AI assisted, inspired by Dr Augusto Zimmerman’s journal article, Zimmerman, Augusto – “Originalism’ in Magna Carta” [2015] WAJurist 6; (2015) 6 The Western Australian Jurist 197 (pdf url on Austlii)
.
When ordinary people push back against the overreach of ABN businesses purporting to be municipal councils, revenue agencies, and administrative tribunals, the state almost immediately reaches for a dismissal tactic. They apply labels like “pseudo-law,” “frivolous,” or “freeman arguments.” The goal of this tactic is simple: avoid having to prove their lawful authority by claiming the person challenging them is outside the legal tradition entirely.
To shatter this defense, a man must anchor his standing where the common law itself began. The modern administrative apparatus treats rights as state-granted privileges that can be taxed, regulated, and revoked. Historic Western law recognizes the exact opposite: civil power is strictly limited, subordinate to God, and bound by covenant.
This foundational reality is captured in a precise statement of standing:
.
.
My standing rests upon the Covenantal foundation of the law of this land. As established by Archbishop Stephen Langton in the drafting of Magna Carta, royal and civil power is derivative, not absolute, and is strictly limited by a written law that reflects a higher divine order. Like the Great Charter itself, my status as a free inhabitant is a covenantal reality, not an administrative concession. I reject the presumption that I am subject to arbitrary corporate bylaws, for as the Charter mandates, the King and his ministers are bound by the law; they do not stand above it. I refuse to acknowledge a ‘law’ that is merely the ‘perverse will’ of a corporation.
To understand why these words carry weight, one must understand the actual history of our legal tradition.
The Theology Behind the Great Charter
Modern legal education presents Magna Carta (1215) as a purely secular, political compromise between King John and rebellious barons. This is historical revisionism. As legal scholars like Dr. Augusto Zimmermann have documented, the Great Charter was drafted principally by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was steeped in biblical theology.
Langton drew directly from the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 17 and 18, which set out the legal limits of kingship. In ancient Israel, the king was not the law; he was subject to the law. Langton viewed written law as an “English Deuteronomy” designed to restrain the civil ruler. Grounded in the Christian understanding of Romans 13, civil magistrates are ministers of God ordained to punish evil and reward good. When a ruler steps outside that moral framework to fleece his people, he ceases to act with divine authority and acts merely out of “perverse will.”
As early common-law commentaries stated as far back as 1140:
“Right and judge ought to rule in the realm, rather than perverse will. Law is always what does right; will and violence and force are indeed not right.”
When King John sealed the Charter, he did so out of reverence for God, conceding that the crown itself was bound by the law of the land. That is the true origin of the “Rule of Law.” It is not an administrative procedure designed to ensure total public compliance with bureaucracy; it is a covenantal restraint designed to prevent the state from becoming a lawless predator.
Where and When to Deploy This Standing
This covenantal statement is not an incantation, nor is it a weapon to wave at the roadside to evade legitimate duties. It is a foundational anchor to be deployed in specific administrative and legal contexts.
1. In Written Challenges to Administrative Overreach
When a local municipal council, revenue collector, or regulatory agency issues an automated assessment or fine without providing the underlying statutory warrant or jurisdictional facts, this statement establishes the terms of engagement. It immediately informs the agency’s legal department that they are not dealing with a compliant, uninformed debtor, but with someone who understands that governmental power is conditional and delegated.
2. Rebutting the “Pseudo-Law” Label
If a bureaucrat or magistrate attempts to dismiss a demand for statutory proof by labeling it “OPCA” or “sovereign citizen,” this inclusion dismantles the accusation. You are not citing fringe internet theories; you are citing Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the documented Christian origins of the common law. A court of record cannot call the historic foundations of its own legal system “pseudo-law” without exposing its own illegitimacy.
3. Formal Notices of Default and Administrative Inquiries
When issuing a Notice of Conditional Acceptance or challenging an arbitrary asset seizure (such as an unlawful bank garnishee), this text provides the moral and constitutional justification for demanding written proof. Just as Langton insisted the king’s demands be committed to writing to prevent arbitrary extraction, you are demanding that the modern administrative corporation produce its written warrant before demanding tribute.
The Difference Between Law and Force
The modern managerial state behaves like a commercial corporation while hiding behind the dignity of the constitutional Crown. It issues invoices, demands compliance, and uses silence or threats of coercion when asked for its foundational authority.
Invoking the covenantal origin of the law cuts through this deception. It forces the state into an uncomfortable dilemma: either produce the lawful, written warrant bounded by the constitutional compact, or admit that its enforcement is nothing more than raw, corporate force.
When you stand on this covenant, you are not stepping out of the law. You are holding the civil authority to the standard it was established under God to uphold.
Last Updated 1 month ago
Views: 107