Magna Carta 1215 was NEVER lawfully repealed, updated or superseded. Common sense should be employed with regard to the reply to the Barons Committee in 2001 by the (vacant) Office of Sovereign.

If it could have been safely ignored then it would have been. It was replied to on the 39th day of the 40 days permitted by common law for a reply to be received, an inadequate response was provided. There was no mention of it being repealed or that clause 61 was not in effect.

It is entirely and provably untrue that only 3 clauses remain. Henry III had NO authority whatsoever to breach the MC agreement and remove the security clause (61) in 1216. The treaty was sealed forever as it states within clause 1, 61 and 63, that is until the people collectively decide otherwise. Moving on......

By pledging our allegiance to the frankly useless barons, we can only do so as stated within our Oaths of Allegiance 'as long as they comply with English constitutional law without deviation', they clearly have not done that and only one has ever been interviewed with regard to invoking said clause. Lord Craigmyle is nice but dim. they clearly didn't really understand what they were doing as they should have spotted the fact that no constitutionally arranged monarch has been in place since James I!. James I was a pretend protestant in my opinion, and by his actions he was a papist puppet also it seems.

Elizabeth I was the last constitutional monarch we had from my research. We must also bear in mind that she claimed hereditary title and was not elected so that claim is obviously spurious too.

She clearly acted in accordance with the common law by reasserting the sovereignty of the people and restoring the christian protestant church however, whilst banning Roman Catholicism.. The 1571 Treason Act proves the claim which is still in effect today, and cannot be denied without committing sedition so you will never hear politicians or the fake and treasonous judiciary mention it.

Furthermore with regard to the barons...we attained lawful excuse by sending copies of our Oaths to the barons. Many did not respond favourably and deposed/perjured themselves by breaching their constitutional obligations. We the people were directed to act according to clause 61 and we have taken over the cause by necessity and duress. We can do little else if we are to stay true to the common law and our conscience. Moving on.....

We cannot go back to installing the monarch after redress has been had, it would be a constitutional impossibility in these exceptional times. No constitutionally arranged monarch has been in place for 334 years at least. We need to reassert the common law within ALL courts in the entire commonwealth before convening a constitutional convention of the people to decide the best form of society structure.....maybe a meritocracy? entrusting the sovereignty of the people into one pair of hands was always a dumb idea lets face it.

Finally, we are not rebels. A rebel acts against the lawful authority of the nation or society, whereas we are acting strictly in accordance with the highest law in the land under the common law (aspects of the) constitution, it can not be claimed that we are rebels or outlaws.