Article 61: Implications
Hello and welcome. A couple of points from the previous video need clarifying. At one point I stated that the citizenry obeying the direction of the Barons and joining with them in distressing the Crown until the treason was redressed was “not a rebellion against the authority of the government; it is a rebellion against its LACK of authority”. That’s an unfortunate choice of words, because the words ‘rebellion’ or ‘rebel’ carry clear overtones of acting unlawfully or outside the law, whereas people who are standing under Article 61 are in fact the only ones who are acting wholly within the law (or at least, striving to do so). It would be more accurate to portray this stance as being one of lawful dissent; dissent from an illegitimate or unlawful, even treasonous regime, while remaining loyal to the Barons, erstwhile upholders of the Constitution, until such time as the situation is rectified. The distinction is subtle, but important, especially as there are many who seek to benefit from the ongoing treason and will seize any opportunity to weaken the legitimacy of those who oppose such crimes.
Secondly, towards the end of that video I spoke of the Australian Constitution and the fact that it had been treasonously meddled with by recent Australian governments. These videos are limited in time, and we were out of time when that point was reached, but it’s now appropriate to expand on that topic, and explain some facts which will doubtless shock many people. Hopefully, these facts will cause many Australians to reassess their current attitudes and actions towards the Constitutional crisis which we have been discussing (and enduring).
When Article 61 was invoked on the 23rd of March 2001, it was done because of unresolved treason by the Crown and many of its alleged agents, for example Parliamentarians, public servants, even police, and so on. At that point, all Acts, Statutes, directives etc. which had been enacted by any of the treasonous governments beforehand became invalid, or null and void; Article 61 became the only valid law under the English Constitution, and the only law which loyal citizens are bound to obey. In law, obeying acts which have been placed in situ by treasonous governments is simply aiding and abetting such treason. Most people are unaware of these facts and their implications, but as the situation is now clear-cut, it behooves everyone to get into proper legal standing in dissent of the treason or find oneself in the potentially serious situation of being complicit. Those who are aware of the truth are lawfully bound to inform as many others as they are able, in order that momentum can be built towards overthrowing this tyranny. Knowing of treason and not reporting it to authorities is itself a serious crime (Misprision of treason), for example.
For Australians, the news which many will find either unpalatable or simply incapable of acceptance, is that we now have no valid Constitution. Appeals to the Governor-General or Ministers or other MPs will be totally ineffectual, since they have no legal authority to act in the offices to which they claim, falsely, to have been elected. Even if these criminals had legal powers, two very important questions arise:
“What are the people to do if these ‘officials’ simply ignore their demands and refuse to fulfil their Constitutional duties?” And:
“What is the point of appealing to the good nature of criminals; when has this ever produced a desired result?”
When governments abandon so wholeheartedly even the pretense of legitimacy in pursuit of totalitarian goals, history shows us that they never cease their crimes simply because they are ‘asked nicely’. They must be stopped; rallies, petitions, appeals to higher authorities are useless once a criminal gang has taken off the gloves and is openly beating people about their heads and trampling their inalienable human rights.
But these are mere side issues, the fact is that we have no Constitution in place, and no-one who is legitimately or legally placed to act with any authority thereunder anyway. Many will ask, “Why is this so? Don’t we have an Act, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), under which we have lived for over 120 years?”
One answer is that as mentioned before, the acts of treason began while the ink was scarcely dry on the 1215 Magna Carta. As described already, there have been numerous treasonous acts of Parliament but these reached a crescendo with the proposed Treaty of Nice, and this did trigger the current invocation on 23rd March 2001.
Another answer is even more basic. A Constitution is a document which prescribes the limits within which a government is permitted to act. If a power is not listed under a constitution, the government has no authority to perform any such action. It follows from this that the Constitution must be written by the people, who alone have the authority to decide by whom and to what extent they are governed; a government cannot write its own Constitution. For a people to permit this would be to willingly submit to slavery. It is the people who rule the government, not the reverse. One of the problems with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is that the version submitted to Queen Victoria was returned with over 70 changes to which the people had not consented, which means that it was substantially a document written by the government, not the people. So, it has been invalid since day one, in lawful terms. The additional betrayals of recent decades have merely sufficed to produce an even greater dog’s breakfast of legal heresy than already existed.
The invoking of Article 61 means that the monarch (which is really just a job-title, not an hereditary birthright) was Constitutionally deposed, and the Barons became the guardians of the Constitution, the Queen having failed to honour her Coronation Oath, part of which is to ensure that the country is governed according to English Constitutional law. At that point, effectively all bets are off, and any Acts or Statutes etc which have been introduced by treasonous governments are rendered null and void, until proper Constitutional processes have been restored. The four pillars of Common Law: Do no harm, Cause no loss, Commit no fraud and Keep the peace, become the total of the law to which everyone becomes subject. Citizens are lawfully bound to disobey any unlawful edicts emanating from people who are not lawful representatives or upholders of the Constitution. This includes Parliamentarians, public servants, and police officers who instead of serving the people serve criminal corporations, and so on.
The principal means of distressing the errant Crown is to make it known as widely as possible that the alleged government is acting unlawfully, and of course to deprive them of their revenue streams, since all corporations can only function with sources of revenue. This is done by means of lawful Notices informing officials and other citizens of treason being committed and placing them on Notice that eventually they will have to answer for their crimes in Courts de Jure, where they will be judged by the people. In any instances where alleged officers acting on behalf of the Crown attempt to extract money from citizens by appealing to invalid Acts, Statutes and fee structures etc, they are sent Notices advising them that the citizen is standing in lawful dissent under Article 61, together with evidence of the treason which is rendering their claims invalid. The claimants are given up to three opportunities to rebut the citizen’s standing (by proving that Article 61 is not in effect or that the citizen’s standing is for some other reason nullified). Since they are unable to do this, they are left with no option other than to pursue their claims in open acknowledgement that they are committing High Treason, having been informed of their true position, or to abandon their claim. Should they decide to persist, they are placed on Notice that they will personally be subjected to a tort action, where they will be personally liable for serious financial penalties. In practise, this process has almost invariably resulted in claims being dropped, without the necessity of Court appearances. There remains the possibility that some alleged officers may overreach their powers and illegally enforce their claims upon a victim, but that again would be an issue for a lawful Court to deal with at a future date. A victim of such a crime would simply note that they were being forced to act illegally in violation of Article 61, claiming either that they did so under duress (Vi Coactus) or that an act performed against their will was not legally their act.
The aim of Article 61 is to see Constitutional law reasserted as the modus operandi of the State, and this will be soonest accomplished the more people become aware of their rights and get themselves into lawful standing. There will come a tipping point, where the number of alleged Crown agents and the number of citizens becoming aware of the situation will start to impact the revenue stream and thus the ability to function, of the criminal elements currently masquerading as legitimate governments in the Commonwealth.
Once a person has sworn their Oath to the Barons and had it duly recorded, they are able to carry and quote the Caution Card to any alleged officer of the Crown, as follows:
“Under Article 61 I am lawfully bound to disobey all Acts, Statutes and Legislative Laws. As of Invocation of Security Clause 61of Magna Carta 1215 in March of 2001, all laws, Acts and Statutes are no longer of Legal Force. And wherewith, all Parliamentary governance and agents of the Crown are to Stand Down and consider their Oath.
If you obstruct me or attempt to enforce defunct Acts and Statutes, or attempt to extort money from me with Fines, Taxes or Fees, please know you will be personally liable to loss of complete Commercial Assets and Life in Prison. I will pursue a claim of tort against you. I must be allowed to travel, assemble, and speak freely without hindrance.”
The average police officer will not fully comprehend this statement, since their training consists basically of being taught how to enforce various rules (which purport to be laws, but do not have legitimacy under the English Constitution) but does not include any true understanding of Constitutional law. However, if presented to an officer of sufficient seniority, it will present them with a quandary, since it is likely that they will be aware of the facts.
Once people have joined the Practical Lawful Dissent group, all documentation will be made available to them, plus assistance and training in upholding their lawful standing, and joining the process of assisting the Barons in distressing the Crown and its alleged agents.