A Rebel Yell

Aah! A lovely new blog, complete with a team of talented writers and free-thinkers. I will do my very best to offer a contrary view and equally, I will do my very best to defend those views.

There is some confusion about Freemen and Lawful Rebels. I wanted to let you know that there are differences and in this, my first post, I will try to outline those differences.

Everything I say here is bona fide. Every claim I make is absolutely true. All of the information you see below can be found in a heartbeat, thanks to Mr Google.

Sitting comfortably? Good. Allow me to make you uncomfortable.


Known also as Freemen On The Land. The distinction is made because Freemen know that all courts are Admiralty Courts. That is, they deal with statutes, which are Laws Of The Water. Freemen insist on courts de jure (courts by jury) as opposed to courts de facto (a court that functions under colour of authority but whose authority is defective in some procedural form). When a Freeman enters a court he (or she, no sexism in the Freeman Movement. Chicks are accepted as well), demands that he/she enters the court with all inalienable rights intact.

A de facto court does not like this. They do not wish to deal with the man/woman. They wish to deal with the artificial construct or legal fiction. Admiralty courts exist as commercial enterprises and they deal with commerce. For more information on legal fictions, please have a ferret around my blog or Google the term. Set your faces to "Stun" if this new reality is an alien concept to you.

Freemen are, I believe, the ultimate libertarians of our time. They want nothing from the government, and they do not wish to contribute anything to government. Your average Freeman wants to live an unfettered, self-sustaining lifestyle. If he or she chooses, they may take out private health-care, dentistry etc, and pay for the Fire & Rescue service, or the police, as and when or if they need them. Simple enough concept, right? In return they (we) make an oath not to harm, injure, or cause loss to any other men & women on the planet.

This is not a model for freeloading. Freemen want to take nothing as long as they don't have to give anything. This is a very basic description and there are several websites and forums for you to visit to learn more. Try the blogroll at Ranty Barracks if you get stuck.

Lawful Rebellion

This is a different kettle of fish entirely.

Lawful Rebels take their guidance, and their instructions, from Magna Carta 1215 Art. 61, which gives all Britons the right, (actually, the obligation), to rebel if the monarch violates her Coronation Oath. She has done so, by herself or by proxy, over three thousand times since 1953. The Labour government tinkered (illegally and unlawfully) with the House of Lords when they passed a Bill of the same name in 1999.

They disallowed (some) hereditary Peers from taking their seats in the HoL despite them having Letters of Patent. In so doing, they diluted the power of the HoL as an Upper Chamber, and as a result, a Barons Committee was formed in 2001. Some 80 Peers got together and selected a Quorum. In turn, the Quorum delegated four Peers to trot up to Buck House to inform Madge that they were dischuffed.

They gave her 40 days to put right the wrongs, (she did not) so they gave her a further 10 days to deliberate the Second Affidavit (known as an Opportunity To Cure), and, although she acknowledged the Barons Committee, she did not correct her oath violations.

Now that all conditions for Lawful Rebellion are met, the way is open for ALL Britons to revoke their allegiance to the monarch and swear it instead to the Barons Committee. Like them, I also sent my First and Second Affidavits to Madge, and more recently I sent a letter to the Barons Committee pledging my allegiance to them. Article 61, never revoked amended or rescinded, gives me the right to ignore any and all statutes issued by the monarch and her government. I am instructed to "..distrain and distress" them in any way I can. Which includes, but is not limited to withholding taxes, and generally being a pain in the arse. I am doing just that.

So, there you have it. I am both a Freeman and a Lawful Rebel. I have seven or eight affidavits in place. An affidavit, more particularly, an unrebutted affidavit, is the single most powerful piece of paper in the land. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the "truth in law". All Respondents were given ample time to deny (or rebut) my Claims. None of them did so. In law, I am untouchable. In practise, I face much hassle and buggeration.

I am, however, prepared to undergo whatever they throw my way. I do what I do for me, for mine, and for you and yours. We have an illegitimate monarch, an illegitimate parliament and a vast underbody of government drones for whom the Grand Illusion must be maintained.

My job is to undo them.

When you do your research and discover that it is your obligation as well, come and find me.

I will help you to do what needs to be done.

19 comments for “A Rebel Yell

  1. April 27, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Couldn’t be clearer than that.

  2. Sue
    April 27, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    You’re definitely one of my heroes Capt. 🙂

    My other half and I are following your blog postings but there is still much research he and I have to do.

    We need to be prepared, just in case.

  3. April 28, 2011 at 12:02 am

    I applaud your doing this, Capt., but I’m not entirely sure you have full grasp of the stick here.

    The monarch gives assent to the laws passed by Parliament, as per the Coronation Oath in which the monarch promises to govern the sovereign lands according to their laws and customs. The laws and customs in this land, by precedent and by statute, are submitted by Parliament to the monarch for assent. There is nothing in the Coronation Oath or what the monarch has done since swearing it per se that contravenes anything in Magna Carta 61.

    Now, we can certainly argue that the monarch, at this point in time, only gives assent by compulsion on grounds of fear of abolition, but again, there is nothing in either the oath or Magna Carta that dictates the reason for which the monarch assents to any law. It could even be argued that threat of abolition of the monarchy is now a custom by which the monarch must govern.

    More to the point, however, whilst Magna Carta is part of common law, so is everything else that has come since, including Parliament and any limitations on the role or power of the monarchy itself. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; if you accept that common law is what it is, you must accept that the institutions of monarch, Parliament, law, and custom change over time.

    So whilst I applaud the Lawful Rebellion thing in general, if I were a justice faced with your case, I would seriously question your grounds, four barons or twenty-five barons or 1,000 barons.

    • NewsBoycap
      April 28, 2011 at 1:31 am

      “There is nothing in the Coronation Oath or what the monarch has done since swearing it per se that contravenes anything in Magna Carta 61”.
      Article 61 is the remedy for when the Monarch contravenes the Laws and Customs.
      Grab the stick.

    • April 28, 2011 at 9:25 am

      It could be argued that by signing the EU shenanigans into law (particularly the Lisbon treaty, which makes the sovereign no longer sovereign) the monarch has failed in her duty.

      Not sure where I stand on the matter – I accept that in a reasonable society these things will change over time, but I really think the way we’ve been plunged into Europe without referendum or any sort of public input is not on.

  4. NewsBoycap
    April 28, 2011 at 12:36 am


    Beautifully and simply explained, there now should be no excuse for the peasants not to do their duty.
    And if I may, The Great Charter was, like ‘God’ given or ‘Natural’ Law, designed to protect us all from tyranny by Monarch or Government. As the saying goes ‘use it or lose it’ for when the EU takes complete control, Magna Carta will no longer be an option.

  5. NewsBoycap
    April 28, 2011 at 1:21 am

    bella gerens @12:02

    The Monarch cannot contravene Article 61, it is the remedy for the Monarchs contraventions of the Laws and Customs.

  6. April 28, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Thank you James.

    Thank you Sue. It takes a lot of study to do the Freeman thing but Lawful Rebellion is a piece of cake.

    The other option is just to say no every chance you get. I have been amazed at the awesome power of this word. I wish I had understood years ago how quickly you can make officialdoms’ jaw drop just by uttering it.


    • April 28, 2011 at 10:27 pm

      Saying ‘no’.
      Yes, I like that too. It gets some interesting reactions from jobsworths.

  7. April 28, 2011 at 9:36 am


    Thanks for your supportive comments. You are, of course, absolutely right.


  8. April 28, 2011 at 9:44 am


    Thank you for your thoughtful comment too.

    Two things: first, Rational Anarchist nails it. The monarch exists now as a side show.

    Second, Madge abdicated in 1972. In 1992 she was declared to be European citizen by then prime minister John Major. His words are recorded for posterity in Hansard. I’m no constitutional expert but I do know that no-one can be a sovereign and a citizen at the same time.

    I learnt this only after entering Lawful Rebellion but I will continue, stick in hand, because almost no-one appears to know that we no longer have a monarch.

    I rationed myself to a short début article and could have rattled on and on. I have more evidence at my place if you want to sift through it.


    • April 28, 2011 at 10:09 am

      This is true. That the Queen is a European citizen was confirmed by Ken Clarke (then Home Sec) in the House on 1st Feb 1993. I quoted from the debate at length after I’d spent one pleasant Sunday afternoon checking back through Hansard (as you do!) I also discovered that it’s impossible to renounce citizenship of the EU whilst retaining British nationality.

      These are issues you won’t find addressed by the msm. These are some of the “small” things that should be concerning us all, but they receive no publicity so most people are unaware – in fact they’re not even on most people’s radar.

  9. April 28, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    One of the census questions was the nationality of your passport. Mine says European Union at the top above the Uk bit so I guess we all have EU passports – so why the question?

    • William
      April 29, 2011 at 8:37 am

      What’s a passport?

  10. Bollixed
    April 29, 2011 at 2:45 am


    Look at the ‘Queen and the Law’ page.

    I quote:

    “People often wonder whether laws apply to The Queen, since they are made in her name.

    Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the ‘Fount of Justice’, civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law. Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.

    However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

    Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity (this usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen’s name).

    In the case of European Union law, laws are enforced in the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom’s national courts. There is therefore no machinery by which European law can be applied to The Queen in her personal capacity.

    However, it makes no difference that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law.

    As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign.”

    There is no need for speculation. We do not have a sovereign monarch, no matter how much the establishment lies and spins. Mrs Liz Windsor has abandoned her throne to become an EU citizen.

    I am fully committed to Lawful Rebellion and the good work of the British Constitution Group.

    ‘Bollixed’ is more than just a moniker. Its a state of mind! 😡

  11. April 30, 2011 at 1:40 am

    Hang on a min…does this all mean there is no Queen to send my second affidavit to?
    North Wales 😯

  12. April 30, 2011 at 10:54 am


    Send it anyway. Then you have your paperwork in place.

    Don’t forget your final notice to the Barons Committee. Details over at my place.


  13. nominedeus
    May 1, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Oh I will send it Cap’n have no fear of that , counting the days, but I have found myself wondering…if there is no Queen to receive it does the time frame matter anymore, should we just straight out declare for the Barons?

  14. May 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    I would advise that you follow the process.

    Imagine having to rely on your paperwork in court and some uppity judge says “Well, Indy, you started off right but you didn’t stick to the rules”.

    They love paperwork. Not ours, but even so, we should give them no reason to deny us justice.

    Play the game their way and you are bullet-proof.


Comments are closed.