01d – Australia in 2019
Clause 61 Magna Carta (1215)
The Magna Carta is also referred to as the Great Charter of Liberties.
Article 61 of the Magna Carta is important as it defines certain God-given and inalienable rights; it reads:
Since for God, for the improvement of our kingdom, and to better allay the discord arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, and wishing that the concessions be enjoyed in their entirety with firm endurance (for ever), we give and grant to the barons the following security:
Namely, that the barons choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter. Then, if we, our chief justiciar, our bailiffs or any of our officials, offend in any respect against any man, or break any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is notified to four of the said twenty-five barons, the four shall come to us—or to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdom—to declare the transgression and petition that we make amends without delay.
And if we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, have not corrected the transgression within forty days, reckoned from the day on which the offence was declared to us (or to the chief justice if we are out of the realm), the four barons mentioned before shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons. Together with the community of the whole land, they shall then distrain and distress us in every way possible, namely by seizing castles, lands, possessions and in any other they can (saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children), until redress has been obtain in their opinion. And when amends have been made, they shall obey us as before.
Whoever in the country wants to, may take an oath to obey the orders of the twenty-five barons for the execution of all the previously mentioned matters and, with the barons, to distress us to the utmost of his power. We publicly and freely give permission to every one who wishes to take this oath, and we shall never forbid any one from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling to this oath, we shall by our command compel them to swear to it.
If any one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is in any other manner incapacitated so the previously mentioned provisions cannot be undertaken, the remaining barons of the twenty-five shall choose another in his place as they think fit, who shall be duly sworn in like the rest.
If there is any disagreement amongst the twenty-five barons on any matter presented to them, or if some of them are unwilling or unable to be present, what the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if all twenty-five had consented in this.
The said twenty-five barons shall swear to faithfully observe all the aforesaid articles and will do all they can to ensure that the articles are observed by others.
And we shall procure nothing from any one, either personally or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never make use of it ourselves or through someone else.
So what does this all mean to the average flesh-and-blood human being? It means that despite what we are being told, there is in place a charter to protect our rights and that governments have sought to hide those rights beneath a sea of legislation and Acts of Parliament that seek only to undermine those rights.
This forces us to consider things in a new light – we need to understand the difference between what is lawful and what is legal. A great many believe that they are one and the same but this is not true. A definition provided by the Family Guardian Fellowship reads as follows:
It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:
Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective.
Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual
- “Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.
- “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle.
- “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive.
Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law.
Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land—the law of the people—and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,”.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
The phrase “law of the land” and the “law of the people” are mentioned in this definition; this is an important point to remember as the Magna Carta upholds and supports this law of the land or law of the people and is often called “Common Law”.
Legalese is a kind of long-winded jargon used by lawyers which it is difficult to understand. Contracts, insurance policies, and guarantees are among the documents in which you may find it. It is meant to mystify and confuse the layman and is used by those wishing to exercise control over us and to enforce a system that has become corrupt.
The legal system depends on legalese to convince us that their processes are lawful and must be obeyed – this is not true and a closer examination must be carried out to assure yourself that the legal system is not acting lawfully at all and remember that a legal system can be defective.
 Are you aware that on 7th February 2001, twenty-five Barons petitioned the Queen in accordance with clause 61 of the Magna Carta in protest of the treasonous act of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair in signing the Treaty of Nice thus unlawfully causing the destruction of fundamental British liberties?
Many thousands of people have since become aware of the Lawful Rebellion that is available to them under the Magna Carta and in supporting the petition of the Barons, are themselves upholding Common Law which remains the Law of the Land – these Freemen on The Land, in entering into Lawful Rebellion are themselves petitioning the Queen under clause 61 of the Magna Carta inviting Her Majesty to uphold the oath she gave at her Coronation and to protect the sovereign rights of the people.