This article is for those who are new to Lawful Rebellion.

There has been a lot of confusion recently and in the past regarding Lawful Rebellion (Article 61) and what the differences are between standing under it as apposed to using the FMOTL idea. One has more than just facts, the other has none.

The FMOTL conspiricy/philosophical stance goes like this:

  • When London burned, the subrogation of men’s and women’s rights occurred. The responsible act passed was the Cestui Que Vie Act which was first drafted in 1666 and to some it meant all men and women of UK were declared dead and lost beyond the seas. The repealed sections stated the state could legally take everybody and everybody’s property into trust. The state apparently took control until a 7 years unless any living man or woman came back and claimed their title by proving they are alive and claims for damages can be made. So basically the idea is that the state owns your “entrusted” state title, and you are the beneficiary of that title. It is slightly simular to the LNF (Legal Name Fraud concept where your “legal name” is copyrighted by the Crown but this does not make any argument as you cannot copyright names, you can only trademark them. They argue that the Birth, Deaths and Marriages Act places Crown Copyright on the name.

“WHERE’S THE CONFUSION?! I Thought it was the same?”

There is indeed confusion. To put it politely, the Lawful Rebellion movement has been misconstrued by many media outlets. Including the UK Column where one of their articles even preaches:

“…For the more adventurous members of the resistance, there may be ways to starve the beast of tyranny of its taxes altogether. They are the Freeman concept, Chapter 61 of Magna Carta and duress of circumstances…” 

Amongst getting other things wrong, at the time this wasn’t needed and slowed a positive thing down. From comparing it all to FMOTL to saying it has no relevancy at all today.

The dubiety lies at the term “Lawful Excuse” as many confuse the idea as far as the Freeman movement goes, their excuse is they are not their state names and so are immune from Statutes which can create a dangerous individual as it is a believe that statutes are merely a form of contract which you consent to through un-rebutted presumptions by the state. The presumption being that you are your state created Legal Person and you can ‘Opt out of laws you don’t consett to’. We however do not follow this concept. Our Lawful Excuse lies with the undeniable invocation of Article 61. Since our “Government” handed our National Sovereignty to a foreign authority they have been acting in outlawry. Especially since the invocation.

Did you know we’re not lawfully in the EU and this “Government” aren’t actually Government. Our Constitutional Laws prohibit any foreign power from obtaining any authority over the Sovereign and since the 1972 Treason (and Sedition) where Edward Heath tricked the people into consenting to what would later be Foreign Rule. This treachery did not stop there as by 1992 the Maastricht Treaty forced a compulsory Citizenship on the “Queen” (not actually Queen anymore). Finally before the Nice Treaty was given its final ratification in 2001, final attempts were made to make sure that no one within this realm lost their fundamental freedoms and liberties. That attempt at saving us all being the invocation of Article 61.

The FMOTL idea however does not use such things, for if it did, then they’d have proof. Yet, they do not. 


The history of confusion with FMOTL began almoast 2 decades but it goes back further. The original concept of the Movement started spawned from the Redemption Movement (1933) and later, along with the speeches Jordan Maxwell gave during a talk during a “Conspiracy Con” convention about the enslavement of the world through Admiralty Law. (click here for the video).

The Redemption Movement consisted of supporters of an American conspiracy theory called “Redemption theory”, which involved claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so that it could borrow money. This was related to the Sovereign Citizen Movement.

The Sovereign Citizen (oxymoron) movement was a loose grouping of American and Canadian litigants, commentators, tax protesters, and financial-scheme promoters. Self-described sovereign citizens, they take the position that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any government statutes or proceedings.

The topic was also brushed up by Robert Menarrd from Canada (Also a commonwealth country). He has teached this philosophical concept along with the lawful process “A4V” according to the contractual law and other different strategies when it came to lawful excuse. He has teached this for over a decade now. There are also many complications such as the use of blue and red ink and is completely foreign to Britain. 

British founded website “Get Out of Debt Free states: “If you fill in a ‘remittance form’ and send it back with a check/cheque, then you are effectively paying them twice. When you fill in a ‘remittance form’ and sign it, it becomes a commercial instrument, which the company can exchange for cash or sell on. When you ‘Accept for Value’ you are offering a Remedy or ‘Commercial Right’ that is acquired through a commercial instrument. Signing the remittance form/commercial instrument endorses it. If you don’t sign it, you relinquish the remedy that’s been offered through the instrument.” Yet this is still not even close to Rebellion under Article 61. 

Beat the Bailiffs and the Banks. Although they are not of the Freeman concept, they do carry and waiver the idea of using Parliments own legislation against them. This is however, not related to the Lawful Rebellion process. They, instead of using Royal Command rely on more “Legal Methods” known as the 3 letter process (also called the Conditional Acceptence Process). A personal statement from their site claims “The 3 letter process (also known as conditional acceptance) is a way of asking a Debt Collection Agency to prove they have the legal right to ask you for money”. However since this process is NOT done with the intention of distressing and distraining the Crown under Article 61 is an action of outlawry and is indeed not fixing the problem but more accepting the unlawful system we have. This means that not only are you not going to be fighting muliltiple “legal” battles with the unlawful Courts, Police and Councils but your not going to make changes to redress and stop these crimes at large from happening again and again. You will be fighting these crime-complicit-councils for a while and will be very stressful too.

Has any other group prevented a committal order for prison?….had hmrc return fine monies that were paid for not filling in tax returns?….stopped numerous summonses in their tracks?….stopped paying water charges, council tax and fines for other menial so called offences? Practical Lawful Dissent has. 

It’s the ONLY way we will ever restore the common law (constitution) is by the people uniting under it, its either that or we lose the common law and our sovereign status with it. Without our individual sovereignty there can ONLY be SLAVERY.

What changes will LR bring?

Once enough people are standing lawfully under Article 61 (Demanding courts of justice, demanding restoration and assertion of The Law, we WILL finally be able to take out country back from the thieves at Parliament.

    Getting back to FMOTL, There has been multiple cases where someone hasn’t got their facts right and have simply believed they could wonder into their ILLEGAL (defacto) courts and use their own rules against them. This is a bad idea as these are not real courts (de jure) and you could wind up with a whole lot more confusing, demeaning and potentially detrimental outcomes additionally Implied to your situation, and in further essence, you will feel so silly by the end of it and wished you’d focuses on Lawful Excuse from the right perspective which is indeed through means of the supreme constitutional law currently active: Article 61. Whereas they use the idea that they arent their legal fiction therefore the ‘legal rules dont apply to them’.

    We MUST use the lawful-given-right to peacefully rebel under Article 61 with proof of its invocation.

    see here for the article following up to the invocation in 2001 where it also states: “Lord Ashbourne, a Conservative hereditary peer ousted from the Lords under Tony Blair’s reforms, said: “These rights may not have been exercised for 300 years but only because they were not needed. Well, we need them now. They may be a little dusty but they are in good order.”

    You may hear that the Magna Carta was replaced and then repealed. It was indeed the 1217 version through the 1297 version but the original 1215 charter is actually untouchable by parliment. It can only be changed by the people. – 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 during the start of The Glorious Revolution (when Article 61 was last used in 1688) who were victorious. –

    Since we are still facing our fellow Britons under a tyrannical regime we have to act, and keep pushing for justice for the British public. Under the current supreme law of the land, article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 which was correctly invoked on the 23rd 2001 we have an obligation to harass, distress and withhold taxes to the best of our abilities once we have switched our allegiance to the barrons committee. One does this by sending an oath of affirmation to the Barons Committee but they must have a recorded delivery.

    FMOTL is simply a farce philosophical misinterpretation of law that if it had sufficient evidence it wouldn’t still be in debate to this day. Some who’ve went down that path have wizened up and instead stuck to the path with sense, liberty and true people power. But for others, this logical fallacy has somewhat destroyed lifes many times.

    Even UK Freeman John Harris (RIP) regretted the way he approached teaching the newly found practice to others before sadly taking his own life. You can’t play games with the state, the point is the whole “game” is going against your best intentions and is utterly unlawful.

    Don’t give their laws credibility! 

    By doing this you are literally considering what’s unlawful as just and you are also agreeing with all of their unjust rules in the process. 

    If you have the moral standpoint to reject this government please join us, and I’d you are a follower of and FMOTL sites please take some time to learn the difference as it’s very stressful when wrong advice is given and people end up going bankrupt losing possessions, their house or even ther family because they didn’t know the practicalities of lawful excuse. Showing intent through a different affirmation. There has also be misunderstandings between US law such as “Uniform Commercial Code” or “UCC-308” which is the preservation of Rights for parties during a defacto court case.


    We settle matters by means of post and recorded delivery, any demands made upon you can be dealt with using the conditional Acceptence Process if showing the right intent (standing under a.61 Magna Carta 1215). If you use their “courts” bare in mind that you’re  (to them) accepting their false Judiciary as a real Judiciary and therefore they do indeed have authority over you. If you have any questions please feel invited to join us on Facebook! We have lots to talk about!

    For future conveniences, the term:

    Lawful Rebellion – has nothing to do with the FMOTL concept. Do not confuse them as it could damage the movement and delay a what is going to be a great future for your kids. 

    Find out more about: Lawful Rebellion & The Conditional Acceptance Process. How does it work?