Article 61; revisited

Article 61; revisited

Postby musashi » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:02 pm

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ever referred to the statute of 1297, Edward 1’s common law statute version of Magna Carta, and how most of it has been repealed.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upon by me and several others, while common law may be taken into statute and that statute subsequently amended, or repealed, the common law it was taken from remains intact and inviolate.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.
Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Article 61; revisited

Postby daveedraagon » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:20 am

This is the best post on FMOTL I have ever had the pleasure to read. I only wish I had the knowledge to carry out the simple task you ssuggest!
daveedraagon
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Article 61; revisited

Postby musashi » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:55 am

You probably have enough already, but you can look at the "Opinions please, moderators" post on mod chat. Sample docs, and a rant, is included.
Regards,
Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Article 61; revisited

Postby Free energy » Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:04 am

After reading the post and being in contact with so many people who want to make the relevant changes I would like to ask in what order do we do this.
Which affidavits and notices need sending to the local police chief constable as I would like to understand this completely before getting others involved.
Can someone list the orders here for me so I that I can share this with the people awaiting this information.
I understand from Mashu's post that the buildings are occupied under what grounds ? Article 61 of which legislation.
Do i understand this correctly ? We would cite that the queen has not acted in our sovereign rights and that gives us the right to act under the Magna Carta to re instate who ? It says we enter the building and call the police and say what exactly ?
Given the correct information we will do this. It needs to be step by step with the articles and laws referred to for those of us who need to understand this as if we were in the first year of education.. Which we are in this subject.
Please advise
Free energy
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Article 61; revisited

Postby musashi » Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:31 am

The following is the original post from 2010. It was based on commercial practices - in those days we still had much to discover - and the times involved can be changed to just about any other you choose. Time enough to read, understand and think about things should be given, though.

AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMATION & INTENT
IN SUPPORT OF MAGNA CARTA:
Lawful Rebellion
Served by
Date:
To whom it may concern
This is an affidavit. It is not a letter. To treat this affidavit as a letter represents a serious legal risk to you personally. It may have serious consequences - the least of which may be charges of fraud. If you have difficulty in understanding it, then you are sincerely recommended to seek advice. This

AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMATION & INTENT IN SUPPORT OF MAGNA CARTA is of the gravest of importance, and your full and immediate attention is necessary. It is sworn, under solemn oath, and attested by three (3) Free Men/Women of good standing and character.

1) MAGNA CARTA: Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta covers the subjects’ rights to appeal to a committee of Barons for redress against a tyrant.

2) In 1999, after several hundred thousand postcards were sent to Her Majesty, The Queen, urging her not to sign the TREATY OF NICE, a quorum of 65 peers, acting under the MAGNA CARTA, Chapter 61, selected 25 of their number to form such a committee. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta were established.

3) Four of these peers served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001, insisting that she should; “Withhold the royal assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the TREATY OF NICE unless and until the people of the UK have given their clear and specific approval; uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the DECLARATION OF RIGHT, which you, our sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your coronation oath of June 1953.” (The service of the Barons’ petition was reported in the Daily Telegraph on the 7th February 2001.)

4) These things she has conspicuously failed to do.

5) As a consequence of her failure to comply, all loyal subjects are required “Together with the community of the whole realm, distress and distrain us (the crown) in all possible ways, namely by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see fit,,,”

6) The fact that “The whole community of the realm” is obliged to support the Barons’ Committee, means that individual officials have no authority to issue demands in the name of the crown, and commit the statutory offence of “fraud by misrepresentation” if they try.

7) The courts have no authority to deny the subjects’ rights. Representatives of the crown may not breach the common law maxim that “No man may sit in judgment of his own cause.” It is for the Barons Committee to let us know when they are satisfied that redress has been obtained.

8) The Barons Committee procedure is based on the subjects’ common law right of “Duress of Circumstances” – we may commit minor crimes in order to prevent a worse one happening.

9) Transferring allegiance is not treason because the oaths of allegiance are to the office, not the holder.

10) Accordingly, as a loyal subject, I have entered into lawful rebellion, as demanded and required by Chapter 61 of Magna Carta, and as authorised by the Committee of Barons’ acting under Chapter 61. When redress, as determined by the Barons Committee, has been achieved, I will once again be a true and loyal subject to the holder of the office.

11) Until such a time may be reached, I require you, and all other council officials, employees, agents, and the like, to honour your obligation to enter lawful rebellion as per Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta; to honour this obligation on others, and to cease and desist all official demands for moneys, service, or obedience to any and all statute legislation disguised as law to, and by, any and all people in the common law realm of England, whether by yourself, other officials, other employees, agents and the like.

12) Any demand made by you, or any other official, employee, or their agents and the like, will be rejected by me and justified under said Chapter 61 and under “Duress of Circumstances.”

13) Any such demand made by you or through you as agent, facilitator or the like, will be construed as “Fraud by Misrepresentation” at the very least, and may result in legal action against you personally.

14) Your attention is drawn, once more, to the emboldened type in 5, 6 and 7.

15) You have ten (10) days from the date of service of this AFFIDAVIT to refute, or otherwise disprove, the truth of law detailed within, and your obligation to enter into lawful rebellion and to honour others’ right, obligation and requirement also so to do. These ten (10) days also give you opportunity to recant, enter into lawful rebellion as required and obliged, and to cease and desist from any and all demands in support of the crown. Your failure to refute or otherwise disprove the contents as they stand, will be construed as your agreement and an admission that, should you continue to act in an official capacity in support of the crown, you are knowingly acting unlawfully - in fraud, and in treason - when you continue to make demands on the loyal subjects of this common law realm, and attempt to enforce any action in support of the crown. Failure to respond will be construed as your tacit agreement that the contents of this affidavit are true and irrefutable, and that any continued action by you in support of the crown is done so willfully, knowingly and in fraud and treason. Your failure to refute, or to respond, within the time stated will result in lawful estoppels and you will not, at any time in the future, be able to engage in dispute in this matter in order to refute or disprove the truth of law contained within this document.

16) Any demand made by you in the execution of duties to, or in support of, the crown will be regarded as fraud, at the very least, and may result in serious legal action against you personally in a court de jure. Any documents you may serve in support of such action will be retained and used, where necessary, as evidence (including this affidavit) in support of any claim that may be made against you.

17) Should you recant and enter into lawful rebellion, as required and obliged by law, to achieve redress as demanded by the people through the Barons Committee, past errors and omissions are to be forgiven, nunc pro tunc, and amnesty assured.

18) All responses to this affidavit must be in the form of an affidavit, sworn under oath and penalty of perjury, on your full commercial liability, witnessed and signed, and to arrive at the above postal location within ten (10) days of receipt of this affidavit.

19) Sworn under solemn oath and autographed this day…………………………………………..by myself, Musashi………………………………in the presence of three witnesses who affix their autographs below.

This is a first draft of a proposed follow up to the affidavit.
NOTICE OF FAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
ARTICLE 61 MAGNA CARTA

Musashi/affiant;
To whom it may concern/respondent
Served by
Date:
Attention all councilors.

1) Because you have failed to respond to an affidavit served on you on such a date, and because you have failed to dispute or disprove the contents, and have not publicly entered into lawful rebellion, you are now believed to be in dishonour of your obligations under the treaty of Magna Carta, 1215, Chapter 61, and your office of town councilor is thus unlawfully held. Any and all demands and actions made by you in execution of your office in support of the crown are therefore unlawful, and done in fraud and misprision of treason.

2) This right of lawful rebellion exists because we would otherwise be slaves to the holder of the office (without the right to redress wrongs done to us by a malfeasant office holder) to whom we have loaned and invested our individual God-given sovereignty; in whom we repose our faith and our trust that they do right by the people who entrust such power and authority – which is to uphold the rights and freedoms and customs of the people and to maintain us in our ancient sovereignty, as sworn by solemn and public oath.

3) Because you have failed to respond to this first affidavit or declare your entry into lawful rebellion, you are now believed to be in breach of your obligations under Magna Carta and oath of office. Such oath is given to the office of the crown and the crown oath is given to the people. Thus, your oath is to the people through the office of the crown. As the holder of the office of the crown is now in disrepute and the subject of lawful rebellion, your oath no longer carries authority and all power of signature is withdrawn from you. The continued use of such delegated power of signature is well defined in law as “fraud by misrepresentation”, a statutory offence which opens you, personally, to a commercial injury claim for damages by all parishioners currently under the aegis of Buckfastleigh Town Council, and in addition to any other legal action which may be taken against you.

4) Any claim you may make for continued lawful authority is supported only by those who are themselves acting in fraud and in misprision of treason, or ignorance, and who have, themselves, been divested of all authority.

5) Because there is a possibility that the complicated and extremely serious nature of my first affidavit to you requires greater consideration, and that you may need more time to reflect on its contents and its purport, I most sincerely offer you a second opportunity to examine and revise your apparent decision to uphold the crown in its unlawful actions against, and contrary to the wishes of, the people of this common law realm.

6) Accordingly, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I grant you a further ten (10) days to consider the facts as presented in the first affidavit and to amend your position relative to them.

7) Failure to redress your fault in this matter will keep you outside the law of the common people, declare your intent on the destruction of their sovereign independence, freedoms, rights and customs, at the hands of a foreign power, viz; the EUROPEAN UNION, whose unlawful acts and statutes, rules and regulations, created and enforced by the unelected administrators and bureaucrats of this foreign power, daily oppress us to our great and continuing detriment and further reduce our ancient sovereignty and independence, eroding our rights, removing our customs and imposing summary justice in place of common law.

8) Further, your continued fraud and misprision of treason against the people of this common law realm - which latter charge carries the dual penalty of life in prison and all wealth to be stripped forever from you - renders you liable to summary arrest.

9) An arrest may be made by anyone.
There are maxims in common law which state; It is a crime to conceal a crime and he who conceals a crime is guilty of the same crime. It is a crime to fail to prevent a crime when the power to prevent exists, and that one is guilty of the same crime as though he himself had committed it.

10) CITIZEN’S ARREST: “An arrest by anyone other than a police officer. Such an arrest is lawful.” See Oxford Dictionary of Law, page 91. See also “Arrest” ibid, page 38.

11) Your response to this NOTICE of FAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE; to the original AFFIDAVIT of INFORMATION & INTENT, must be timely and appropriate, be made under oath, penalty of perjury, and upon your full commercial liability, signed and witnessed. Responses must be received at the above postal location within ten (10) days of receipt of this Notice and sent by Royal Mail special delivery for proof of receipt. Failure to respond to my original affidavit, appropriately and timely, will be construed as your inability to refute, or otherwise disprove, the contents, confirm you in your unlawful state, and leave you open to the possibility of summary arrest.

12) In entering into lawful rebellion you may retain office in service of the people whilst lawfully denying the means of support to the crown.

13) Reliance upon repeal, or amendment, of statute will be ineffective; as such repeals and amendments affect only the statute introduced by Edward 1 in 1297 and not the treaty of 1215, which stands in perpetuity. Articles of a treaty may not be unilaterally rescinded without returning to the state of affairs the treaty ended, and no article of any treaty may be rescinded by any who were not signatories.

14) Such unilateral rescission of articles of the treaty of 1215 has, in fact, taken place by Her Majesty’s rejection of the petition served by the Barons Committee. The renunciation of the terms of a treaty, which ended civil war between the crown and the people, returns the realm to a condition of internecine strife in which the people may, once again, lawfully remove the authority they invested in the presently malfeasant holder of the office of sovereign until such time as present wrongs have been righted.

15) The loss of authority of the sovereign office holder is reflected in all subsets of sovereign authority, such as councils, whose own authority and power of signature is derived from their oath to the people through the medium of the sovereign – that authority being removed from the holder of the office of sovereign removes authority from those who have taken oath under it. The servant of the servant is dismissed when the servant is dismissed.

16) The Magna Carta 1215 is a peace treaty - not statute - and is not, unlike the statute of Edward 1, amenable to unilateral parliamentary repeal. The Statute of Edward 1 is a copy of the Magna Carta, written into statute form. The subsequent repeals and amendments of this statute affect only the statute. When the copy is altered, or destroyed, the original is unaffected.

17) The Magna Carta, in its original form, stands as law today just as it did in 1215, according to the HOUSE OF LORDS – which is the highest court in the land. The obligations under the terms of this treaty have the same full force today as then. The procedure of lawful rebellion, as prescribed and enjoined in Chapter 61, remains intact, inviolable, lawful and obligatory.

18) The lawful authority for commencing the procedure of Chapter 61, lies in the rejection of the petition presented by the four Lords.

19) The following list (1st list) is of the 65 peers who formed the quorum which selected the committee of 25 (2nd list) and out of which four (3rd list) were chosen to present their petition for redress of present wrongs to Her Majesty.

20) You are commended and enjoined to make enquiries to any or all of these Lords regarding this most serious matter.

Autographed: Musashi
By the way, Lords have a right of audience with the queen, so you may be certain that she received their petition.

The idea of this affidavit and the follow up notices is to establish the lawful situation with the local council, to place them in a position of absolute choice and to declare, through the record of my documents, what that choice is.
It’s to establish a position where a group of men and women may take lawful possession of the town hall, bar entry to the councillors and prevent any action in support of the crown (stop revenue going up to it) should the council’s choice be unacceptable.
It’s to create a situation where, if necessary or desirable, the arrest of the town councillors and the clerk is practicable, lawfully acceptable, and possibly to obtain a public prosecution. One successful occupation could open the floodgates. There is, however, no immediate plan or intention to do this. Other ground must be prepared and other thoughts considered. Call it a lawful rebellion “Enabling Act” which sets the stage for possible future action.

The police would have to be similarly affidavitted – although with much greater attention to details of the law, sources, quotes and so on. If, or when, the police would be called upon, by lawful rebels or by outraged councillors, they must be fully aware of the choices and decisions they make and the grounds on which any action has taken place. Rebel documentation would have to be immaculate, timely, appropriate, comprehensible, fully explanatory, defensible and wholly in place before any action.

One of the things about this is that even if the rebels find themselves in the process of being charged, tried and convicted, they could appeal directly to the Barons Committee for aid. As the 65 Lords uphold lawful rebellion, could be said to have initiated it, an appeal against any conviction must almost certainly be successful. A successful appeal overturns the conviction and makes it wrong. If the conviction was wrong then that act of lawful rebellion must have been right. In that case, all genuine acts of lawful rebellion are right and no law exists to prevent them.

If the Lords failed to overturn conviction, or the Barons Committee refused aid, then we would understand the fraud of Magna Carta and lawful rebellion. In this respect a Letter of Proposal to the Committee enquiring, hypothetically, about the Article 61 lawfulness such an action could be prudent.

As the conditions to justify the procedure of article 61 have been established, any Lord who vetoed the appeal would put himself in dishonour by default.
It seems to me then, in this logic, liberating a public building is a win/win situation; successful liberation sparks the fire and others do likewise with their public buildings or, successful appeal sparks the fire and others do likewise with their public buildings.

Councillors, like cabinet ministers, are no more than managers of departments which run very well without them. If this were not the case then Britain would grind to a halt at every parliamentary holiday. The local councilor’s handbook is given to every new councilor - with that he does his job, and there are plenty out there of the lawfully rebellious persuasion who would be quite up to that job. Ken Clarke, for inaccurate example, was Minister for Transport, then he was Minister for Home Office, then he was Minister for Something Else. He couldn’t know it all – he was just a manager who made sure people under him followed party policy, guiding their efforts in a particular direction. The civil service did the rest. Our rebel councilors would just have to make sure that no council support went to the crown, and the business would be carried on by the usual experienced staffs who know how it all works.

A successful appeal would produce a large, and automatically payable, financial claim for the rebels. There could also be prosecutions of police as a result – misprision of treason etc which your affidavit informed them about. The police would be aware of this, and on that account may possibly prefer not to prosecute. The one who gives the order to arrest, at least, might face charges of misprision. For that reason I would say that affidavitting the police should be last and late, so they didn’t have very much time to consult and formulate a response.

Similarly, the Director of Public prosecutions would be facing a tough decision on whether to prosecute or not. He would understand the misprision of treason obstacle. Choosing to prosecute might be considered very brave. The judge, too, would have a similar understanding of the matter, and might be unwilling to hear the case. The Attorney General might be handed it for an executive decision. It might go all quiet. Shh!

If no prosecution followed then we did not break the law and can go and do it all again after tea.
Representatives of OUR press and film crews would be essential on the day of occupation – and plenty of them.
All in all, in its limited form here, it seems a practicable and perfectly lawful rebellion action.

This is a copy of the final notice.
Final Notice
Re: Magna Carta; article 61
Lawful Rebellion
Musashi/affiant
Whoever/respondent
Served by:
Date:

Attention
Because you have failed to respond to an affidavit within the thirty (30) days stipulated - received by you on such a date, or to a Notice within the ten (10) days stipulated - received by you on such a date, a final opportunity to correct this possible oversight, or mistake, is now offered you.
A further three (3) days are given to you to communicate a response.
Your failure to do so will be construed as your inability to disprove the truth of law contained within the affidavit, your obligation under it, and your tacit agreement by acquiescence that you are in accord with the traitors in Parliament and that you act in fraud and treason as an enemy of the whole community of the realm intent on the destruction of our nation, its laws, customs and freedoms.
Please read carefully the original affidavit and then the Notice. It informs you. It makes you responsible and accountable in law.
You are reminded that treason, misprision of treason and fraud are serious crimes for which you may be held personally responsible.
You have had ample opportunity in the course of the last forty (40) days to investigate and substantiate the claims laid, and the lawfulness of the demands made, and time enough to have consulted with the Lords. An answer is now due.

Musashi

At this point I would consider the situation established and all necessary paperwork to justify lawful ‘force’ with the council is completed. The police would then be affidavitted, but not informed of any action which would best occur shortly after.
After the first shot is fired in any battle, the best laid plans count for nothing. Any general will tell you that, so when the police arrive there is no telling what might happen. All is in flux – nothing is formed. But I can’t see the loss in it.
Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Article 61; revisited

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:31 am

Here's is one possible response by central government.

1. The police surround and cordon off the building. Cutting off amenities - water etc.
2. Local and national newspapers are ordered not to print anything or are told exactly what to print. Probably something like "Freemen radicals sieze town hall in an attempt to force government reform. As a result entire town goes without public services for <number> of days and costs the taxpayer <number> of millions of pounds. Locals are furious. The BBC shows "local" people being asked their opinions which are all anti occupation of course.
3. The police wait a couple of days for the people inside to run out of food/water.
4. When people leave they are photographed, questioned, then allowed to go on their way. No one is allowed back in of course. No one is arrested.
5. In less than a week everyone inside will be forced to leave as conditions become untenable.
6. Things return to normal.

What will be achieved is a slightly bigger, but just as futile, event than those which you have already stated:

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 hall for a few days is nothing. If no one is arrested there will be no court cases or at least nothing of any significance. Took me about 5 minutes to think of this scenario. I guarantee the government will have something better.
If you can actually get the lords on board it might just work - but that isn't going to happen. I'd love to be proved wrong.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am


Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron