“Learn Your Constitution!”

The world-respected 1215 Great Charter English and British Constitution Magna Carta bestows on every adult citizen as Juror the privilege, burden and duty of participating in self-government by judging, making, (deciding) and enforcing just laws and annulling prosecutions of bad statutes.

The beneficial influence of Magna Carta results from its egalitarian spread of power to all the people, with its defined and prescribed Common Law Trial by Jury which permanently strips government and judiciary of all power to punish and set sentences.

In an unforgivable act of mens rea (pronounced ray-uh; i.e., criminal malice aforethought) government lawyers and politicians coin and employ an untruthful slogan, “lawful rebellion,” to denigrate our Constitution. This is because the Constitution’s Articles 24, 36, 39, 40 and 61 oblige citizens to uphold the Constitution’s Rule of Law and prosecute them; traitors within our government.


Article Sixty-One of the immaculate, world-respected 1215 Great Charter Constitution Magna Carta installs the People as the legal force to police, arrest, indict, try, punish and otherwise obtain redress over wrongdoers acting as, or in the name of, government. It is the written constitutional law Magna Carta’s limitation of government power which gives rise to the ulterior motive behind current mis-education.

The completely incorrect notion that, “The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution,” is spread by the perjury of treasonous politicians, members of the judiciary, and by accomplices, the compliant, manipulated workers in media and state (mis)education. These lawless moves by ignominious rascals are an attempt to eliminate or circumvent the timeless, binding, supreme secular Common Law values to which they and all are eternally subject.

Regarding in particular, the much-propagated false notion of government or judicial “immunity from prosecution”: Article 61 recognises and establishes that no one is ‘above’ the law of the land. No one who infracts legem terræ common law is ‘immune’ to private citizens’ (single or multiple plaintiffs) cost-free private prosecutions for acts which embody malice aforethought. (‘Acts’ means both legislation and physical acts; wrongdoing). No person of probity would even seek to acquire such impunity for him or herself.

This stricture specifically includes the head of state, the most powerful people, administrative government itself (i.e., executive, legislature and judiciary) and all the agencies and employees of government. The Great Charter recognises and dictates that the People have the permanent duty of enforcing their Constitution and the Common Law of the Land legem terræ, to protect themselves from lawlessness and injustices inflicted by government.

Article Sixty-One: “If we (Head of State), our chief justice, our officials (government), or any of our servants (government employees, police, armed services and bureaucrats) offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us — or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice — to declare it and claim immediate redress.

Article Sixty-One continues: “If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.”

N.B. The Constitution says explicitly that it is legal and lawful to resist and redress infractions by government. This means such acts cannot be ‘of rebellion’, but are those of due enforcement of law.

“Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us (government) to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.”


Single-minded, unswerving, determined mass peaceful support (satya graha) for Restoration of the Trial by Jury was the method by which Magna Carta was installed. The accomplishment of another such act of Restoration by passing of The Restoration Amendment is required today. Restoration is the way to save populations from the worsening tyranny being perpetrated by criminal administrations. Inscribed in Article Sixty-One, it remains people’s perpetual duty to enforce the common law Constitution.

If government’s adherence to legitimacy wavers, people are obliged to constrain government to respect the rule of law. Distraint, assail and seize are legal but violent means. The Restoration Amendment is more direct and achieves the same ascendant goal peacefully. It does, however, demand unity of purpose and solidarity en masse.

When persons in government are participants in criminal contraventions of the Constitution in general, and in particular those embodied in denial of the People’s Courts of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System, it is incumbent upon the citizenry at large to unite to restore Trial by Jury and thus legality to the status quo, for there is no other party to whom the task can be entrusted.

Government is comprised of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary; citizenry, the population of citizens collectively, including military personnel. Knowledge of the historical circumstances surrounding the inception of Magna Carta and understanding of its subject matter affirm that it cannot be extrapolated from any aspect of the document’s contents that it “permits” rebellion of any type whatsoever.

It defies logic, reason and history to suggest that the upholding of the rule of law and Constitution could ever be an act of “rebellion.” On the contrary indeed, the Great Charter recognises that the population has an ongoing obligation to police their own society; to treat as crimes all infractions of its Articles; and for jurors to vet, judge, decide, make and enforce the laws.

Those who uphold and enforce constitutional common law on wrongdoers are never to be thought of or described as “rebels”―any more than is the policeman who performs his duty by accosting felons. He is doing his duty: he is not “rebelling”! Consider that, in the absence of police, does the upright citizen stand idly by as a spectator to permit the rape or robbery of a fragile woman or child, if he is able by words or actions to prevent it? Of course not! Then, ask yourself, is that citizen’s dutiful act of policing society to prevent a crime, rebellion? No!

It is not ‘rebellion’ at all and could never sensibly be called one. It is the duty of all citizens at all times and in all ways possible to uphold Common Law to preclude tyranny and crime. This common law duty to police society is unsurprisingly inscribed into the Articles of Constitution. Those who perform this duty are naturally, morally and legally authorised to do so.

Magna Carta permits NO act of ‘rebellion’. Such acts are proscribed and condemned by the Great Charter. Yet, we notice puerile groups and individuals who claim to support the Constitution calling themselves “lawful rebels.” To adopt this deviation from truth maligns Magna Carta.

It reveals people’s lack of understanding of both their own language and the Great Charter Constitution, the very inspiration of all subsequent legitimate constitutions, the Australian, the U.S., etc., that they could even contemplate using that disrespectful, self-contradictory term ‘lawful rebellion’ as a slogan.

It misleads people and totally misrepresents the honourable purpose of our Common Law Constitution. Those who wish to confront the Illegality of the Status Quo already have the moral high ground of our Common Law Constitution on their side. It is politicians who are in the wrong. Beware! ‘Lawful rebellion’ is mocking mis-wording invented by those who work for the illegal regime; see what follows.


This issue regarding ‘rebellion’ is not one of mere academia and semantics: it relates to the unavoidable impact of words upon people’s psyche. Intellectuals, barristers (lawyers), writers and public speakers such as politicians know well how men and women are swayed and controlled by the choice and use of words.

Consider the word ‘government’. It implies authority over those whom it ‘governs’. Every time the word is used, a spurious myth is entrenched into the mind, reason and memory which confers psychological subjection and inferiority onto the individual and populace.

However, correctly-speaking, and, as recognised by our Constitution, legally, government is nothing more than a nuts-and-bolts administrative mechanism empowered only insofar as the Jury allows. That is to say, every individual within government or paid for by public finances, remains entirely subject to the People, the rule of law and the Trial by Jury Justice System.

Yet, it takes a conscious effort to remind oneself of these facts because we are daily, if not hourly, conditioned to accept ‘government’ as a “supreme body above us,” which it is not. Under the law, government is the servant of the People paid for out of the pockets of the population who (we) are its masters.

In this context, let us reflect upon the wisdom and advice of the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln:

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts—not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

See p. 494, Political Debates between Lincoln and Douglas, published by Burrows Bros., 1897.

Likewise, the term “lawful rebellion” is the cunning cynic’s supercilious, scornful linguistic mutilation; a collusive government lawyer’s scoffing contradiction-in-terms to ridicule “the plebs” (the lowest classes of uneducated common people) and bring into disrepute the citizen-juror’s Constitutional Duty to prevail over the illegalities of the administration and hold government to legitimacy.

It is these felons, the enemies of the people, who adopt the expression “lawful rebellion” to derogate the Great Charter. They wish to obliterate our Constitution precisely because Articles 24, 36, 39, 40 and 61 oblige citizens to uphold the rule of law and prosecute them. This ring of unconscionable men and women in politics, banking, legal profession and judiciary intend to annihilate the people’s rights and the duty to enforce justice upon criminals in government and powerful positions in society.

By definition and in the event, ‘rebellion’ is an unbridled, lawless activity; it is intermittent, sporadic, and even spontaneous. The serious crime of Sedition is the act by conduct or speech of inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state. People are correct to deprecate use of the term “rebellion” because in this context it is a misnomer; and because unlawful implications are inextricably intimated by the word.

Even if one adds the word ‘lawful’ to rebellion, the word ‘rebellion’ still confers insecurity and doubtful legality on “rebels.” Worse though is the fact that the term concedes a completely spurious ‘legitimacy’ and ‘superiority’ to those in government—who are actually usurpers rebelling against the Constitution. Whether or not one adds the term ‘lawful’ to rebellion, the expression yields ‘lawfulness’ to the government—which is a wholly incorrect, mendaciously- contrived misinterpretation of the legal position.

So, “rebellion” is never to be confused with the sober, civilised duty incumbent on the people to uphold the rule of law as ordained by the Great Charter: a permanent task of spreading educational information, raising people’s awareness of the purpose, meaning and supreme nature of the Constitution, and of the citizens’ duty to enforce common law. Only enemies of equal justice oppose the rights and duty of the people to enforce justice through Trial by Jury on those in government or powerful positions in society who breach common law. From malignance (or ignorance), the unaware men and women who blunderingly refer to Article Sixty-One as permitting “lawful rebellion” are themselves foes of the people, actively undermining the Constitution.

People who do understand our Constitution are repelled by groups which adopt that inane slogan. It stimulates, attracts and motivates riff-raff who have not the slightest inkling of the intricacies of the Constitution and are only spoiling for physical confrontations. Rebellion might be a natural response to oppression, but it is not correct to adopt this lawyer’s sarcastic expression, because it is utilised to dissipate the validity of common law, slight the Constitution, and deny Trial by Jury.

Verily, the lawful policing of society and the just enforcement of Constitutional Common law are never ‘rebellion’. It was not so in the time of King John and it is not so today. People who support the self-named ‘constitution’ groups who naïvely enthuse about ‘lawful rebellion’ deserve a better education about their Great Charter Constitution than such groups proffer. These groups disgrace themselves.

The just enforcement of judicium parium, the judgement of peers, is the due process of Common Law Trial by Jury prescribed and defined by Magna Carta and adopted by all authentic constitutions. This is the justice system which creates, defines and upholds democracy and all true civilisation… hardly a “rebellion”!

It reveals sheer malice in people—or their ignorance and utter unread inability to understand the Common Law Constitution—that they could even contemplate using that inapplicable, defamatory term as a slogan. People who uphold and enforce constitutional common law on wrongdoers are never to be thought of or described as “rebels.” It is the offenders in parliament, congress and judiciaries who are contumacious: they are rebelling against the Constitution and the just rule of law; not We the People.


Here is a view on the matter by Major John Gouriet:

Dear Kenn and Astra,

I am most grateful to you for your timely paper on Magna Carta. It has arrived just in time for the second conference on “Lawful Rebellion”, to whose organisers I have forwarded your paper. I entirely agree with your view. To talk of ‘rebellion’ somehow confers legitimacy on those who are set in authority over us and who ignore or abuse the constitution without authority in pursuit of their own political goals, when it is they who are the perpetrators and are clearly at fault.”

“A similar myth was created by the BBC during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s when they described the Mujahideen as “guerrillas and terrorists fighting the (impliedly lawful) government” (a puppet regime established in Kabul by the invaders) as though it was the Mujahideen who were at fault for trying to free their country; not the foreign oppressors!


Major John Gouriet, 15th/19th Hussars. Chairman, Defenders of the Realm; Battle for Britain Campaign supported by H.G. The Duke of Wellington; Edward Fox, OBE, and Frederick Forsyth, CBE

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, History, News, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.