Articles

Most people don’t seem to realise today that sixteen years ago, their constitutional safeguard known as the “Security Clause” of our constitution was triggered.

In 2001 ancient revolutionary rights, which were used at least 30 times in the past during times of uprising against despotism and tyranny, became law. It has in fact, stayed in force to this very day, sixteen years on.

The Enforcement Clause as it is known as has been used on numerous occasions and provides remedy for the subjects when the state becomes tyrannical or corrupted with evident misuse of powers.

Article 61 allows subjects of the realm to draw up a petition of grievances which a properly constituted committee of Barons (Lords) must take to the Monarch, who must redress the grievances. And as Article 61 recognises, the grievances or “transgressions” must be redressed “without delay” and “within forty days”. If it is not corrected, the subjects may hinder, or as Article 61 states, "distress and distrain" in all ways, (peacefully) their own sovereign, in accordance with law.

The last monarch to receive petition of grievances under Article 61 and act on it in accordance with the proper protocols confirmed in Magna Carta 1215 was Queen Victoria.

The 1215 Great Charter is the People’s perennial Compact with their chosen incumbent heads of state: it is a peace treaty between the Crown as an institution and the people and is NOT a statute like the heavily repealed 1297 Act of Parliament. It is still valid today!

The last time the Security Clause came into force was during the last major Glorious Revolution in 1688 whereby the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London in 1688, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England.

The people were victorious then so therefore the people can still be victorious today. All that is needed is the realisation that their rights are, and have been for the past 105 years, on the brink of destruction and in dire peril.

We were never legally in the EEC OR THE EU. This is evidently fact and is also proven by the two documents that follow:

  • The Kilmuir Letter which can be seen [HERE]
  • Shoe horned into the EU which can be seen [HERE]

Both of these documents were kept hidden away for THIRTY YEARS and meticulously document the Heath administrations Treason, Sedition and Fraud which were used to admit us to the “common market” which later flourished into the European “Union.”

How is Article 61 used?

This law, referred to as Article 61 (or Clause 61) allows each and every individual subject to renounce their presumed allegiance from the treasonous crown in an feudal ceremony known as diffidatio or diffidation whereby you take an oath (as set out in the sixty first clause) to “…distress and distrain [the Crown] in every way they [the people] can…”.

Article 61 says “let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath . . . to distress us [the Crown] as much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it . . . [and] all those in the land who are unwilling . . . to take an oath . . . to help them to distrain and distress us, we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command.”

As Mahatma Gandhi once said;

“You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.”

We have had the right for sixteen years now to peacefully overthrow the corrupt and tyrannical puppets from presumed power. This means that you are actually constitutionally obliged to cause as much disruption as possible to this “government”. This includes using distraint by seizing buildings, Crown assets and can also include making arrests and policing the corrupt.

All we need is unity.

The cause of Article 61 being invoked?

The reason why Article 61 came back into force in 2001 was to stop the treasonous continuation of illegal and erosive treaties being signed by imposters within parliament. More specifically, to stop the Nice Treaty and Charter of “fundamental rights” from being unlawfully ratified into British law.

The Nice Treaty included and imposed the following:

  1. Article 24 transforms the EU into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting.
  2. Article 23 allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.
  3. Article 191 assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.
  4. Articles 29 and 31 establish common policing and judicial cooperation (“Eurojust”).
  5. Article 67 allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.
  6. Article 17 –establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that:

“The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed”

The Charter of Fundamental Rights (signed at Biarritz, autumn 2000) purports to give the EU the power to abolish them at will in Article 52, effectively making them meaningless. The whole proposition that the state has the right to grant and abolish fundamental human rights [i.e.: those we inherit at birth and hold in trust for future generations] is not only absurd but also contrary to established law which is binding upon parliament such as the Magna Carta, 1215, the Declaration of Rights,1688, and the Bill of Rights 1689 which incorporated the peoples Declaration of Rights 1688. For this reason the EU Charter is Not so very fundamental at all.

The invoking of Article 61

http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/signings-1-300x225.jpg 300w, http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/signings-1-80x60.jpg 80w" sizes="(max-width: 320px) 100vw, 320px" />

Left to Right- 
Ashley Mote, Malcolm Wood, Lord Ashbourne (Signing) and Greg Lance-Watkins

In 1999 a committee of 68 barons had convened to discuss whether or not it was unconstitutional to enter into the EU’s treaty of Nice (France) and to reamplify the illegal implications of the UK’s relationship (past and present) with the European Union.

The evidence proved that it was an act of high treason to enter into such an agreement so they dutifully (according to the correct protocols of British constitutional law) petitioned the crown, demanding that she (QE2) not ratify the Nice treaty.

After their petition was only vaguely replied to and the treaty of Nice was passed into law anyway, the barons committee invoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta on the 23rd day of March 2001. It has not since been revoked publicly by the barons which means that Britain and the entire commonwealth is in a state of uprising.

Did “brexit” really do anything?

It did nothing but confuse the people more and has singlehandedly divided the country. The highly illegal EU treaties cannot be repealed. They must be declared null and void because they are foreign under British constitutional law. The British people also failed to notice that the UK to EU Military takeover is still underway and with imposter Theresa May’s talk about converting EU law into British law has been made known whilst the purporting Queen has given notice in her 2017 speech that the same EU law will apply after Brexit, it’s obvious that the people, like in 1972, have been duped once again.

The Lisbon Treaty which is also, likewise, a treasonous document which the (non) Government have been trying to invoke (article 50) reintroduces the death penalty for “civil unrest” and “rioting” and “upheaval”.

This is not the only reason “brexit” was just a massive trap. The Bill of Rights 1689, one of the most important statutes in the British Constitution contains the words:

no foreign prince, person, prelate, stateor potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.”

[JOIN THE A61 OPPOSITION HERE]

An attempt was made prior to the invocation of Article 61 to bring these and other matters (wrongdoings) to court in 1972 by Ross McWhirter of The Freedom Association. He invoked the English Bill of Rights to show that the government did not have authority to give away the right and liberties of the people. He was mysteriously assassinated before the matter was decided.

His brother Norris made a similar attempt to question the legality of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, whereby he uncovered 8 serious breeches of constitutional law, which they laid before the courts of England and Scotland.

Summonses were issued against the then Foreign Secretary for treason. The Attorney General used a purported power to take over the case and then drop it as “not in the public interest”. Yet the Bill of Rights prohibits “suspending laws or the operation of laws”.

His action was also contrary to natural justice because the Attorney General was
sitting in judgement in his own cause, which broke the common law rule of “non judex in re sua.”

Email me when people comment –

You need to be a member of The Practical Lawful Distraint Campaign to add comments!

Join The Practical Lawful Distraint Campaign