not granted by a government, a corporation, a bank, an elitist aristocrat, …
    Roman ‘law’ recognises the state or elitists, aristocrats, banks, corporations, government bureaucracies as the authority in which to try to rule us by. The ‘state’ tries to rule every aspect of our lives through bureaucratic rules and regulations. Roman ‘law’ does not recognise or respect, protect and uphold our inalienable birth rights. The global elitists that use the state to try to rule us all, are the worst sort of anarchists. Their moto for themselves that is sometimes used is, “do as thy will.” They do not recognise their or our birth right responsibilities to look after each other and our home, our planet, our environment.
    Common Law recognises all our freedoms, but also all our responsibilities, e.g. be peaceful, cause no harm, be honest, fair, … Common Law recognises that no one is above the Rule of Common Law, not the person in the role or position of Monarch or Baron, not governments, corporations, banks, aristocrats, global elitists, religious leaders, judges, police constables, politicians, media owners and workers, or any other civil servant or anyone at all!
    There has been an ongoing conspiracy for some time that elitist families/groups have been trying to ignore, distort, undermine, break, usurp our Common Law and Constitution. Common Law is for sovereign being commoners, it’s for all of us, it doesn’t recognise elitists, tyrannical governments, … When our Common Law system of service and our constitution is in trouble and is in danger, it has a security clause, Article 61 of Magna Carta. This was again invoked in March 2001 and so therefore we are all supposed to be lawfully rebelling until all this treasonous tyranny and corruption has been remedied.
    My sympathies goes out to all those who have suffered injustice and tyranny through the corrupt establishments, especially when the Rule of Common Law should have prevailed, …

  44. Eddy Alder

    As for the campaign to vote to leave the E.U. it’s nonsensical. A conspiracy of Treason has been committed that got us into the unlawful arrangements with the E.U. in the first place. Therefore we should not be voting or having a referendum to leave, we shouldn’t have got into such an arrangement as they are contrary to our Common Law Constitution, therefore these arrangements are null and void anyway. The only appropriate action we should all be taking is to stand under the invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta, which is an important part of our Constitution, even though it may not be recognised in the statute books, which are mostly separate to our Constitution anyway. We all need to take Lawful action against all of these conspirators as soon as possible including the media owners, … ,politicians, corrupt elitists, ‘lawyers’, propagandists, … The invocation of Article 61 also invokes a Convention to end all tyranny, corruption and return to the Rule of Common Law.

  45. Eddy Alder

    It was a crime of Treason against our Common Law Constitution that Britain’s treacherous ‘leaders’ got us involved with the EU and UN in the way that they have. Allegedly Edward Heath was compromised because he had committed the most serious child sex abuses and was also an alleged German agent, that he mislead the British public and tried to take us into inappropriate and unlawful relations with the EU.
    As well as being described as a lying war criminal that has helped to bring us all towards a ww3 situation, Tony Blair has committed treason in many ways, partly by helping to push through the Treaty of Nice which lead to the very concerning Lisbon Treaty. Tony should have known better because his wife and himself are trained lawyers and his brother is a High Court Judge. However, it does appear that Constitutional Law has been taken out of the Law training to some degree from the 1970’s onwards. I wonder why? QE2 has broken the Coronation Oath by allowing this to happen and she has not responded to the invocation of Article 61 properly, however she may have been under duress from other parties.
    Constitutions are created for a reason. They are there to protect all the sovereigns of a nation from potential tyranny, from losing our way, our identity, our customs and the wisdom, struggles, insights, victories, lessons and experiences of our ancestors, …
    The crimes of Treason and Sedition are also there for a very important reason and are recognised as the most serious of crimes, crimes of genocide of an entire nation and it’s culture, … Of course most of us would not wish to be ruled by fear and intimidation but we possibly still need mechanisms to protect and uphold the Rule of Common Law for all the people, especially the children and vulnerable people and for our future generations for all time.
    Referendums sound like an attractive tool for direct democracy but are not sufficient to change our Constitution over voting for a couple of predetermined ‘choices’ amongst a lot of propaganda and manipulations directed by the criminal corporate controlled mainstream media, …
    Referendums are inappropriate to remedy a Crime since a Crime has been committed.
    Lawful action is the only appropriate way to remedy the situation.
    Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has been invoked in March 2001.
    We are all required to read or listen to Article 61 and understand it.
    Our constitution has been carefully crafted using much wisdom by our ancestors through the ages.
    It’s not something and should not be something that can be altered or dropped at a whim.
    It has probably been the greatest crime ever committed against our Common Law Constitution, that conspirators have tried to help a fascist globalist agenda take over the sovereignty of our Common Law people and land.
    Britain should not be involved in the EU the way it is.
    Britain could have had and could maintain close, friendly, cooperative and mutually beneficial but lawful relationships with other sovereign states, European or otherwise.
    However it is unlawful for Britain to be involved in the EU in the way it has been.
    It is a crime for Britain to be involved in the EU in the way it is.
    It is Seditious and Treasonous to ever suggest that EU law is now primary Law.
    Our Constitutional Common Law is obviously the primary Law and since Article 61 has been invoked, Article 61 is now the highest and most urgent and relevant truth in Law.
    With Article 61 being invoked we now have a convention of all the sovereign people of Britain and the Commonwealth countries to remedy all the corruption that has been taking place and restore the Rule of Common Law and the system of service that our administration is supposed to provide.

  46. Eddy Alder

    Brexit? What a load of twaddle.
    It is a Crime of treason to ever be in a situation where Britain is perceived to be under the authority of the EU,UN, European ‘law’, European ‘courts’, European police, corporations, banks, the vatican, the U.S.A, China, …
    It is probably unconstitutional and unlawful for other sovereign nations to be in the EU, … also?
    Britain has not had a Lawful Convention which is required if we all foolishly chose to change our Constitution and allow our Common Law and sovereignty to be usurped.
    Any politician, lawyer, academic, head of media and other organisations, or other public or civil servants and influential people, should be arrested under the Laws of our Common Law Constitution unless they decide to stand under Article 61 of Magna Carta asap that was invoked in March 2001.

  47. Eddy Alder

    In a nutshell, it’s unlawful to be under the authority of the EU, UN, Corporations, Banks, Roman Law, …
    End of.
    And now that we all know that QE2 has broken her Coronation Oath
    and politicians, … have and are committing Treason towards our Common Law Constitution,
    everyone living and working in Britain
    and even the entire Commonwealth should be standing under Article 61 as described in Magna Carta 1215.

  48. Eddy Alder

    I feel that there is a lot more truth to be revealed about our scared Common or Natural Law.
    Common Law equates to natural Law, it’s for the common sovereign people of the world who recognise and claim their inalienable rights, freedoms and responsibilities. We are adult human beings, we don’t have to behave like dependent children, herd animals, meek followers, techno zombies, ignorant disempowered trapped victims, selfish, greedy, obsessed, immoral, irresponsible hedonists or yes men and woman, mindlessly following imposed bureaucratic rules and regulations, … Most of us can be empowered, free and critical thinkers.
    There was a lot of tyranny and corruption in the British empire.
    It was probably ruled by a similar bunch of characters and bloodline egotistical control freak psychos as the Roman and other empires, including the current global version.
    Our Common Law has often been misused, ignored and disregarded by these global imperialist elitists and those in their chain of commands.
    It can be said with truth, that some of the Commonwealth, British or English people have profited or enjoyed the benefits of the expansion of empire, war, slavery, corruption and exploitation, although as some would acknowledge, it may not be that simple and black and white, especially when we take into consideration social engineering, peoples ignorance, selfishness, confusion and their circumstances.
    Everyone can acknowledge and assert their Common Law rights! Constitutions and the rule of Common Law are supposed to be there to protect us all. They are supposed to be designed to be incorruptible and out of the reach of tyrants and conspirators, because of the separations of power that were put in place. This is something even our current day parliament are treasonously involved in undermining, in cahoots with the EU, UN, corporations, bankers, secret societies and other organisations.!
    Traditionally, the sovereign people appoint a guardian to protect the constitutional Law e.g. a Monarch or a President, if the people in these positions fail in their duty to do so, then they have committed the most serious Crime of Treason and must be brought to account asap! It is the common or sovereign people who are the ultimate guardians of the rule of common Law, as we are the majority by far and we are all supposed to be equal under Law and therefore we must assert this. The Sovereign people must have a lawful right to remedy any corruption of a Monarch, President, politician, .. and the Lawful right to rebel if necessary.
    The way international ‘law’ is currently structured makes it inferior and incompatible with Common Law. ‘International law’ can be dangerous, as it can be too far out of reach for the masses around the world, so therefore can be misused by tyrannical dictators, … e.g. unlawful wars, weather engineering, corruption, … It is already too far removed in national government, as most people feel we do not have an democratic enough relationship with parliamentarians to be adequately involved in decision and policy making and be satisfied that everything is honest and above board, … ‘International law’ can be used as a whip by insane tyrants in their ivory towers, to dictate to and control the masses through their corrupt, weak, ignorant, chain of commands, …
    The masses all over the world, could all claim their inalienable rights and have the most effective, workable, fair social contracts and constitutions, where the system, including the police, the military, media, judiciary and all other civil servants, are truly in service to us all under the rule of natural Law.

  49. Eddy Alder

    Constitutions are long term social contracts with all the sovereign people of a nation. They are designed to keep peace and harmony, prevent tyranny and corruption and protect everyones inalienable rights and freedoms and ensure that we all receive the best quality public service that we can have for all time, including all the future generations in perpetuity! They are not designed to messed about with even by genuinely elected majority governments or through referendums.
    Constitutions are very important social contracts. As i have just mentioned, they are there to protect our future generations who haven’t even been born or conceived yet.
    To alter a constitution is a very serious matter. That is why for this ever to happen, a nation must call a convention of the people if there are ever any extremely serious circumstances that make this absolutely necessary. The convention must take great care in how it debates any potential alterations or additions to the constitution keeping all our future generations in mind.
    Statutes can add detail and specific clarity to the constitution, but they must be Lawful, i.e. they must not contradict anything in the constitution.
    Statutes are designed to be more flexible as they can be amended and repealed by elected parliaments.
    Basically, if there is any tyranny and corruption in the system then the constitution must have been breached in some way and must be remedied asap.
    It is a very serious matter to try to breach Constitutional Law.
    The most serious charges for such potential crimes are “treason” and “sedition” designed to deter conspirators, tyrants, outlaws, enemies of a nation inside or outside.
    The reason for such serious charges are because the Constitution is not only there to try to protect all of us, but also to protect the future generations.
    The charge of sedition however should not infringe on anyones right to freedom of expression as long as it does not cause anyone any harm.
    The highest truth and authority currently invoked in Common Law lands is Article 61 of 1215 Magna Carta since March 2001.
    Please feel free to correct me if i’ve expressed anything inaccurately.

  50. Eddy Alder

    Asserting the Rule Of Law, the rules, the Law.
    Many have realised now that poli-tics, especially party politics does not and cannot work, is thoroughly controlled, corrupt to the core and has been very much part of the problem. Also many organisations and some that claim to be grass roots organisations are possibly also controlled opposition groups being funded and supported by the enemies you thought you may have been opposing, ..
    The key to mass self-empowerment and the solution I feel is to learn the principals of true Law.
    Natural Law & Universal Law equates with Common Law, common sense Law for the common people, for everyone
    and no one is above the Law!
    One of the most important truths to realise is probably that legal and the legal system are not the same as Law.
    As many know, the legal system is a mostly elitist system designed to be overly complicated to deceive and along with parliament and it’s politicians is mostly corrupt, unlawful and therefore treasonous!
    The principal socially shared conscious, verbal or written contract of Common Law are for us all to be free as sovereign beings, to live freely and fully if we choose to, as long as we are respectfully aware of others and our environment and behave responsibly, honestly, peacefully and don’t cause intentional harm to anyone or anything. If we do, the injured party or parties can present the truth with evidence to a properly convened Common Law Court overseen fairly, emphatically and wisely by a Jury of peers.
    This social contract is ancient, wise, fair and universal and was designed to protect the most vulnerable, the children, the elderly, the unwell, the disabled people for all time.
    If statutes, rules, regulations and directives contradict the principals of Common Law then they are deemed unlawful. If there are any statutes that are still helpful and useful in clarifying finer details of the Law then they may as well be kept, but many unlawful statutes especially the ones that deal with taxation, fines, surveillance, repression and micro management of the masses are destined for the rubbish bin, ..
    The elitist criminal occupiers of the British Isles and beyond and their descendants and criminal supporters, (also sometimes known as the establishment, the city states, sick&twisted Atlantis&Babylonian imperialists, Nazi-Zionists, the 1%, ruling,.. or global elitists) have many times throughout history contravened Natural or Common Law and must in retrospect be brought to account or be acknowledged for all their crimes asap to help bring more peace, harmony, trust and stability to this planet. Those that have been tricked, lured in, coerced under duress, blackmailed are more likely to get pardoned due to intimidating circumstances depending on how willing and cooperative they have now become to come clean and reveal all the evidence of the corruption and conspiracies that have been playing out within Britain and beyond.

    1. David Robinson

      Good post Eddy… embelish slightly on some important points that you raised we as a movement are not against the sensible rules that have been created i.e., speed limits around people or nayure…I summise that we would merely bring the sensible policies into law by means of a constitutional convention of the people, once the people have been duly educated as to the deception that has been ongong for many generations now.

      Another point that I would like to mention is that of compassion for those running the treadmill of the fascist state. Once the truth has been unleashed upon the masses there is likely to be a witch-hunt…. but we must remember that many good people are tied to the system (as it was designed to do) and have their first responsibility to their families. Now I’m not speaking of those whom we have evidence against for aiding and abetting the regime but I’m not excluding them either….we must act according to the common law and the resumption of innocence is paramount. Peace.

  51. Eddy Alder

    One last thing? See you in Winchester

  52. David Robinson

    Just to say I like the changes that have been made to this site…well done Nige. Another website and forum is also being created I will keep you updated.

    1. Eddy Alder

      Good one Dave, looking forward to hearing more about the new site and forum, best wishes and much appreciation.

  53. Eddy Alder

    May peace, love, fairness, abundance, happiness, prosperity, forgiveness, honesty, compassion, Common natural Law freedoms and responsibilities prevail on earth and though out our multi dimensional universe

  54. Eddy Alder

    When is UKIP & Farage going to declare that the 1972 European Communities Act is NULL and VOID because it broke the British Constitution and so therefore was a treasonous act, ..? It doesn’t need repealing and Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty does not need and should not be invoked, ..
    Also, it’s about time that all these treasonous and corrupt government quango’s such as Common Purpose and it’s off shoots and all it’s associates get fully investigated, stopped and the key players brought to account. ‘Police’ Constables need to realise their duty under Common Law and their real powers, that their main priority is to know, uphold, protect and enforce the Common and the British Constitutional Law. No one is above the Law including perceived senior ranking police, politicians, political parties, Parliament, the Monarch, ‘Judges’ who are merely convenors in trials in courts, .. This is clear in British Constitutional documents including Magna Carta 1215. The Constables really need to know their Constitutional role, not the lies and misinformation the Police training academies, .. try to indoctrinate and impose. The corruption in the system is so rife now that when Constables know and understand the Common and Constitutional Law, they will realise that they have the authority and the duty to arrest senior ranking officers, so called ‘Judges’, politicians, even the prime minister and anyone who commits treason and sedition and other crimes i.e. breaking Common Law, ..

  55. Eddy Alder

    This is a global peaceful revolution or restoration of universal natural Common Law principles. Be free and sovereign to live life freely and behave responsibly, honestly, honourably, peacefully, considerately, wisely, .. No one is above the Rule of Common Law. All are equal under the Law. Criminal global elitists must all be flushed out, exposed and made personally liable for their crimes.
    Anybody that protects these turds, what are they scared of? They have no future protecting these insecure criminals.
    The best solution for everyone on our planet is for every community to invoke properly convened Common Law Juries.
    Modern day so called ‘judges’ are supposed to be convenors or arbitrators.
    It is the Juries that are the real Judges and have the authority to annul any unfair, unjust and unlawful statute.
    The ‘governments’ administration and all the civil servants including Presidents, Prime Ministers and Monarch, the Police and Judicary are supposed to be in service to the masses, ..

Leave a Comment

Nothing on this website is to be construed as legal advice.