Why because we let others speak for us and control us ..

Demand back our our right of free speech ....

AUSTRALIAN LAW ....

Lawful Rebellion

Magna Carta 1215 Article 61

text of Article 61 and it is entirely right to ask! So here it is!

Magna Carta 1215 Article 61
[61] Since, moreover, for God and the betterment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the discord that has arisen between us and our barons we have granted all these things aforesaid, wishing them to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we give and grant them the under-written security, namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe, hold and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in any way against anyone or transgress any of the articles of the peace or the security and the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us, or to our justiciar if we are out of the kingdom, and, laying the transgression before us, shall petition us to have that transgression corrected without delay. And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days, reckoning from the time it was brought to our notice or to that of our justiciar if we were out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons together with the community of the whole land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely, by seizing castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can, saving our person and the persons of our queen and our children, until, in their opinion, amends have been made; and when amends have been made, they shall obey us as they did before. And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress us 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. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling of themselves and of their own accord to take an oath to the twenty-five barons to help them to distrain and distress us, we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command. And if any of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country or is in any other way prevented from carrying out the things aforesaid, the rest of the aforesaid twenty-five barons shall choose as they think fit another one in his place, and he shall take the oath like the rest. In all matters the execution of which is committed to these twenty-five barons, if it should happen that these twenty-five are present yet disagree among themselves about anything, or if some of those summoned will not or cannot be present, that shall be held as fixed and established which the majority of those present ordained or commanded, exactly as if all the twenty-five had consented to it; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the things aforesaid and will do all they can to get them observed. And we will procure nothing from anyone, either personally or through anyone else, whereby any of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing is procured, let it be void and null, and we will never use it either personally or through another.

For those of you who are intrigued by Article 61, you might care to look at some of the other Articles. For those experiencing trouble with the police for example take a look at No.45:

[45] We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well
On the question of unlawful detention, arrest or other rights, we are entitled to a trial by jury BEFORE any action is taken against us:

[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
If a judge refuses to permit a jury trial:

[40] To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
One of the arguments that is often proffered by the establishment and disinformation agents is the relevance and validity of A.61 to modern society. They argue that Magna Carta was the result of a group of elites (the barons) whining about the circumstances of their money and land and that Magna Carta has no relevancy to the people of Britain because it only refers to free men [they argue that free men were few and far between and that the term does not relate to us].

This is a serious misnomer which requires attention. A free man (not to be confused with freeman, FMOTL) is a person who has the right to bear arms in defence of self, family, property and country. Only slaves were not permitted to bear arms and contrary to the disinformation being spread by agents provocateurs, they were not as common as you might think.

Moving on to the motive for the barons instigation of the action against John Lackland (King John). To this day one of the most revered authorities on English law remains Blackstones Commontaries on the Laws of England and it continues to be frequently cited in Halsburys, meaning that it continues to have a long way to go to lose validity or relevance. So, let us take a peek at what Blackstone said about Magna Carta. . .

And indeed by thus consenting to the introduction of feudal tenures, our English ancestors probably meant no more than to put the kingdom in a state of defense by establishing a military system; and to oblige themselves (in respect of their lands) to maintain the kings title and territories, with equal vigor and fealty, as if they had received their lands from his bounty upon these express conditions, as pure, proper, beneficiary feudatories. But, whatever their meaning was, the Norman interpreters, skilled in all the niceties of the feudal constitutions, and well understanding the import and extent of the feudal terms, gave a very different construction to this proceeding; and thereupon took a handle to introduce not only the rigorous doctrines which prevailed in the duchy of Normandy, but also such fruits and dependencies, such hardships and services, as were never known to other nations;24 as if the English had in fact, as well as theory, owed every thing they had to the bounty of their sovereign lord.

Our ancestors therefore, who were by no means beneficiaries, but had barely consented to this fiction of tenure from the crown, as the basis of a military discipline, with reason looked upon these deductions as grievous impositions, and arbitrary conclusions from principles that, as to them, had no foundation in truth.25 However, this king, and his son William Rufus, kept up with a high hand all the rigors of the feudal doctrines: but their successors, Henry I, found it expedient, when he set up his pretensions to the crown, to promise a restitution of the laws of king Edward the confessor, or ancient Saxon system; and accordingly, in the first year of his reign, granted a charter,26 whereby the gave up the greater grievances, but still reserved the fiction of feudal tenure, for the same military purposes which engaged his father to introduce it. But this charter was gradually broke through, and the former grievances were revived and aggravated, by himself and succeeding prince; till in the reign of king John they became so intolerable, that they occasioned his barons, or principal feudatories, to rise up in arms against him: which at length produced the famous great charter at Running-mead, which, with some alterations, was confirmed by his son Henry III. And, though its immunities (especially as altered on its last edition by his son27) are very greatly short of those granted by Henry I, it was justly esteemed at the time a vast acquisition to English liberty. Indeed, by the farther alteration of tenures that has since happened, many of these immunities may now appear, to a common observer, of much less consequence than they really were when granted: but this, properly considered, will show, not that the acquisitions under John were small, but that those under Charles were greater. And from hence also arises another inference; that the liberties of Englishmen are not (as some arbitrary writers would represent them) mere infringements of the kings prerogative, extorted from our princes by taking advantage of their weakness; but a restoration of that ancient constitution, of which our ancestors had been defrauded by the art and finesse of the Norman lawyers, rather than deprived by the force of the Norman arms.
http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-204/#fn19u
In a mock trial on 31 July 2015 for the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, at Westminster Hall, the Magna Carta Barons were charged with Treason for their involvement in the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215. A unanimous verdict of Not Guilty was returned by the Hon. Justice Stephen Breyer, Lord Neuberger, President of the UK Supreme Court, and Dame Sian Elias, Chief Justice of New Zealand.

You can see the video of the mock trial here: EXTERNAL LINK

To cut to the chase ....QUOTE

[45] We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well
On the question of unlawful detention, arrest or other rights, we are entitled to a trial by jury BEFORE any action is taken against us:

[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
If a judge refuses to permit a jury trial:

[40] To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Hi Jason this might give you a laugh.
EXTERNAL LINK

And just like the Qld Maroons, Baird has little opposition.
Terry, you're a sick puppy.