Article 61 Re-visited

From November this country is fucked when the treaty of Nice kicks in. this is our last chance to stop European fascism destroying us and our way of life.law and freedoms for ever.

When the Barons Committee petition was rejected by the queen the procedure of Article 61 was set in motion. I know of no government, prime minister, minister or attorney general or lawyer who has denied its existence or its right to operate. Silence on the matter has been lengthy and almost unbroken. Those in government are unable to deny its existence, or its right of exercise by the people. They have dealt with it by remaining silent on the issue, or referring to statute.
They - the PTB, their minions and catamites - have only ever referred to the statute of 1297, Edward 1’s common law statute version of Magna Carta, and how most of it has been repealed. They dare not comment on the original, because it very much still exists and very much still frightens them.
As remarked upon by me and several others, while common law may be taken into statute and that statute subsequently amended, or repealed, the common law it was taken from remains intact and inviolate. It is both anterior and superior. Removal, amendment, or degradation of the statute leaves the common law untouched. The common law right of lawful rebellion, in all its permitted actions as per Article 61, remains to us.
When the Barons Committee petition was rejected, Article 61 became active and all actions specified or implied in it became lawful to all of us without exception. We have squandered and misspent our right in this matter by separately and severally debating with petty officials on petty personal matters; spending endless time in courts and on court papers.
Individual, scattered activity is, and will remain, ineffective in securing our freedoms and, even while we have the incredible common law power of Article 61 at our disposal, the statute created Nazi EU state is rolling over us. We need to redefine our perceptions and use of Article 61. We need to do more than just say NO CONTRACT.
It is time, I think, to recognise what the Barons Committee actually did. We need to understand that the petition to the queen was an ultimatum. To do that we need to re-read Magna Carta and Article 61, see it for what it really is, and to put it back in context; and we need to understand better the authority and the right of action that was confirmed in us by the presentation, and rejection of, the petition under the terms of the treaty (contract to end hostilities). Art. 61 is supported by the highest court in the land, to be lawfully and rightfully undertaken by all the people as a consequence of a return to a state of war with the crown - as shown in its rejection of the petition of redress.
The current holder of the office of sovereign, to whom we loan our God-given sovereign rights, and in whom we have reposed our trust and faith to act for our common weal, has broken her oath to us and reneged on the terms of our treaty, returning the nation to the conditions existing before the treaty was signed. The ‘contract’ has been broken and the ‘penalty clause’ enacted. The ‘law of the contract is written into the contract and only the law of the contract applies’. Magna Carta is the contract in that sense.
The crown is at mixed war with the people and, through the offices of Parliament and with the aid of a foreign power, is busily reducing us to the unacceptable state of involuntary servitude pre-existing Magna Carta.
The procedure of Article 61 is our lawful response to that return to war - as prescribed by that highest of all common law courts, and as enjoined and made encumbent by the rejection of the petition for redress of present wrongs. Article 61 is the means to end that war and return the crown to its proper duties to the nation. Article 61 defines our lawful means of executing that war. The highest court in the land declared its undeniable lawful existence by exercising its right.
We are not applying ourselves properly, or coherently, and we are losing - even whole we enjoy our Pyrrhic victories in their courts
The Barons Committee’s petition to H.M. demonstrated their belief in it as well as the need for it, and H.M.’s rejection of it signaled a return to war. By their enabling of the procedure of Article 61 the Barons gave us the battlefield and the all powerful, lawful means to win.
While we debate our endless debates with petty officials, the machinery of that war rolls forward undisrupted and undisturbed. The loss of a court case here and there is as nothing in the whole scheme of things. The loss of face for a magistrate embarrassed in his own court is as nothing. The loss of a few council tax payments is as nothing, because the greater whole continues to rumble on.
The loss of a town, even a small one, would be another matter. We have been slapping at the wasps buzzing round our heads, occasionally hitting one and exhausting ourselves in the process, when we should be eradicating the whole nest. When the nest is gone we will have no more wasps buzzing around us. When we occupy a town hall, their machinery will be disrupted at source and we will not have to engage in endless petty conflict with each and every minor official. The petty, diversionary conflicts we are engaged in – council tax, parking fines etc; will be removed in one stroke and energies directed elsewhere.
Unless and until we occupy our public buildings under the lawful procedure of Article 61, the local power base will go on sending out their emissaries, in the form of various Enforcement Officers, to continue to engage our efforts and dissipate our strength in endless petty squabbles in isolation. Lawful occupation of at least one of these power bases is essential. Once successfully occupied, a range of petty engagements will disappear and we shall have a testing ground on which to confront the state with the only question worth the name, the vital question they have so long avoided - the lawfulness of lawful rebellion and our right to engage in it.
A host of possibilities springs to mind as a result of taking over the town hall.
A great deal more could be achieved by taking one little town into lawful rebellion. Examine every conflict and you will see that the army does not mill about skirmishing, and ambushing small targets, except by dire necessity. The army takes the centres of power and the means of production of war materials away from the enemy and disrupts their supply lines and communications. The town hall can be seen as the centre of power, and the revenue they collect as the means of production of war materials. The removal of this power base, and statute impositions, disrupts supply and communications.
The only real challenge can come from the police, and that carries dangers for them. They would have to have been thoroughly informed of the grounds for the action and then would know they were being forced into an executive political determination and decision if they chose to act. If a letter from the Barons Committee were in evidence it would help.
Any negative action they might take, as noted before, wouldn’t just be an overt act of executive political determination and the creation of law, but would be a public confession of misprision of treason that might just militate against their future best interests. (See Albert Burgess’ work) No-one knows how all this will end.
The political vacuum (in which the police must choose a course) which is the indecision about the lawful nature of lawful rebellion (i.e. support us or leave us to get on with it) or it’s not lawful (i.e. arrest us) is one that has been avoided by politicians, never admitted, never denied and never resolved. The police therefore have no ruling or pronouncement to guide them. No precedent or case law. Any choice they make would be a political determination that could only be made by the legislature. They would be between the hammer of responsibility and the anvil of accountability - and we could make sure they understood that in absolute terms. The financial ramifications would not be left out either. I doubt they would be happy to act on their own initiative.
Even if arrests were made and rebel occupiers removed, the appeal to the Barons Committee is still there. Drawing the Barons into things may just be a very good thing. It may even be the very thing they’re waiting for. Right may overcome might, but only when the ‘might of right’ exceeds or equals that of mere might. The Barons are right, but there are too few of us behind them and we are, as yet, only loosely affiliated and organised.
We could invite any or all of them to assist the taking of the town beforehand, saying that their presence would ensure success and give credence to the endeavour. After all, if you initiate lawful rebellion, as they have, it would be difficult not to take part in it, and it might be very attractive to lead the first rebel liberation of a town. Having a Lord deal with the police would be more effective, I imagine.
They must have cared enough to make the quorum, appoint the Committee of 25 and then send the delegation of 4 to H.M. Is it likely that they care any less? Are the dangers they saw and appreciated ten years ago any less dangerous now? I think not. I think they are disappointed. I think that they gave us a powerful weapon, and the battleground we could fight on, and too few of us have taken the field behind them - and those who have remain scattered. They gave a rallying call and a few ragged bands stood by the colours. They are in a place of relative safety surrounded by a massive enemy and a few handfuls of us are calling on them to leave and take up the fight. But we have no power base, no resources, and they know that they, and us, would fail. So they sit silent. They have no publicly avowed, highly visible popular backing that would allow them to succeed in any open move on parliament.
Take a town and that could all change.
The timing of any takeover is critical, and all councilors would have to be arrested and the police called. To take over in their absence would allow them to return, as complainants, with the police, and lawful rebels would be in the position of counter claim and have to explain and justify. Better to be complainants, based on the military maxim that ‘the best defense is attack.’ Let the councilors explain and defend in the face of our support by the Lords, and affidavits and notices they failed to respond to or disprove, and let us have prior and superior claim.
A previously established contact at the police, upon whom we have served affidavits and Notices, would be the one to call. He would be familiar with us and with the concept, perhaps even sympathetic, and be less likely to act in knee jerk response. In this way we could perhaps ensure a reasonable initial police response, from a ranking officer, and get constables attending under common law oaths - and not paramilitaries.
I can’t see a downside to this.
If occupation takes place unchallenged then we have a first power base for lawful rebellion and a standard to be emulated everywhere.
If occupation takes place, and survives challenge, then the same applies.
If occupation takes place and we are arrested, then we have a testing ground on which to stand - and a long avoided pronouncement from the state on the right of Article 61. (Of course, any declaration by the state that we had no right of common law would be a declaration of enslavement). As the Lords are the highest court in the land, any conviction obtained against us could be quashed on appeal by the very people who initiated the procedure we acted upon – and they’ve already made it known that it is lawful. Any prosecution would entail the Lords being called as witnesses for the defense.
If, or when, a conviction were quashed then the actions it was secured upon would be shown to be no crime, and lawful rebellion would be shown to be a lawful right which cannot be interfered with by any police action. Town halls, and other public buildings, the length and breadth of the country, could be liberated by a single man or woman. Walk in – call the police. We need only liberate that one little town.
It is a magnificent irony that a successful prosecution against us - which led to appeal, of course - would put the final word on Article 61 into the hands of the very people who enacted it! As well, the very police who arrested us would, as of then, be obliged to assist us in lawful rebellion themselves. I weep. Mere eviction by the police carries its own dangers.

The controlled opposition fronted by the traitor Ray Savage is about to attempt this kind of parish referendum takeover and destruction of the constitution. We are finished if they succeed.
Musashi
Common sense - so rare it's kinda like a superpower.