Magna Carta 1215 Article 61

We are seeing a great many people asking to see the 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 Halsbury’s, 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.

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:


  1. John Smith

    I have just started looking at the Lawful Rebellion site and have a question to put to you, before I start getting bogged down with information.
    On the issue of a man being stripped of his rights and possessions, I appeared at a local authority licensing hearing as an objector and an award of expenses was made against me, they claimed that I was being malicious and vexatious, without having evidence to confirm their stance. The legislation that they used, gave me no right to appeal or to defend myself and I was stripped of my possessions (money).
    Where does the Magna Carta 1215, Article 61, stand in relation to this issue?

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hello ‘John’ and thanks for visiting.

      Summary justice is not lawful under our constitution – even before the invocation of Article 61. On the spot fines, claimed right to find someone guilty without a court de jure (a trial with your peers) is unconstitutional. Anyone not standing under A.61 can dispute fixed penalty notices, parking, whatever ridiculous “legislation” the claimed “authority” used against you – it is all summary justice and is prohibited in common law.

      Magna Carta 1215 Article 39 states,
      “[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.”

      The law of the land is common law which only acknowledges jury trials as the mechanism for justice. Summary justice as was started when they tried to remove Grand Juries in 1933 with the ‘Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act simply is not lawful.

      Anyone lawfully standing under A.61 (having submitted their Oath and kept a copy of the signed & witnessed Oath and proof of postage) has a lawful duty to distress and distrain the Crown by any means possible, except for harming the monarch and his or her heirs. Refusing to pay this ridiculous fixed penalty you have been “issue” would not only continue to be a right but now becomes a DUTY. Under this condition, any instruction or claim made by any “authority” (or corporation) to ‘make’ you adhere to parliamentary ‘legislation’ (Acts, Statues, Statutory Instruments, Regulations, EU Directives & Regulations) is treasonable.

      Once in lawful rebellion you need to following the conditional acceptance route to put your opponent to proof that A.61 was not invoked in March 2001 and they since its invocation, whether they have any right whatsoever to issue that demand or claim against you. We have done this with courts and made custodial prison sentences disappear because the court does not want to acknowledge the treason they are committing!


  2. Geri Jones

    Where do I find the list of Barons so I can complete any paperwork, I have often wondered about what constitutes treason, does this include acts of terrorism that we have recently witnessed. My household has multiple surnames do I need to do a form for each person in my family? Is there any age restrictions for children? It would be much appreciated if you could advise me asap

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hello Geri and thanks for visiting the site.

      The list of barons can be found on the ‘How to enter LR page’ in the menu. There are some who have died or made it clear they are no longer accepting – you may choose any you like form the remainder. Each adult (over 21 for the purposes of constitutional law) must sign – but that does not mean you cannot incorporate multiple signatures on one Oath by rewriting it yourself (or adding more on the reverse side of a template Oath and having your witnesses sign there, also. There is nothing preventing you from removing the destination address to make space for multiple print/signatures. We do not have any templates for this but frankly these were made for simplicity and convenience for most.

      Constitutionally your children are up to the age of 21 and will stand with you – you are their legal guardian, it would not make much sense having parents standing under A.61 and kids not – that would make them outlaws!! There is argument about the age being 18 however this change occurred in the 20th century (Family Law Reform Act 1969) and this legislation was enacted after Parliament unlawfully stole Royal Prerogative in 1911 so constitutionally no legislation passed since 1911 has any constitutional effect – so the age remains 21!

      Hope this helps.

  3. Mitch

    Hi Nigel,

    Fascinating page and so glad it has been brought to my attention…but is there anyway of simplifying what Article 61 means as I am having trouble understanding it! I am a lay person and don’t get the lingo.

    I am asking as I have been fined £100 by HMRC for not getting my tax return in on time but have only just seen the correspondence as I moved and didn’t notify them yet…and now the fine is £600!

    I am not paying that as my income was way below the tax threshold…also I was thinking of making a stand against it given the fact that all the big multi-nationals owe BILLIONS! in unpaid tax.

    Point is…does Article 61 let me off the fine or any court case that arises?

    And do I have to take the oath? That is the bit I am confused about.

    Thanks for your kind attention.

    All the best,

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Mitch.

      A.61 is not a remedy for avoiding paying lawfully due liabilities (I am not suggesting this is what you are doing but we get a fair bit of traffic from Facebook groups like ‘Beat the bailiffs & the banks or CA3 which specialise in this). Nor for that matter am I suggesting that an HMRC bill is a lawful liability since the invocation of A.61! We very much need people to understand that lawful rebellion is not about avoiding paying for anything but rather a remedy for the malaise of this country in general.

      With that out the way, should you submit your Oath (and to stand under A.61 lawfully – and with proof of intent, you most certainly do need to submit your signed, witnessed Oath and keep a Recorded Delivery slip of the postage) then there would be nothing preventing you from using the 5-letter process which is outlined in the What Next section.

      The establishment is fighting back and without a significant increase in numbers this cause is not going to succeed because in small numbers we can be kept fairly quiet. When we grow in size sufficiently the level of civil disobedience will be unsustainable for them. There is no sure fire way of eve knowing how many of us there are but the Practical Lawful Dissent facebook group is a good place to see a small proportion of us on a daily basis.

      In summary, A.61 provides a lawful remedy by way of civil disobedience against a corrupt establishment but do not assume it is a smooth pathway. There is no LR without sending the oath and only you can decide whether you want to walk this path. Read, investigate and then make up your own mind if this is a pathway for you!

  4. Elaine B Don

    If my bills are so high and I’m in trouble with my council tax, can I use A61? I am not unemployed, I am on a good wage but high tax rent utilities bills and am solely financially responsible for two children.

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Elaine. I’m afraid that A.61 is not a remedy for financial strife, its purpose is to intentionally disress the government and its various agencies until and unless they take action to address the petition to the Queen in 2001. If you are having trouble, you would be better off looking at IVA’s or (more controversially)

      Good luck, many of us are in the same boat.

  5. Pete G

    Hi, really interesting site, had never heard of this at all until recently
    My question is I have a bill for overpayment of tax credits for £1000, they changed the rules during the few months I was claiming and I wasn’t informe,, if I had been I would have just stopped the claim…Is there any scope for me to use article 61? Thanks

    1. Nigel Coleman

      Hi Pete and thanks for visiting.

      There is no direct mechanism that LR provides that will protect you in this situation. If you continue to be in receipt of this entitlement then they will deduct directly from your ongoing entitlement. If you are not receiving this any more then you have the option of challenging HMRC under A.61 however you must understand that the government is now so corrupt, they no longer care about valid legal arguments and simply do what they want to to us. In your case HMRC could resort to enforcement action or using new powers to take directly from your bank account.

      Pick your battles wisely, unless you are completely committed to a path of civil disobedience, think twice before embarking on this path. What follows is what I dug up from a .gov site about the amounts they can take:

      HMRC are taking the money back from my tax credits: how much can they take?

      If HMRC are taking money from your tax credits to pay back an overpayment, then the law says that they can only take certain amounts depending on your situation.

      If you receive maximum tax credits (for example because you receive Income Support or Income Based Jobseeker’s Allowance) they can only reduce your payments by up to 10%.

      If you receive less than the maximum tax credits, but more than the basic amount (which is £545) then the most they can reduce your payments by is 25%.

      If you are receiving just the basic amount, they can stop your tax credits altogether until the overpayment is paid back.

      If you also get housing benefit or council tax reduction you should tell your council that your income has gone down. You may be entitled to more help with your rent or council tax.

  6. Paul Stevenson

    I have to compliment your effort in sharing worthwhile information.

    My question is;
    The judicial system of many ex-commonwealth countries are based on English law.

    In consequence, is the judicial system of these countries therefore based on Magna Carta? In particular Belize and other Caribbean countries that are party to the Caribbean Court of Justice and the Privy Council.

    Thank you for your time.

    1. Buster

      Thank Paul you for your question.

      Yes they are based on the British constitution however, like the rule of law in Britain these commonwealth nations have also been undergoing covert changes. The treason being committed in Britain began with the 1911 Parliament Act so you can see just how long they have been dismantling the realm.

      Here is a link for further reading on the subject.

  7. eddy alder

    Oaths of office are so important to be upheld especially today. The Oaths of office are supposed to be there to help to uphold and protect our Common Law system of service and protection of all our inalienable rights throughout all the Common Law world. The Oaths are made to the positions within the structure of the system that have their roles to be played, to uphold and protect all our inalienable sovereign rights and liberties through our Common and Constitutional Law. The Queen or Monarchs role, the Police Constable, Ambassadors and Diplomats, the Judge and Jury, Parliament and all other public civil servants are supposed to form a structure of checks, balances, authority, separations of powers, … to uphold and protect our Common and Constitutional system of Law and service that is supposed to recognise, uphold and protect all our own inalienable rights and sovereignty for us and our future generations for all time!
    In our Constitution the peace treaty Magna Carta 1215 has the security clause Article 61 that when invoked, which it currently has been since spring 2001, temporarily puts the Barons Committee in place of the position of Monarchy if the real true life person in that position i.e. QE2 has or is not fulfilling their obligations and promise’s to the sovereign people of the Commonwealth through the Coronation Oath that she was meant to have signed, that would have enacted her responsibilities and validity in the role of Queen or Monarchy.
    In the Constitutional contract, all those that have sworn oaths to the Queen or Monarch, Parliament, the church, … now stand under the authority of the Barons Committee whose role has now been enacted to temporarily replace the role of Monarchy.
    The role of the Barons Committee, like that of the role of Monarchy is also to protect and uphold our Common Law and Constitution which is there to protect and uphold all our inalienable rights and our future generations inalienable rights forever more, … However, the Barons Committee have extra roles and that is to invoke Article 61 of Magna Carta which they have done and help orchestrate the lawful rebellion to the letter and spirit of Article 61. Everyone who works and lives in the Commonwealth are currently lawfully required to rebel in accordance with Article 61 of Magna Carta! Everyone has lawful excuse and a lawful duty to do so! Anyone that refuses to make, recognise or stand under their oath of office, or makes other oaths that undermine these oaths of office, are recognised as outlaws and that they are committing treason and could suffer the penalties of treason and sedition. Anyone giving out information that contradicts the truth that Article 61 has been invoked and is still in force today must be reported as committing sedition and treason for further investigation. This includes the media, education providers, public speakers, academics, internet site owners and administrators, judges, magistrates, lawyers, politicians of any level, civil servants, police, military, the general public. It is ok to express opinions but it is unacceptable to push lies, misinformation, propaganda, … that is seditious and treasonous in nature. Treason is the most serious of crimes because it is a crime that could be compared to murder or genocide of an entire nation of people, it’s security and that of it’s future generations, …
    I hope my comments make some sense. I’m sorry they are so long and that they contain a lot of repetition. Please let me know of any inaccuracies. Please attempt to rewrite my comments in a more concise, colourful and coherent way. Hope my comments have been helpful.

  8. Marcus King

    I do hereby give oath of allegiance to the truth ! I have been subjected to numerous unlawful actions and human rights violations by the U.K government , they have committed theft, robbery and fraud against me and denied me a fair trial violation under Article 6 human rights act 1998 , To prove my point example , the child support agency is a non judicial body who can,will and has found alleged fathers guilty of parentage without evidence on the grounds of marriage , as per c.s.a “LAW” ? One u.k study puts married infidelity at 36% thats 1 in 3 cheating , An official U.S study puts infidelity between 30% and 60% so thats go’s from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 marriage infidelity that is well within the realms of reasonable doubt ? I back this up with “BLACKSTONES FORMULATION which is accepted by the courts , Quote ; “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” Summary justice ?

    1. Eddy Alder

      Unfortunately the ‘U.K. government’ is mostly corrupt and is now controlled by the E.U., U.N., corporations, banks, elitist think tanks, secret societies, … At the moment the E.U./U.N. are making out that they’re the good nice guys with their human rights charters, … whilst trying to make withering sovereign nations appear out of date, out of touch, unfair, … It’s part of an agenda to undermine sovereign nations and usurp their sovereignty and get people to accept the E.U. or global government as a more fair and socially aware system of government and justice. Unfortunately the E.U, and U.N. are controlled by psychopathic fascist elitists through their banks, corporations, think tanks, secret societies, religions, ‘science’, … even though they may hide behind green or socialist masks.

  9. Eddy Alder

    Too many crimes have been carried out by the unlawful establishments of Common Law lands. Most wars and conquests have been unlawful. Many have been wars of expansion to build corrupt empires. These established elitists and their empires have not respected common/natural Law and the inalienable rights of all that lives upon our planet and they have not treated our planet and all that lives upon it with the respect it deserves. Now is the opportunity to recognise the value and sacredness of our Common Law and use it to bring peace, harmony, prosperity, fairness, happiness, enlightenment, … back to our planet. Article 61 is a gift from our wise ancestors to use at this time. It was invoked in March 2001. It is all our duty to stand on the right side of the Common Law, to stand up for the Rule of Common Law for all our children, any vulnerable people, our future generations, for our beautiful and amazing planet, … to stand under Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, to be part of the convention to restore the true values and spirit of our Common Law for all, …

  10. Eddy Alder

    The only important real issue currently about the EU and UN is the Treason one. The mainstream media, alternative media, the politicians, … appear to be ‘conveniently and treasonously’, trying to ignore this extremely serious crime of Treason that has been committed and that has led to the invocation of the British constitutions security clause Article 61 in March 2001, the first time in over 300 years! Even the Normans had to rule under the existing Common Law after they invaded and occupied Britain 950 years ago. The Norman elitists have tried to bury and hide our Common Law in history and have tried to distort and sabotage it with the help of their allies through their propaganda machine and corrupt and ignorant parliamentarians, …
    The current Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies are being run by the fascist EU, UN, corrupt corporations, banks, lobbyists, elitists think tanks, secret societies and are therefore unconstitutional and are not upholding the Common Law correctly and haven’t been for several years. The Rule of Common Law needs to be asserted asap, upheld and all these treasonous criminals need to be brought into line and arrested asap. The Cabinet office has no lawful constitutional authority over our Constable Law Enforcers and Common Law justice, …
    The heads of the Cabinet Office, the heads of the Police Service, David Cameron, the heads of the Judiciary, …are all committing Treason if they are not standing under Article 61. These people are expected to know the truth in Law and so ignorance will be no defence.

  11. Eddy Alder

    So far, none of the ‘courts/magistrates’, utility services, police, cps, local, district, county and regional councils, politicians, mayors, central ‘government’, HMRC, the crown, bailiffs, media, lawyers, … have not been able to prove that Article 61 was not invoked in 2001 and that they have any real authority. I can only guess that this is because they know they are committing Treason against our Common Law Constitution. When we get all the criminals in our governments arrested under Article 61 of Magna Carta, we can reintroduce an honest, ethical and fair banking and monetary system like the Bradbury Pound, so we no longer never have to depend on the corrupt banking system, World Central Bank, IMF, World Trade Organisation, …

  12. Eddy Alder

    It is unconstitutional, therefore unlawful and a crime of treason for Britain to be recognised under the authority of a foreign or alien system such as the EU, UN, World Bank, IMF, WTO, NWO, corporations, banks, TTIP, Agenda 21/2030, NATO, NASA, USA, China, Vatican, Jesuits, Masons, Zionists, Nazis, … Therefore voting in a referendum is irrelevant, double think and also unlawful as Britain is a sovereign nation and incompatible with the EU.
    It may not be obvious yet but the EU operates under fascist Roman/Civil rules and regulations.
    Britain, the Commonwealth nations and USA are recognised as Common Law systems, even though some of their corrupt treasonous politicians, media, academia, lawyers, civil servants and governments do not act like they are.
    Common Law recognises our inalienable rights. Roman ‘law’ does not, but instead it recognises the state, corporations, banks, elitists and other organisations as being above the rule of Law and recognises everyone else as citizen slaves with temporarily granted human rights and privileges which can be revoked by the state, …
    These are dangerous times with regards to having our rock solid protections of our inalienable rights and freedoms undermined by convincing or dishonest justifications from corrupt politicians, state, media, military, …
    Instead of a referendum, we all need to acquaint ourselves with Article 61 of 1215 Magna Carta that was correctly invoked and acknowledged in March 2001 and use it to lawfully end all the highest level corruption, treason and tyranny in Britain, …

Leave a Comment

Nothing on this website is to be construed as legal advice.