Good evening to you all!
ARE YOU HUMAN?
ARE YOU 100% SURE OF THAT?
WELL I HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL YOU, SHOW YOU AND PROVE TO YOU THAT REFUTES YOUR ASSUMPTION!
ACCORDING TO THE JUDICIARY. COURTS AND GOVERNMENT – AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ITSELF – YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY HUMAN AT ALL!
WELL LET’S JUST DETERMINE IF YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION SHALL WE?
But before we do, let me introduce you to a BARRISTER. A BARRISTER by the name of ALEX USTYCH. As you will see, Alex graduated from Law school at Durham University with a FIRST in Law! CLEVER LITTLE ALEX! As you will also notice, he is rather involved in Human Rights Law. One must, therefore, take it that Alex knows his stuff and you can’t pull the wool over on Alex.
So, it must be acknowledged by Alex that either:
1. He is fully aware of what I am about to tell you (and, therefore, our Alex plays the game of obscuring this fact from his clients and everyone else in this country of ours) or;
2, He really DOESN’T know his stuff and the wool HAS been pulled over his eyes all this time! Now, that would show just a tiny little fragment of incompetence don’t you think?
So, who’s going to go for number 1 as Alex’s answer and who would opt for number 2?
A bit of a conundrum for the poor guy don’t you think?
But, for the purposes of this blog, I am going to assume that Alex is not aware of what he props up in the name of “law” because I actually like the guy. I am sure he is really, at heart, a decent sort. EvEN THOUGH he doesn’t seem to have the cajonas to speak up for what he knows is right regarding a particular case.
So let’s begin shall we?
The Human Rights Act 1998. What a wonderful piece of legislation isn’t it? “Flawed” you say?….. You have no idea how “flawed” this piece of utter nonsense is!
It looks so authoritative doesn’t it? So professional! So governmental. It’s all about protecting your “RIGHTS” as a citizen isn’t it? – meanwhile part of the deception is in that very last sentence!
So Alex, are you saying that such a thing as “Human Rights” exists?
I’ll answer what I think Alex would reply:
“Yes indeed. What a strange and very objectionable thing to ask!”
Is that so Mr Ustych? Then let us move on shall we? Mr Ustych, have you heard of a young lady by the name of Jade Jacobs Brooks?
“No, I do not believe that I have”
[Meanwhile the judge, in this assumed court, asks the relevance of this line of questioning of our esteemed Barrister to which I reply: "It has every relevance your Honour. Please allow me to continue"]
Mr Ustych, Ms Brooks was born in Alicante, Spain to British parents while on holiday. Her story was reported in the press last year (2012) by various newspapers and also, the BBC. Jade and her parents arrived home in Britain and Jade was brought up in the UK with British parents YET, at the age of 16, she found that she could not obtain a passport or ID; neither could she get a job and, in fact, NO benefits of any kind could be conferred upon her. Benefits which are accorded to any and all “Human Beings” one would imagine, if one takes the “Human Rights Act” as being just that – HUMAN rights!
Can you offer the court any GOOD reason why she would find herself in such a predicament Mr Ustych? Considering your FIRST degree in law and your capability, I’m sure, within the field of Human Rights.
“Well….. um… no, I cannot make any suggestion without first understanding the full particulars of the case”
WHAT “CASE” Mr Ustych? It is clear cut. The girl had no “Human Rights”. I am asking you for suggestions of how and why this could be so? (meanwhile, as you will see, there could not possibly be a “case” which related to a non existent legal entity)
What if I were to add to the information just provided to you that Jade’s birth certificate, issued in Spain, was not recognised as valid within the UK? Would that help?
“Ah yes! If a person cannot be identified correctly, then it would not be possible to process the benefits which you say were not conferred upon her because, without registration, the person in question could not be given the specific benefits which would relate to her specific personhood”.
Ahh! I see! Thank you for that suggestion and explanation Mr Ustych. May I just take note of the fact that, nowhere in your answer did you use the words “Human” or “Human Being” but you have used the word “person” three times.
“Yes, using the word ‘person’ as is interchangeable with the word ‘human’”
Is that so Mr Ustych? Are the two words entirely interchangeable? Both having precisely the same meaning? Both perfect synonyms?
“Well, it is dependent upon the context within which one uses them and, in this context, I see no issue with using them interchangeably”
Ah! But I do Mr Ustych. You see, I would suggest to you that you have used the word ‘person’ rather than ‘human’ because, as you have clearly described, before one can be conferred benefits (purported to be “Human Rights”) one must be identified and registered. The United Nations documents in exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are clear on this:
So it is clear and unambiguous is it not, that a LEGAL identity ( a LEGAL PERSONALITY) must first be “conferred” upon the human being before that human being is considered to even exist! Please take note of exhibit 4:
LEGALLY, she did not exist! As a Human Being, she obviously did. But you will, obviously, point out (correctly I may add) that how is one’s rights (and we will refer to them as “rights” for the moment) to be protected if one cannot be identified. A good and valid point Mr Ustych – no doubt and no argument. However, it does, for the moment, have oneself considering why any “rights” should be different from one human being to another doesn’t it? Let’s consider that for just a moment using the words from your very own mouth Alex!
But a discussion of that detail would take up an immense amount of the court’s time so let’s just stick with the principles of all of this.
Tell me Mr Ustych: If I reported my Volvo as having been set alight by an extraterrestrial who appeared on the scene on a skateboard, would our law enforcement and/or a court accept this story when I applied for an insurance payout and the insurer would not payout?
“Of course not! This is now moving into the realms of fantasy!…. Your honour?”
JUDGE: “Mr Earthling, your line of questioning is becoming rather absurd. Please make your point or move on!”
Yes your honour, I am about to make my point. Please, Mr Ustych, humour me for one moment. In a single sentence, please explain why a court would not accept this story?
“Oh for goodness sakes! Because ALIENS do not exist Sir!”
So, if they do not exist Mr Ustych, then would it be fair to say they would also have no legal personality?
And, as we have seen, one must have a legal personality – initially produced by one’s birth registration document – for the court (any court) to recognise the existence of such an entity. Am I correct?
So, legally, if one does not exist – an entity which is not recognised as existing within the legal system – then it is impossible to confer benefits upon such an entity, whether that entity is literally standing in court before a judge or not because the legal system (and judge) cannot “see” them. Am I correct?
“Yes! They do not exist in law!”
Then it MUST follow, Mr Ustych, that IF, for example, Miss Jade Jacob Brooks one day decided to stand in court before a judge, point a gun and fire a bullet right between his eyes, she could NOT be prosecuted for such an action.
“That is outrageous! Of course she would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!”
But Mr Ustych, you have just said that, without registration and, therefore, without a legal personality or identity, that Miss Jacobs Brooks would not exist! Just as is the fact shown by her story above.
“Of course she exists! She would prove her existence by her actions… this is ridiculous!”
She would prove her existence by her actions? Yet she would STILL not have a legal personality Mr Ustych. She proves her existence by her very actions everyday. Her act of BREATHING Mr Ustych. YET, the court and government will not recognise her as existing and they make the excuse of her not having a valid birth certificate and, thereby, not being a LEGAL PERSON!
So, my point to you Mr Ustych, is that, while Jade is demonstrably, a human being, that does NOT entitle her to the “Human Rights” within the Human Rights Act! It is not until she becomes recognised as a PERSON (a LEGAL PERSON) that ANY state will confer upon her such “rights”. It is then CLEAR that the term “HUMAN Rights” is a misnomer and a VERY deceptive one for very deceptive purposes as we shall see. What we have, in fact, is not Human Rights at all but LEGAL PERSON’S PRIVILEGES!
“So what’s the issue”? I hear many of you ask.
Well, for one thing, I sincerely hope it is clear that, from the above: IF THE LAW CANNOT “SEE” A HUMAN BEING SUCH AS JADE STANDING RIGHT BEFORE IT WITHOUT HAVING A PIECE OF PAPER TO PROVE SHE ACTUALLY EXISTS AND, THEREFORE, THE LAW CANNOT CONFER BENEFITS UPON A LEGALLY NON EXISTENT HUMAN BEING, THEN THE LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY TURN ROUND AND SAY IT THEN “SEES” HER IF SHE COMMITS A CRIME! IT IS RIDICULOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS TO SUGGEST THAT A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING CANNOT BE SEEN TO EXIST ON ONE HAND WHILE, ON THE OTHER, STATE SHE DOES EXIST! IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY!
But it is one which the legal profession will say and do absolutely anything to maintain!
So the girl can breathe, sing, dance (all actions of a living breathing human) and the law cannot “see” her! But if she picks up a gun, the law can “see” this?
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SINGLE CONTRADICTION DRIVES A STAKE THROUGH THE HEART OF WHAT IS PURPORTED TO BE “HUMAN RIGHTS”.
But there is so much more to this.
1. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have statehood. Why? For if there was no statehood then we would be absolutely free human beings with TRUE rights to travel and live ANYWHERE in the world that we choose WITHOUT the need for passports and a nationality (which the legal world and the UN state is a “human right”). I challenge ANY ONE OF YOU to state to any one of your governments that you do not WISH to be subject to such a limitation on your freedom to travel. Such “rights” are not “rights” at all. They are not even privileges. They are LIMITATIONS ON YOUR FREEDOM!
2. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have an ID/Birth certificate/NI (UK) or SSN (USA) number to find and gain employment (purely for the purposes of taxation I may add). Again, a limitation on your freedom to contract. Seemingly, freedom to contract, then, is NOT a “human right”.
3. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we are taxed! That tax IS NOT for the purposes of paying down our debts and paying for infrastructure etc. It is purely for SERVICING (not paying off) a NATIONAL DEBT which need not, need never have but does, exist!
How/why? Read the following: The New Economy.
4. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us “contracted in” to abide by government policy which demands, by this “law”, that we shoulder the bail outs of corrupt Banking institutions globally. Such legislation, then, on behalf of the banking world, ensures that those who DO legislate for them are financially taken care of by a portion of that bailout/tax revenue which is paid to them in salaries, expenses, jobs with the boys etc.
5. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us pay ever increasing revenues for the supply of our water, gas, electricity, petrol, food, clothes – you name it – while we are also finding ourselves paying increasing taxes which, by the way, the tax laws are renewed every single year because they were first introduced on the basis that they were just to pay for a war and then would be dropped but the “Remembrancer” and the successive Chancellors of the Exchequer saw the benefit of such taxes. While the law has not been changed wrt the tax law having to be renewed every year, the bankers (Global central banks/IMF/BIS owners and controllers) WANT those taxes because they have our governments tied into the monetary system as it now exists. The present monetary system, however, is a con on such an enormous scale that every last politician, judge and banker who has promulgated the con, have perpetrated crimes on humanity of the most heinous sort.
But lastly, and oh so much more importantly, A CONTRACT (AND THE FREEDOM TO ENTER, OR NOT, INTO CONTRACT) IS BETWEEN TWO, OR MORE, “PERSONS” – under “Human Rights”, of course, this word “PERSONS” should be re-termed “HUMAN BEINGS” – AND EACH AND EVERY “PERSON”, WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM, IS FREE TO CONTRACT OR NOT TO CONTRACT.
EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE: THE FREEDOM TO CONTRACT WITH THE STATE! THERE, THEY DRAW THE LINE. IT IS THERE WHERE YOUR “HUMAN RIGHTS” AND THE WHOLE IDEA OF “HUMAN RIGHTS” COMPLETELY DISINTEGRATES INTO THE SHEER DECEPTION THAT IT IS.
THAT CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IS, IN FACT, YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHERE YOU REGISTER YOURSELF TO THE STATE. JUST AS YOU REGISTER YOUR CAR AND REGISTER MANY OTHER THINGS, YOU (OR YOUR PARENTS) HAVE REGISTERED YOU!
THIS IS WHY THE STATE OWNS YOU AND YOUR OFFSPRING. THIS IS WHY THE STATE CAN SEND IN THE POLICE AND THE DHSS TO REMOVE YOUR CHILDREN (sometimes this is a good thing for the child but there are many instances that it is not and may be done simply because you do not live, as a parent, the way the state demands you do).
Now, what would happen if you decided you wished to relinquish your statehood? And that you brought it to the state’s attention that the contract between you and they was void?
[For those of you reading this who suggest it is not a contract, please attempt to explain why? You see, there is one other issue: The state itself - please do part of the job to understand this by confirming what I am telling you here - is a "PERSON". It is a LEGAL PERSON. If you wish to remain in willful ignorance of this and what it means, be my guest, however, what it means is this: The State as a "person" and you as a "person", has us remember the basic premise of law. ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW!
Now IF that premise is to remain true, then you, as a free human being being free to contract, (I would hope the UN would agree but, of course, in this case they will not) or not to contract, with any and all other legal persons, have a god given right to accept or dismiss such a contract with the state OTHERWISE you are being coerced to contract with it.]
Now, the fact is we have all, inadvertently, contracted with the state. We did not understand or recognise the full implications of this contract. That being the case, we can categorically state that we were not given full disclosure of the terms of the contract.
IF A CONTRACT IS ENFORCED OR COERCED UPON YOU AND/OR IF THERE IS NO FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS OF ANY GIVEN CONTRACT, THE LAW STATES THAT SUCH A CONTRACT IS NULL AND VOID!
The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.
Now, some will argue that there is a legal premise which speaks of the “Supremacy” structure of the law where the law of nations is of more validity and power than the law which applies to citizens of that nation/any nation. I will simply ask you this: Did you, once more, agree in full knowledge, to abide by such? Also, who/what is it that has introduced such a premise? It wouldn’t be the very political class who are in government and agree these treaties and premises of law would it? Are all of these people not simply legal persons like you and I?
“Ah but there is something called ‘democracy’ where we vote these people into office (“power” as they call it) and that undermines the argument against this supremacy of the law of nations”. Well let’s attack this point for a moment:
The EU (an illegal institution under the Constitutional law of the United Kingdom I may add) now has, of all things, “legal personality” which means that it can CONTRACT as a single legal entity (on behalf of more than 500 million people while it is not even democratic in structure). The “contracts”, in this case, are called “TREATIES”. Now, the FACT is that, for the EU to have been given the powers it has by the nations within the EU, those powers had to be relinquished by each nation freely. If the signing of the treaties leading up to and including the Lisbon Treaty, were signed and agreed under any form of duress, then those treaties would be null and void!
Now, consider that in the context of us having given the power of entering such treaties to our government when, in fact, the UK’s population DID NOT WANT AN EU AND WERE NEVER MADE AWARE that, from 1972, all treaties signed were leading to the destruction of our own national sovereignty!
Further, and of great importance: For the state to have ANY control and influence on your life, you must contract with it and, just like the UK freely giving power and control upwards to the EU, that contract and that relinquishment of power and sovereignty by you MUST have been given freely and in full disclosure of the terms of the contract.
NEITHER OF THOSE TWO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT CRITERIA WERE FULFILLED IN THE CASE WHERE YOU AND I HAVE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE BY WAY OF REGISTERING OUR BIRTH!
If you wish to consider the above further, wrt to legal personhood of states, read the following blog: Destroying the mindgame
YOU ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE POLICED BY CONSENT?
However Dom, there is ONE important catch in this which undermines what you believe (and no the police you spoke to will not understand it like they understand very little as you know): The contract of the birth certificate has us all contracted to the state and the state gives us “free elections” to choose our government and, therefore, makes the argument (and shall enforce it!) that it is the “public” which, as a whole, gives the state and its police force our COMMUNAL consent. Thereby, you and I and anyone else simply standing up and saying “I do not consent” will not, in the state’s view, hold ANY water! I’m sorry Dom but that is how it is. The ONLY way of stripping them of these powers is for the nation, as a whole, to say “Just hold on one bloody second here!”.
One last point to focus on from the Human Rights Act 1998:
“YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE UNLESS WE WISH TO TAKE IT!”
2 c) in action lawfully taken (it’s THEIR law remember) for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Question: WHO decides whether or not something is classed as an insurrection?
Well let’s look at what “insurrection” means:
So, let us assume that this country’s population (or a significant portion thereof) have finally had enough of these corrupt criminals which we know they are. We also know that each political party (even the BNP and UKIP) are in on the game because, although they are “tarnished” by the “Crown Tripod” as I call them (Libdem/Toy/Labour), both of these parties are allowed to exist. The Head of State and the Law as it exists, would never allow these parties to exist unless they played the game within the State rules. All of the parties exist to “guide” your wrath and gain support for various variations (yes that was on purpose) of the overall existing power base. They are all controlled opposition however because they will not (not one of them) discuss, debate or point you in the direction of the legal person and monetary system issues – which are the entire basis of your misery and control.
If people then set out of the controlled arena of political parties – sold to you as democratic and, if you have issues with how the country is run, “join or form a political party” – and rebel and have their say, en masse, out on the streets, then the state can call in the troops to “quell” what they shall term an “insurrection”. In “quelling” such, they have (through their Human Rights Act) given themselves the right to kill you!
There is one further interesting little point however. Note how the UK Human Rights Act Article 2 is based upon (but expands upon) the UN article 3 which simply states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Big difference huh? The UK State obviously seen a few little problems with not allowing it reason to kill you.
And notice the term “Security of PERSON”.
Then look at Article 6 in the UN declaration:
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Hahaha. They’re quite “brilliant” aren’t they? It does not state: “Everyone has the right to recognition before the law”. It states “Everyone has the right to recognition AS A PERSON before the law”.
Thank you your honour. I rest my case!
There is a saying: “You cannot fight fire with fire”. It applies to so many of life’s challenges while it also applies to this. You see, you cannot fight the law (or the legal establishment) with the law because it is they who say what the law is and is not. HOWEVER, you CAN totally destroy their PATHETIC presumptions by the use of LOGIC. Doing that, the entire house of cards comes crashing to the floor!
SO, WITH THAT, I HOPE THE POINT IS NOW FULLY PROVEN TO YOU THAT “HUMAN RIGHTS” IS NOTHING BUT HUMAN DECEPTION!
And yet, no matter what I attempt. Who I add and try to communicate with from Infowars, while they produce story after story about THIS, (below), they will NOT acknowledge what I am trying to give them as an explanation AND, therefore, an intellectual solution!
Now WHY do you think that may be? HOW MANY SOLUTIONS (and this IS a 100% solution by understanding the problem precisely) HAS INFOWARS EVER COME UP WITH?
So, if you just happen to be an Infowars follower and you understand what I have just presented to you and understand, therefore, how it accounts for this Infowars report, then WONDER WHY Infowars will NOT speak about this or promote the info in this blog!
But then it’s no surprise to me because Paul Joseph Watson and others in the “team” have previously ignored the Economic?monetary solution to our problems also as explained in a recent blog called “The new economics is mathematics”.
That WORRIES me. It worries me a lot!
IF POLITICIANS, BARRISTERS AND THE JUDICIARY WERE PROPERTY, THEY’D ALL BE IN NEGATIVE EQUITY!
THAT IS HOW VALUABLE THESE PEOPLE ARE TO SOCIETY!
But when people of this country begin to see mothers throwing themselves in front of lorries because they “can’t AFFORD to live anymore”, you and that corrupt, legislating, criminal government you work for (not just you tories but also labour and LibDem – all of you feeding off the people of this country while you protect the very banks and corporations who cause this misery by legislating on their behalf in a fundamentally corrupt deception called a “monetary system”) may well see a Britain that you never could imagine could have existed.
Now, I have come to a point where I’ve had more than enough of the bullshit you and your legislators, and the judiciary which enforces it, call “law” as each of you pass the “hot potato” between each other – the MP can’t interfere with the judiciary and the judiciary turns and says “we don’t make the law, the MPs/legislators do”. While, as I hope you are well aware, I’m one of the “intelligent ones”. I’ve spent 30 years in a career Damian. I’ve hit the heights of a six figure salary. I’ve travelled the world and I’ve got the education. Many (too many) have not. It is these who will resort to violence on an epic scale because, let me explain something to you: The information highway is immense in its structure and its also immense in its capability to inform and to educate. Whereas, unlike before in earlier times, people did not have instant access to information which contradicted the propaganda of which you are a part, they do now and there are mountains of it. People are learning the abject corruption and bullshit that you people prop up.
Well, it’s you and your colleagues’ actions in parliament who are setting this scenario up. You’re not backing down. You’re afraid to speak truth to power. You’re impotent. Meanwhile Mr Ustych and his barrister colleagues are either so lacking in empathy on the whole with those who have not shared their backgrounds (Yes Alex, I gave my kids what you had and did the “expatriate experience” like your father but there is a difference – I maintained the connection with my origins and I achieved it entirely off my own back – creating that value in my “person” which the banks then obfuscate and assume as theirs) or are simply too scared to rock the boat because they may lose their juicy little career.
All of this made me learn what it is that is so wrong. My point of writing to you (however bluntly) is this: YOU can learn what is so wrong too if you are at all willing to “drop” the ego of your positions and your “capacities” – i.e. Damian Green the MP and Alex Ustych the Barrister at law (who swear an oath to the Crown which you both do).
So read this open letter I penned to the son of a woman who has felt it necessary to take her own life because she felt she could not afford to live and then click on the link to the “New Economy” and educate yourselves. Then recognise that it is YOU (and only you) who can put a stop to this by your willingness to grasp, interpret, recognise and acknowledge it. Then DO something about it! It is YOU who can turn this deception and corruption around.
Now, I FULLY expect you to read this. If neither of you choose to do so or you respond with some kind of dismissive bullshit, then I know full well where you both stand. The problem with you acknowledging this is that it takes balls in your positions. You know it would “upset the applecart” and, to be frank, I’m not sure either one of you have those balls. I would, however, be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong and would be gracious enough to acknowledge it. But then that is entirely up to you.
Here is the letter/blog. The explanation of that new economy – which is so very simple – is linked to the letter.
Both of you can decide to turn over a new leaf and, if you have any empathy for people at all, take action of some sort (any sort) which brings this to the attention of your peers. If you need help in doing so, I stand ready to provide it. If you and your peers worry about my lack of “respect” for you then that is so easily fixed: You earn that respect by showing to this country what you are really made of. I am more than willing to discuss/debate in a respectful manner (while this is not disrespectful as I see it, just blunt between men. You are at liberty to be just as blunt) but my long experience of dealing with your colleagues has me recognise the obfuscation, deception and pure outright lies that are wrapped in pleasant language. I just don’t play that game guys!
Now, how about you both begin that journey and take action in my case to do the right thing? That right thing, I have no doubt, is hard to do but, right now, while you can both see clearly the wrong here, you just don’t have the willingness to try that bit harder do you? For example, one letter from you Alex and you just cite percentages while you can see clearly the wrong. If you can see it and you say the courts won’t then you know something is wrong. And it is not only you who can clearly recognise it. The question is: Are you a “Hunter” or a “farmer” (in Sales speak). The hunter changes things and stirs things up while the farmer just grazes and takes the salary. The same goes for you Damian? Which are you?
Best Regards guys.
Subject: RE: Referral to LawWorks
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:27:23 +0000
Dear Mr xxxxxx,
Thank you for your email and the attachments.
I understand from the subsequent emails you have copied to me that in fact the Pro Bono Unit is still considering whether you qualify for free legal advice, and is looking at the detailed points you have made to them. In the circumstances I think it is best to wait to see what their final decision is.
Sent: 24 April 2013 13:28
To: GREEN, Damian
Subject: FW: Referral to LawWorks
Dear Mr Green,
I apologise for the bluntness but is this what I worked for over a period of about 5 months to achieve?
One letter from a Barrister from Pro Bono and then he gives up on a case which CLEARLY, the other party admits to having breached contract?
If this is so, then I would ask you to form a question to be raised in Parliament regarding this type of thing. It would seem clear, time and again, that the law as it exists at this point, does nothing to support it’s promotion of the idea that ALL legal persons are equal before it. Nor, it seems, does it reflect the so called “equity” of law it promotes.
MPs may state that one must pursue their respective issues through the courts BUT the big issue is this: The courts simply enforce the policy which you, the parliamentarians and legislation framers, create. That “law” is not equitable – not by a long shot – and this is becoming clearer and clearer as every day passes.
Mr Green, I can choose to rely on my MP to try and remedy what is clearly wrong, or I can choose to consider my MP who reads all of this, understands what is going on here, but simply says “I can’t do anything”. If it were the latter then I would ask “What is it that MPs are there to do for their constituents?
This company has brought me to the precipice of bankruptcy. THAT is a fact and it is a fact (and morality) which it is clearly seen they simply do not care about. They are flaunting the fact they breached the contract but are simply laughing saying to me and a Barrister “What precisely do you propose doing about it?”. Do you know how they can achieve this? How they can simply laugh and walk away while destroying a man’s livelihood even though having promised him something that he, in good faith and belief, acted upon to his detriment? Because you and your colleagues have allowed them to do so through your legislation.
Mr Ustych, while a Barrister, is impotent to achieve anything because he is entirely boxed in by the legislation (“law”) created by you and your colleagues. Yet you (as a group of parliamentarians) advise us we must plead to a court which you have stifled from being able to apply equitable law to so many people’s cases. The more financially strong “legal person” beats the less strong “legal person” every time. That is not law Mr Green. There is nothing which reflects “Alll persons are equal before the law” here.
No matter where one turns, the door gets shut. Thanks to British justice and the British Parliament.
I have not heard from LawWorks.
Meanwhile, Mr Ustych wrote a Letter before claim for me to Xcel’s solicitors (attached) and it has been replied to. Copies are attached.
Mr Ustych has advised me that there is somewhat less than a 50% chance of my winning a case if I brought it before court. I do not fully understand how this is so since the company has admitted Breach of Contract and, it can be seen clearly that, contrary to their assertions it is clear, once more, from Mr Weller’s email response, that he did, in fact vary the contract.
The contradictions within their most recent letter to me are plain to see.
It’s like this: There was a contract between two legal persons. Legal persons are equal before the law. I am asserting my right to sue them on that basis. The fundamentals of this are clear and cannot be refuted. That said, it is only the figure which is awarded to me which is in question. A court could not possibly find the other party to be correct or in the clear. To do so would be a miscarriage of justice. I have spoken with Mr Ustych, other solicitors (before having the assistance of Mr Ustych) and even one of the Directors in Xcel; All of which clearly see the wrong which has been done in this case. It is not difficult to see!
Now, it is unacceptable to me that I am then told I have less than 50% chance of winning this case.
This company made a promise. They did not hold to that promise while it is clearly seen that I acted upon that promise to the tune of £40,000 of cash reserves. Yes, it MAY have been invested in a property but that was the entire basis of the waiving of the probationary period and the promise! Not only that, while I am told “But you have not lost that £40,000″. I have! I am now at a point (having been unable to finance my mortgage of £1000 per month by way of salaries) that my savings have dwindled to a point I will have to sell my home! Doing so, I am locked in to a 5 year mortgage and will have to pay penalties of approx £10,00 or more when I sell. This means I shall then have no income and far less savings than I had prior to accepting the contract with Xcel. When I come to sell my home, I will then be unable to buy another (of course – having no income and, if I am lucky, about £10,000 of savings). Further, it is unlikely that I will even be able to rent (considering landlords wish to see that one is solvent with an income). Xcel’s solicitors keep referring to my argument being a moral one rather than a legal one. Indeed it is moral (It would seem Xcel have none then since it doesn’t seem to be an issue for them) but while it is moral it is also LEGAL. I am not taking a statutory view on this (as I have stated time and time again). There is the law of equity. It is quite abundantly clear and any judge applying such law (as I would demand they do) would simply have to acknowledge that equity has not been reached in this case. Now, I would like to hear someone’s full acknowledgement and appreciation of this fact. Once so, I would then expect the law to do as it should – rebalance it!
It is abundantly clear, from all Xcel’s communications, that they admit they did not stick to contract. It does not matter that they say they have paid out according to one month’s notice because that obscures the fact that they did so having breached the contractual terms in the first place. I wish to know whether there is a Barrister (or solicitor in LawWorks) who clearly see the wrong/tort in all of this (as I know Mr Ustych does) and is willing to represent, effectively, my case in court. Or is it simply the case that if any solicitor or Barrister feels that a case has less than a 50% chance of winning, they do not take it on? If so, then HERE is the problem with that: Why do ANY cases go before court? Because, if one party says “Ok we have a better than 50% chance so we will go to court” then, assuming competence on the part of the other party’s solicitors (and we have to assume all Barristers and Solicitors are competent do we not?), the other party will back down because they must obviously have LESS than 50% chance.
Doesn’t Mr Ustych (or any Barrister) think that it is possible that that assessment of less than 50% is just a measure of their belief in their own capability to argue effectively? Also, do they not consider the possibility that, at the point where the other party gets nervous at the thought of going to court, the closer that day gets, the more likely they would think of coming to some settlement?
Lastly, I wrote 3 letters to Xcel and their solicitors and all were dismissed by them. Mr Ustych (a Barrister) writes ONE letter and it is dismissed (and in parts described as absurd) by them. Mr Ustych then suggests there is nothing more he can do? His considered opinion as a Barrister is slated by a solicitor and that’s all the Bar Pro Bono section can do or achieve? I ask myself, would it be different if a solicitor or Barrister was being paid by me?? Is that it?
Sorry for being so candid but should I seriously be impressed?
I am, therefore, asking for further advice from the Pro Bono section and solid advice which actually achieves something. This is not a game where we roll a dice and give something a punt to see what happens!
Subject: Referral to LawWorks
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:32:28 +0100
BY EMAIL ONLY
Mr xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx
Our ref: xxxxxx/13/0124
2 April 2013
Dear Mr xxxxx,
Re Mr xxxx xxxxx v XCEL Power Systems Ltd
Further to your emails, I do apologise for the delay in referring your case to LawWorks. This letter confirms that I have referred your case to LawWorks’ Individual Casework Scheme.
Once LawWorks has received your case, they will be in contact with you directly.
Please note that LawWorks can only assist in some cases and there is no guarantee that they will be able to assist in your case.
Should you need to contact LawWorks before you hear from them, their details are as follows:
National Pro Bono Centre
48 Chancery Lane
Tel: 020 092 3940
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me,
Direct line 0207 092 3962
Address: Bar Pro Bono Unit, The National Pro Bono Centre, 48 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JF
Who are Xcel? A company with a Managing Director by the name of Richard Weller, who waived a probationary period of employment (proven) and were sufficiently happy with one’s performance that Mr Weller waived it and advised that one could, comfortably and with his assurance, purchase a house which meant the laying down of approx £40K of savings. One, then, had a £5K monthly income from the employment to pay the mortgage which is over £1K per month. Within 2 to 3 months after making this statement, Mr Weller, out of the blue with no justification of any kind and no notice, decided to terminate one’s employment. Leaving one to pay one’s mortgage from one’s now much smaller level of savings and no income.
I repeat once more – NO REASON and the company and Mr Weller have had many opportunities given to them to state the reason – any justification whatsoever – and they have refused point blank. They have admitted a breach of contract (which it is) and while there are many other legal points – such as estoppel – for which damages may be claimed, the above Barrister states he believes there is less than 50% chance of winning!
So, I will leave you with this. It is only my opinion and I have an absolute right to my opinion as he does to his. In my opinion, this man is an incompetent businessman (and I have good reason for this not just sour grapes I assure you), he also seems to enjoy jokes in Directors’ meetings about the possibility of a war with Iran resulting in more business for the company (he tends, then, to ignore the human casualties of such a war while he profits) and lastly, I would never trust the man as far as I could throw him. His word seems not to be his bond.
Defamation is non justified statements (which you used son in your termination letter to me). Defamation is not a statement of fact or of a justifiable opinion.
What would you say if the government made PRIVET HEDGES illegal?
What would you say if the government made ROSES illegal?
What would you say if the government decided to make underarm hair illegal?
What would you say if the government legalised the height of the blades of grass on your lawn such that it was illegal to grow your grass any higher than 2 inches? (or for those who have gone metric, 5cm).
What would you say if the government made it illegal to grow potatoes or any other vegetable in your own garden? What if they made a law stating Apple trees were illegal?
Or what if they said you could grow an apple tree but they would tax it based on how many apples it produced? They would then be LEGAL and by that process, they could tax any one of the above – ALL naturally occurring plants (and naturally occurring hair!)
WOULD YOU SHOUT AND SCREAM AND SAY “WE DEMAND THESE THINGS ARE LEGALISED!”?
SO THEN WHY DEMAND CANNABIS BE LEGALISED? YOU’RE ACCEPTING THE PREMISE THAT A NATURALLY OCCURRING PLANT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
EVEN THE “GOD” of “LIBERTY”, Ron Paul, is suggesting legalising the damned stuff! Ron Paul’s great but, when it comes to gold and cannabis etc, he’s actually a dummy!
GOLD IS CONTROLLED BY THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO CONTROL CURRENCY!
CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PLANT YET HE WANTS TO LEGALISE IT!
MOST OF YOU “TRUTHERS” STILL DON’T GET IT DO YOU? MARIJUANA SHOULD NOT BE LEGALISED! IT SHOULDN’T EVEN COME IN TO THE LEGAL WORLD AT ALL!
BUT YOU STILL DON’T GET IT DO YOU!
YOU’RE BLOODY STUPID THAT’S WHY!
So let them continue their control and their debates and the decision to keep it illegal OR, if it suits them, legalise it so they can tax you for it like they tax nearly everything else in life including the CO2 you breathe!
YOU REALLY ARE LAMBS TO THE SLAUGHTER AND YET YOU SPEAK OF THE “SHEEPLE”. MOST OF YOU STILL ARE SHEEPLE!
Then again, perhaps the government and the United Nations have a direct line to God! Who knows?
PERHAPS AGENDA 21 is God’s idea?
As so many of you say: “Namaste”
PLEASE WILL YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE LOGIC WHICH THE POLICE STATE, THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE STATE/GOVERNMENT/U.N. DO NOT WISH YOU TO RECOGNISE. YET IT IS IN FRONT OF YOUR VERY OWN NOSE!
Jade Jacobs-Brooks’ 20-year birth certificate battle
Getting a birth certificate is something most people take for granted.
For Jade Jacobs-Brooks and her parents, it was a mammoth task that resulted in a relentless battle spanning two decades.
Miss Jacobs-Brooks, 20, from Harlow, Essex, was born in Alicante, in Spain, in September 1991.
But she had no paperwork to prove it because of a bureaucratic mix-up between British and Spanish authorities.
It meant she was unable to get a passport, vote or move out of the family home.
Even nights out with her friends were difficult because she had no identification to prove her age.
“It’s been incredibly frustrating,” she said.
“When I turned 18, everyone was going to bars and clubs but I couldn’t go because I didn’t have any identification.
“For me, it was more upsetting than anything.”
The saga began following Miss Jacobs-Brooks’ birth when her parents, Linda Jacobs and Victor Brooks, contacted officials in Spain.
If she had been a prisoner in a Spanish jail she would have probably got more help.” OF COURSE! AND AGAIN, THAT POINTS TO THE ENTIRE CON – YOU SEE, SHE DID NOT EXIST IN THE EYES OF THE LAW THEREFORE, ANYTHING HARMING HER WAS HARMING A NON EXISTENT PERSON (PERSON!!). OF COURSE, IF SHE WAS NON EXISTENT THEN, IT IS OBVIOUS, JUST AS SHE COULD NOT BE SEEN BY A COURT TO BE HARMED AND THE COURTS COULD NOT/WOULD NOT PROTECT HER OR THE STATE BESTOW ANY OF THEIR “PERSONS RIGHTS” UPON HER, SHE COULD, LOGICALLY, ALSO NOT BE SEEN TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME BECAUSE NON EXISTENT PERSONS/ENTITIES CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION CAN THEY? BUT, HAD SHE COMMITTED A CRIME YOU CAN BE 100% SURE THAT THE STATE WOULD HAVE HER PROCESSED TOUTE SUITE!
SO THE MORAL IS: IF YOU DO NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO THE LAW THEN YOU CANNOT COMMIT A CRIME – HOWEVER, IF YOU DO COMMIT A CRIME, YOU CAN BE SURE THE STATE WILL PROCESS YOU AND, AFTER YOUR TERM IN JAIL, VOILA! YOU SHALL HAVE YOUR PASSPORT AND YOU SHALL EXIST!
JUST COMMIT A CRIME!
Everything appeared to have been signed off correctly and the couple received a temporary passport for their daughter.
They were told the birth could then be registered in the UK.
But after returning home, British officials said the documents were invalid.
The family contacted the Veya Baja Hospital, near Alicante, to ask for the official birth certificate.
But they were told there were no records relating to Jade.
“It turned into a complete nightmare,” said Mr Brooks, 55, who works as a porter.
“We contacted the hospital and they couldn’t help us. The British officials couldn’t help.
“We had nowhere to turn.”
‘Wits’ end’Every avenue taken by Mr Brooks and Ms Jacobs resulted in a dead end.
Numerous letters were sent out appealing for help, with the government, MPs and even the Queen contacted.
Mr Brooks flew back to Alicante in attempt to resolve the issue when his daughter was a toddler.
“We tried everything but were at our wits’ end,” said Mr Brooks.
“People said they might be able to help but no-one ever got back to us. It got to the point where I thought this would never be resolved.”
In 2008, the situation came to a head when Miss Jacobs-Brooks was 16. She got a job at a supermarket but was told she would not be able to start work unless she could prove her identity. “PROVE YOU EXIST!” What about “I’m standing right in front of you therefore I exist”?
Her story was published in a local newspaper and it was then that Allen and Overy, a major law firm, got involved.
Solicitor Andrew Denny, a partner at the firm, started to investigate the case.
“I just couldn’t understand why the British Government didn’t step in and work with the Spanish Government,” he said.
“She was left to sort out a case that no private individual would have had a chance of doing. I don’t think I’d have been able to solve without the help of our Madrid office.
“It’s not just a case of speaking the language, it’s working out the Spanish system.”
Miss Jacobs-Brooks had been placed in an almost impossible situation, Mr Denny said.
‘Human rights affected’Her life was on hold until she could get a birth certificate. NO “HUMAN RIGHTS”. ARE YOU SAYING A BABY JUST BORN HAS NO RIGHTS? THINK HARD ABOUT THIS! “HUMAN RIGHTS” is a misnomer! THEY ARE TALKING “LEGAL PERSON’S RIGHTS”. This is obvious now because until she is recognised as existing as a person then they are saying she has no rights!!
“Everything we take for granted, Jade was not able to do,” said Mr Denny.
“The right to be able to work, to move freely and travel – she was being denied all that. It was impacting on her human rights.
“If she had been a prisoner in a Spanish jail she would have probably got more help.”
The firm agreed to take on her case free of charge. If it had been private client, the legal bill would have run into tens of thousands of pounds. OK, THEY TOOK IT ON FREE OF CHARGE. GOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDING ANOTHER SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM AND SHALL MAKE FROM HER LATER. SHE’S AN ASSET SO WHY WOULD THEY CHARGE YOU? NEVERTHELESS, THEY MADE MONEY SOMEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM (PROBABLY PAID BY THE TAXPAYER – ALL THE OTHER SLAVES).
Following the intervention of lawyers, the hospital in Spain was finally able to locate a document relating to Miss Jacobs-Brooks’ birth.
After three years’ of investigation, the lawyers had found enough information to process an application for a birth certificate.
“I’m not 100% sure what went wrong at the Spanish end,” said Mr Denny.
“We may never know.”
For Miss Jacobs-Brooks and her family, the news was a huge relief. A RELIEF BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF HOW THIS IS A CONTROL GRID MECHANISM!
“We would never have been able to afford pay the legal fees to get this resolved,” Mr Brooks said.
“Without the legal help, I don’t think we would have ever got anywhere with this. OF COURSE NOT! IT IS THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT WHO WANT YOU TO BE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM AFTER ALL! OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO “HELP” YOU! WHILE MAKING A BUCK OUT OF YOU AT THE SAME TIME!
“But we shouldn’t have been put in that position in the first place.”
Now in possession of the birth certificate, a whole host of new opportunities have opened up for Miss Jacobs-Brooks.
She has ambitions to work in the City of London having completed a course in business administration.
“I just want to get on with my life now,” she said. YOU HAVE A LIFE! WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO HAVE IS A CONTROLLED ONE. THE “NEW OPPORTUNITIES” WHICH HAVE OPENED UP ARE ALL CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. THINK OF WHY YOU CAN EXIST YET NOT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME! HAS ANYTHING CHANGED ABOUT YOU SINCE YOU WERE GIVEN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE? NO! IT IS THE STATE THAT STOPS YOU FROM HAVING A FULL LIFE WITHOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. IT IS YOUR GAME PIECE ON THE GAME OF MONOPOLY THEY ARE FORCING YOU TO PLAY!
COMPANIES CANNOT EMPLOY YOU BECAUSE COMPANIES MUST ENSURE (CONTROLLED BY THE STATE AND THE SAME LAW) THAT YOU PAY NATIONAL INSURANCE AND INCOME TAX. A COMPANY DOESN’T CARE IF YOU PAY THESE THINGS BUT THE STATE CONTROLS THE COMPANY AND IF THEY EMPLOY YOU WITHOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND THEREFORE YOU ARE NOT “SEEN” BY LAW (THEREFORE YOU CANNOT BE HELD TO STATUTE) THE STATE WILL DESTROY THE COMPANY! THE COMPANY IS AS MUCH CONTROLLED AND HAMSTRUNG BY THE STATE AS ANYONE. THIS IS BECAUSE THE BANKS (CENTRAL BANKS, IMF ETC ETC AND THE CROWN) WISH TO ENSURE ALL THAT MONEY KEEPS FLOWING UPWARDS! AND……A COMPANY IS A?………………….PERSON!
Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because the system is set up corruptly to have them think that?
Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because you are presumed a “subject” of Her Majesty simply because you were born in this country (itself a legal fiction) and your parents were coerced (and were ignorant of the contractual terms they were signing up to) into registering your birth AS a subject of Her Majesty?
Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON that, contrary to all LAW, should have no more right over your person than you do over theirs?
Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who has bought a debt from another party (a commercial transaction), refers to itself and its BUSINESS as a Commercial enterprise and has been given the title “Sheriff Officer” by the government to suggest its legitimacy in coercing you into paying up?
Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON because the LEGAL PERSON (Council in this case) from whom they bought the debt, could/would not answer your questions nor take notice of the issues you had but simply stated you MUST pay and if you have any issues, to contact an ombudsman – an ombudsman who is part of, and paid for by, the same corrupt system which is coercing you? Do you think it would go your way under ANY circumstances? If it did, it would be the end of the road for the entire con and they can’t have that!
Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who states they are acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in collecting such local government taxes? I guess they are because it is Her Majesty the Queen who, by Royal Prerogative, makes the decision to fight illegal wars and while a massive portion of the country’s debt is used to fight these wars, Her Majesty wants it paid back.
Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who, if it came to it, would have Kenny McCaskill and Alex Salmond and then possibly even Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, support their corner to keep the con going while Clarke himself, is a criminal of the highest order against the Constitution (highest law of their making) and if Her Majesty doesn’t know this then Her Majesty is a twat!
If you are, then read the following:
First of all, definitions. These definitions, as you can tell if you read the link, are from a respected legal source so please, under no circumstances, suggest “theory”. It is getting old and worn out.
About In Brief
What is In Brief
In Brief is a growing legal resource providing information on the laws of England and Wales. It contains articles on a variety of legal issues, written in layman’s terms by ourteam of writers. They have extensive legal knowledge and experience in their particular area of the law and provide high quality information on the topics we cover.
In Brief aims to be the largest source of legal material of its kind anywhere on the Internet. A site devoted to informing the public about laws relevant to them and providing people with an encyclopaedia of articles onEnglish law.
Only legal ‘persons’ can become liable or pursue an action under the law.
Types of legal person
- A natural person i.e. a human being
- An artificial person i.e. a corporation
Need I say more on the fact that a NATURAL PERSON is a legal term under the umbrella definition of a LEGAL PERSON?
No, I thought not. Thank you!
Ok, now we have that out of the way, let’s consider a Judge or Magistrate’s position and WHO HE/SHE WORKS FOR!
Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, are unpaid trained members of their local community.
Virtually all criminal court cases start in a magistrates’ court, and more than 90 per cent will be completed there.
The more serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in a magistrates’ court, or for full trial with a judge and jury.
Magistrates deal with three kinds of cases:
- Summary offences. These are less serious cases, such as motoring offences and minor assaults, where the defendant is not usually entitled to trial by jury. They are generally disposed of in magistrates’ courts.
- Either-way offences. As the name implies, these can be dealt with either by magistrates or before a judge and jury at the Crown Court. Such offences include theft and handling stolen goods. A defendant can insist on their right to trial in the Crown Court. Magistrates can also decide that a case is so serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown Court – which can impose tougher sentences if the defendant is found guilty.
- Indictable-only offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. These must be heard at a Crown Court.
If the case is indictable-only, the magistrates’ court will generally decide whether to grant bail, consider other legal issues such as reporting restrictions, and then pass the case on to the Crown Court.
If the case is to be dealt within a magistrates’ court, the defendant(s) are asked to enter a plea. If they plead guilty or are later found to be guilty, the magistrates can impose a sentence, generally of up to six months’ imprisonment for a single offence (12 months in total), or a fine, generally of up to £5,000. If found not guilty (‘acquitted’), defendants are judged innocent in the eyes of the law and will be free to go – provided there are no other cases against them outstanding.
Cases are either heard by two or three magistrates or by one district judge.
Who are magistrates?
Justices of the Peace, as they are also known, are local people who volunteer their services. They do not require formal legal qualifications, but will have undertaken a training programme, including court and prison visits, to develop the necessary skills. They are given legal and procedural advice by qualified clerks.
District judges are legally qualified, paid, full-time professionals and are usually based in the larger cities. They normally hear the more complex or sensitive cases.
There are approximately 30,000 magistrates, 140 district judges and 170 deputy district judges operating in the roughly 330 magistrates’ courts throughout England and Wales.
Because magistrates do not need to have legal qualifications, they are advised in court on matters of law, practice and procedure. This advice is provided by Justices’ Clerks and Assistant Justices’ Clerks.
Magistrates in the criminal court
Over 95 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ court.
Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases including motoring offences, commit to higher courts serious cases such as rape and murder, consider bail applications, deal with fine enforcement and grant search warrant and right of entry applications. They may also consider cases where people have not paid their council tax, their vehicle excise licence or TV licences.
All magistrates sit in adult criminal courts as panels of three, mixed in gender, age, ethnicity etc whenever possible to bring a broad experience of life to the bench. All three have equal decision-making powers but only one, the chairman will speak in court and preside over the proceedings. The two magistrates sitting either side are referred to as wingers.
Most of the cases are brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but there are other prosecution agencies such as RSPCA, Environment Agency, Department of Work and Pensions, English Nature etc.
Where a defendant pleads not guilty a trial will be held where the magistrates listen to, and sometimes see, evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence, decide on agreed facts and facts in dispute and consider whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Having found someone guilty or when someone has pleaded, the magistrates proceed to sentence using a structured decision making process and sentencing guidelines which set out the expected penalty for typical offences. They will also take note of case law and any practice directions from the higher courts and are advised in court by a legally qualified adviser.
For a single criminal offence committed by an adult, a magistrate’s sentencing powers include the imposition of fines, Community Payback orders, probation orders or a period of not more than six months in custody (a total of 12 months for multiple offences). Magistrates may also sit in the Crown Court with a judge to hear appeals from magistrates’ courts against conviction or sentence and proceedings on committal to the Crown Court for sentence.
So, let’s just face the indisputable fact that, while the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) brings a case before the court – and, in the case of a non payment of Council Tax in Scotland, it will be a Sheriff Officer who states they are authorised by Her Majesty – the Magistrate (or Judge) WORKS for the SAME CROWN! Meanwhile the prosecuting lawyer is a member of the Bar and if ANY lawyer or solicitor does NOT operate within the rules and procedures dictated by the Crown THEY WILL BE DISBARRED!
So, you have an “unholy trinity” facing you which, under no circumstances, will allow natural law (or even their OWN law) to interfere with their judgement upon you. You start to attack the fundamental basis of law and even their own stated law and they will simply refuse to listen and, worse, may imprison you for having the audacity (and intelligence) to destroy their mind game. You will be held in “Contempt of court” which simply means you are QUESTIONING them!
The Judge and the Crown state that one cannot be offered a fair hearing or trial if there is any other party in the proceedings who has a conflict of interest! Do you see a conflict of interest here? The entire set up is a conflict of interest!
Now, if you do not recognise a coercive mafia and dictatorship before you then you are simply past help!
Ok, let’s move on:
Here we have a “Charge for payment of Money”
Let’s go through this stage by stage:
1. Applicant: City of Edinburgh Council.
What do they want? Well, for over 2 years they have wanted my payment of Council Tax. Simple.
Why do they want it? Because that’s the “law” and “everyone has to pay the local government for services rendered – Police (joke), Roads (joke), Libraries, schools, Fire services, Rubbish collection, Trams (BIG joke!), Climate change initiatives (MASSIVE joke!), payment of Council workers PENSIONS, etc etc…..
2. Against: Me! Why? Because I made it clear that I refused to pay a tax to any UK government body because:
a) the UK government have broken their own laws and are committing treason in taking this country into the EU (fact – look up the Bill of rights which they continue to use when it is advantageous to them to do so). It states “No foreign STATES”. What is Brussels? So Her Majestic one (whether by a gun to her head or not) has sold this country out. She is not “ruling” (and neither is her government) by the law of her realm (unless she now sees the EU as her realm?). She has broken the Monarch’s oath and her Ministers have allowed her to do so.
b) If I assume the part of “subject” then the above kicks in. If I do not (and I don’t because I am subject to no-one and if the UK government wish to use force by way of their Domestic terrorist unit, aka Police, then let them show their hand to the entire country in an open court of law with a jury who happen to have logical intelligence) then I do not assume the capacity of a “legal person” whose “benefits” were COERCIVELY conferred upon me at birth when I had neither capacity nor capability to make my own decision as to whether I would accept such a role.
c) The British government have committed warcrimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and have been found, on numerous occasions, to have lied to the British people. This is fact and it is proven. Meanwhile, the overall national debt (which is entirely unnecessary to have at all) is used, in great part, to fund such illegal wars.
d) The local governments are nothing more nor nothing less than coercive tax collectors. Meanwhile each individual taxpayer pays income tax, road tax, VAT and the list goes on. ALL of it misused and abused from kickbacks to Councillors and their favourite European or British corporation who then charge extortionate amounts for a tram system that screws up the entire city of Edinburgh, to a complete and utter con called “Climate change” pushed by the United Nations “Agenda 21″ and the Club of Rome whose agenda is to push people into cities, allow the buying up of the countryside by corporations and why? For their own kickbacks.
e) Ken Clarke – Lord Chancellor. Working for Bilderberg and the very same crew who control the UN, Club of Rome and the system of banking who paid off Tony Blair handsomely because he did exactly as he was told. He worked for the bankers and not the people. Ken Clarke and the crew are all on the inside track and write legislation for the banking crew while they also benefit from it because they are then privy to the future impact analysis of that legislation and are even told what to invest in. You CANNOT get any more corrupt than that. It is legalised insider trading!
3. Summary warrant: Simply means that I get no hearing (neither do you). They are not interested in one “legal person’s” defence nor reasoning against the actions of another “legal person”. What happened to “All PERSONS are equal before the law”? They don’t want and can’t have or allow you to speak before a court and jury to state your case because then they would collapse. One must remember that the court, as well as the Council and the BUSINESS (corporation) known as “Scott & Co” are ALL “legal persons” as are you. BUT, these legal persons work together whereas we, as 60+ million “legal persons” do not. This tight knit little “mafia” want their money because the system, set up by the legislative of the UK tells them it is all necessary while that same legislative in either Holyrood or Westminster (it matters not) are ALL on the take from the banking community (or the City of London and the Crown). Bear in mind that the Crown is ALSO a legal person (legal fiction) yet it is one legal person dictating to another legal person (you). Now HOW does that work? Anyhow, a summary warrant is just that - the disallowance by the state (who say they are there for your protection – haha) of allowing you to expose them for what they are. Criminals and their own legalised mafia.
4. Local Government Finance Act 1992: A statute (not a law) applied to you because the vast vast majority of the population are entirely ignorant and just go along with it all. Democracy is a wonderful thing for the authoritarian government. Use the majority’s ignorance to keep the minority in line. And the majority equate democracy with freedom! Effectively, then, they build their own prison. “I’m not interested in politics” says Joe, “it’s boring”. “Oh good”, says Cameron and his ilk, “we can turn the screws ever more tighter then”.
And that is precisely what they’re doing! The bankers will reward them the more they screw you. It’s that simple! You stay ignorant and enjoy it however!
5. Walter McGill (Capacity: Sheriff Officer) – Poor Walter (can I call you Wally?). Just doing his job because that’s what he’s paid to do. He doesn’t have a clue about any of this and doesn’t want to. He just wants to get his job done and fcuk anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told by these legal persons who seem to be more important legal persons (even though they are artificial legal constructs) than the natural person. The artificial legal person is given precedence in law over the living, breathing natural person. Wally’s just a robot. Perhaps he’s good at making tea too!
And ALL in her majesty’s name! A woman of flesh and blood who has been crowned as the office holder (only a CEO in effect) of Monarch. A TOTAL legal fiction
But wait….. How very strange! Read the following:
Disqualification of sheriffs principal and sheriffs.
(1)A sheriff principal to whom this subsection applies, or a sheriff, shall not, so long as he holds office as such—
(a)engage, whether directly or indirectly, in any private practice or business, or be in partnership with or employed by, or act as agent for, any person so engaged; . . . F6
3)The sheriff principal of any sheriffdom, not being either a sheriff principal who is restricted by the terms of his appointment from engaging in private practice or a sheriff principal to whom subsection (1) above applies, shall not, so long as he holds office as such, advise, or act as an advocate in any court, in any cause civil or criminal arising within or coming from that sheriffdom.
Now let’s just take another look at “Scott & Co” shall we? The name says it all of course but just for further clarification:
AN INTRODUCTION TO YOUR PARTNERS IN COLLECTION
Scott & Company is a professional partnership with a strong reputation for service delivery and excellent performance. This reputation has been built on the back of an unrivalled blend of centralised and decentralised services and a total commitment to quality management.
Our services are provided UK wide and are managed totally in-house. We enjoy a particularly dominant position in the enforcement, recovery and investigations marketplace in Scotland.
Our business continues to expand through service excellence, reputation management and key acquisitions.
How nice David. Do you get paid well for being as coercive as you possibly can? How much do you buy the debt for? Or alternatively, how much commission do you get paid for squeezing that money out of people? Your “business”? Ah so you even admit it is a business. Well that’s good and honest of you David but tell me? Two things:
1. If you didn’t provide such good service and delivery (in terms of coercion) then your business wouldn’t make much of a profit would it? When are you going to be provided with firearms David? Anytime soon? Or do you expect to just keep using the Domestic terrorist unit (aka Police) to ensure you apply that pressure to people?
2. What does it say above David re the disqualification of Sheriffs? Read slowly David: Part (a) David. Yes read again David. Now read your intro David: “Partners in collection” and your company is a private practice/business YET you actually state that you are Sheriffs? HOW does that work David?
And yet, it will be totally ignored David won’t it? You break the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act just by existing in the form you do and you work on more coercion means more profit yet you get away with it. If I were to walk into court and show this to a judge, your little mafia would kick into gear and the freemason judge would have me banged up for contempt. Nice little club you have going there David!
The Scott & Co Group provides consumer and commercial debt recovery services to a range of public sector and prominent private sector organisations operating in the retail, utility, financial services and other sectors.
We provide a fully comprehensive service encompassing pre-litigation recoveries utilising our sophisticated contact management processes and field resources, litigation and enforcement, and door collection services.
We manage the litigation and enforcement requirements of our clients in-house.
Our services are provided throughout the UK from our network of 14 offices. Although we engage sophisticated volume debt management processes, we strive to provide a personalised service to our clients and their customers.
We are members of the Credit Services Association, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, the Institute of Directors and the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers.
Ah! The “Society” of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers while providing a personalised service to to your CLIENTS and their CUSTOMERS. It’s a nice business David when you have a corrupt government behind you isn’t it? So the Crown makes the rules, the Crown wants payment, the Crown uses you (while you profit) to enforce that payment. When you can’t because people like me ignore “you” as a legal person (Scott & Co) it pisses you off. You run off to the Sheriff Court (oh but wait, you ARE the Sheriff!) and get a summary warrant which you then state is “In her majestic one’s name and authority” (another legal person and fiction) and boy she wants paid doesn’t she? So she has created, by way of her government, a quasi government/corporate state to ensure the Crown gets what it wants (that’s called FASCISM David! Are you a fascist David? Looks like it from where I’m standing). I guess wee Alec is entirely in tune with it all to right? After all, he loves Her Majesty and also he loves the Windpower off the coast all based upon that con called “Climate Change” which will end up imposing further Carbon tax Europe wide and wee Alex is a Europhile because, by getting out of the political union with England and Wales gives him the title of PM of Scotland – an EU Fiefdom!
But you don’t mind being a PERSON David do you? You don’t mind the PERSON in the form of the artificial company of whatever type, having precedence in law over you! You don’t mind the Climate con ramping up costs of living/fuel and the tax applied to petrol and the price going through the roof while the old woman starves or freezes to death in her poorly maintained home in the centre of 21st century Glasgow or Dundee or Edinburgh? Nah David, you don’t give a FUCK because it isn’t going to affect you is it? Why? Because you have the “law” behind you while you make ever increasing profits out of others misery and you personally make a rather decent salary out of it all which, itself, will increase exponentially as this police state ramps up! Were you a leech in a previous life David?
Meanwhile David, you will presume of me that I am some sort of benefit sucking hippy right?
Let me make this clear David. I am speaking to the LEGAL PERSON (an artificial construct) by the name of Scott & Co here: YOU ARE A FUCKING CORRUPT CRIMINAL!
So then back to the “Law” for a moment:
The “law “IS an ass but let’s just consider what even it says shall we?
A basic principle: It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua
And BOY do you have an interest!
While, as we can see with all of these Corporate persons given precedence over the natural person, we do not live under natural law any longer and have not for a very long time. So just as we have artificial persons calling the shots (in league with the legal person known as the Crown – and we don’t even know who or what the Crown is while it prosecutes us), we have UNNATURAL JUSTICE (which isn’t justice at all in any form or fashion) jailing people for non crimes! ALL good for business though when the jails (thanks again to Kennyboy Clarke) are all being privatised! Funny that isn’t it? Can you imagine a private business running a jail with no inmates? Not very profitable now is it?
[No, we do NOT know who the Crown is:
Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.
While, as you will readily see from this statement by Tony Blair (just before he became the lying scum Tony Bliar), something smells with the National Grid:
HC Deb 14 February 1995 vol 254 cc792-6 …
Mr. Blair Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?
§The Prime Minister I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.
And do you know why there is such a monopoly while you believe you actually have a choice in suppliers? Because those "suppliers" are licensed to BILL you while the natural resources of the UK are exported and our needs imported to a great extent. And why? Because globalisation is the game and it is far more profitable to the Crown when the Crown owns and controls every last aspect of fuel and minerals and the seabed from whence they came. They then licence out the seabed (for example £64,000 per year in perpetuity for a single fibre optic cable lying on the seabed. For nothing. ZERO. NADA. Now think about the offshore wind farms, the turbines themselves and the cables laid from each turbine to the national grid which, when once laid, the investment is sunk - literally in this case. Yet the Crown charges £thousands per cable and per turbine just for sitting there in perpetuity. Add to this new knowledge you may have that Petroleum is vested in Her Majesty and that each and every Oil company who had and has wanted to be licensed has paid approximately 12.5% of the value of ALL oil pumped to the Crown because the Crown owns the mineral rights! THEN wonder at the cost of your petrol! Look it up, it's all found in this blog.]
Now here’s an interesting story from Canada where the Crown is also enforcing its “law”. The problem is that the couple got it wrong while, even if they got it right, the Crown would STILL screw them!
“The couple maintains that, with proper interpretation of the law and proper arrangement of your business affairs, you can legally receive income as a “natural person” rather than a taxpayer, and thereby avoid income taxes.”
So where did they fundamentally go wrong? They stated they were “natural persons”. By doing so they applied a legal term to themselves and, as such, accepted the idea that they were legal persons and, as we all know, legal persons are subject to legality. They accepted the designation “natural person” thereby accepting the designation “legal person” which is imposed upon a human being by a state through the registration of birth process where one accepts (although one is too young to possibly do so AND, further, the full disclosure by the state of what it means – an abridging of your entire natural body of rights to that which the state says you have plus a legal enforcement of duties upon you – was never provided to you or your parents) that one is subject to another legal person’s rules.
I have already painstakingly, demonstrated in other blogposts the fact that YOU are a legal person and the State is a legal person as well as the Crown, the UK and the EU. The ONLY non artificial legal person with a will of its own is YOU. This is what the artificial legal person DOES NOT wish you to understand because, if you do, it is the end of the road for these corrupt bastards. In THEIR OWN LAW, ALL “persons” are equal before it!
However, to all of you Monarchists out there (such as Mr Albert Burgess) you accept the immunity from such law by a Queen and her lackeys because of some form of mental delusion which makes you bow at another’s feet! You’re PATHETIC in that regard.
But, after all this above guess what? I’m going to pay you! You know why? Because you’d get away with daylight robbery anyhow while sequestrating me (declaring me bankrupt which me, as a human living being would not be but my “legal person” would be). And that’s how you do it you bunch of fuckers. That bankruptcy would allow me no loans, no credit, I wouldn’t be able to buy a house even though I have a huge deposit for one. I would probably never get a job. So what you do is you make life fucking difficult for those you “conferred the benefits” of citizenship (or subjection) to. And I don’t intend to be a martyr when I recognise the ignorance and idiocy of the majority of the country who would just bay for my blood! You win you corrupt bastards!
THE SAD PART BEING THAT THE IGNORANT MASS OF POPULATION OF THIS COUNTRY WILL SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR CORRUPTION BECAUSE THEY WILL SAY “IF I HAVE TO PAY IT YOU HAVE TO PAY IT” WHILE THEY DON’T RECOGNISE THE REALITY THAT IF THEY SUPPORTED OTHERS THEY WOULD BE SUPPORTING THEMSELVES.
DEMOCRACY IS GREAT ISN’T IT? IF I WERE A DICTATOR THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT. DEMOCRACY: MAJORITY RULE AND THE MAJORITY IGNORANT. PLAY THE “DIVISION GAME” AND YOU CAN FCUK THEM ALL UP THE ASS AS MUCH AS YOU WANT AND THEY WILL NEVER LET THE PENNY DROP!
An open letter to any and all Lawyers, Barristers, Judges who dare reply and debate this issue which destroys the mindgame you have played a part in over centuries.
Please, be my guest and attempt to make an argument against the following. I look forward to it.
The following totally destroys the Judge, the politician, the Law enforcer, the magistrate, the establishment figure, the media whore who laughs at the subject and the man or woman who simply refuses to believe what is the fact: The fact is that the State and the United Nations, the European Union – in fact ANY and ALL “nations” and constructed legal personality (legal fiction) can have absolutely no authority over a natural person under any circumstances UNLESS that “legal person” is acting as dictator and effectively destroys the widely held belief that we are all equal before the law. The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.
So let’s start with the INSTITUTIONS:
The European Union
The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union takes the view that while it is bound by the European Convention it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. As seen in Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union is bound to respect fundamental rights principles. This means that the institutions of the European Union must not violate human rights, as defined by European Union law, and also that the Member States of the European Union must not violate European Union human rights principles when they implement Union legislation or act pursuant to Union law. This obligation is in addition to the Member States’ pre-existing obligations to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in everything they do. In practice, this means that the Court of Justice weaves the Convention principles throughout its reasoning. For example, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights’ did not have jurisdiction to rule on case brought against the EU. However, the EcHR has been prepared to hold EU member states liable for human rights’ violations committed within their jurisdictions, even when they were just complying with a mandatory provision of EU law.
Please recognise what this is, in fact stating: While the EU creates and demands that its laws are implemented in the member states (for example the UK), the EU, itself, is not bound by the ECHR – it is immune! So the EU may create laws which fundamentally violate Human Rights. While they create the law and the member states MUST implement them, if the member states then are found in violation of one’s human rights, it is the member states who are attacked for doing so. Yet, the member states are put in a position by the immune EU to implement the law! Make NO mistake, this is like a mafia boss telling one of his minions to murder someone because that is his ruling (and the minion does not question the Don now does he?) – that is the “law”. So the minion goes ahead and murders and the legal profession come along and prosecute the minion while leaving the Don immune for making the order. Similarly, it is precisely the issue which was deliberated upon during the Nuremburg Trials. The question was: Were those who carried out the orders of their government (Hitler), guilty of warcrimes? However……
Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.
Now remember this: The EU has attained a legal personality. It is recognised by law as existing and, as such, can enter treaties (which are simply contracts). The EU is now a LEGAL PERSON. A Judge can now “see” the EU because it now exists as a legal person whereas, before, a Judge could not “see” the EU because it did not legally exist!
Now, how did the EU gain its legal existence?
Well, like any other Corporation and Nation:
On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular it changed the legal structure of the European Union, merging the EU three pillars system into a single legal entity provisioned with legal personality. The EU is based on a series of treaties. These first established the European Community and the EU, and then made amendments to those founding treaties.These are power-giving treaties which set broad policy goals and establish institutions with the necessary legal powers to implement those goals. These legal powers include the ability to enact legislation which can directly affect all member states and their inhabitants. The EU has legal personality, with the right to sign agreements and international treaties. Under the principle of supremacy, national courts are required to enforce the treaties that their member states have ratified, and thus the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore conflicting national law, and (within limits) even constitutional provisions The European Council uses its leadership role to sort out disputes between member states and the institutions, and to resolve political crises and disagreements over controversial issues and policies. It acts externally as a “collective Head of State” and ratifies important documents (for example, international agreements and treaties). On 19 November 2009, Herman Van Rompuy was chosen as the first permanent President of the European Council. On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and he assumed office. Ensuring the external representation of the EU, driving consensus and settling divergences among members are tasks for the President.
Sovereign states are legal persons. A sovereign state, or simply, state, is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. The word “country” is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region. Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The UN Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.
In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign:
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.
Note “ying and yang”: They could not be part of the International community. The corollary of which was that recognised nations could break the law in their dealings with them! Incredible isn’t it? While, if that unrecognised country were to break international law (as was its “right” because it was not recognised as existing and the international community could break the law toward it) you can be sure that the international community would demonise it as a “rogue state” all simply due to the fact that the international community would not recognise its sovereignty! I think it’s called the international community taking advantage of a vicious circle!
In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:
…International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.
By contrast, the “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states, but doesn’t have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them).
People may sometimes refer to “the will of the international community” to strengthen their own point of view or the opposite expression “the international community is divided” to explain a consensus has not yet been reached. In diplomacy and debate a case that includes this statement could be a sentiment of majoritarianism and a description of options to take action for the benefit of all countries. It is occasionally asserted that powerful countries and groups of countries use the term to describe organisations in which they play a predominant role, that might be interpreted as indifference toward other nations. The enactment of conflict or war may be claimed as an action of the “international community” by a superpower or coalition that could represent under half or less of the world’s population.
Ain’t that the truth!
An example of the term used by some western leaders is when denouncing Iran, for its nuclear ambitions of suspected nuclear proliferation, by stating that “Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment“. The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, has endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.
Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract argued, “the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government,” with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being of wonder” (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law” (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, “there is no law without a sovereign.“
The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.
De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty. It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition. Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority?
Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). So, an interesting point here to raise in the case of legitimacy in the UK, for example: From where does the UK government and Monarch derive their legitimacy? Do they DARE state they derive it from the “Divine Right of Kings”? Do they DARE? I don’t think so do you?
External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdomuses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;
|“||“Sovereignty.” A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state.||”|
— (The Arantzazu Mendi,  A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary
External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another’s territory permissible? According to existing International law, as preached (but not practiced) by the International community through the U.N., the answer to this question is NEVER. Every last war “declared” by the west, therefore, is in breach of International law. Period!
Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that “those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it,” should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation’s State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations. In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order). Corporations are by definition legal persons. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, such as The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.
Now, please fully appreciate that the above has just stated absolutely clearly and factually that these institutions AND the Crown itself are no more nor less than Legal Persons in their own right. As such, they are, by definition within this legal “matrix” we are all subject to, EQUAL to each and every “Natural Person” (i.e. you and I) on this earth. Again, any judge or any state prosecutor could NOT argue differently. This is simply legal (LEGAL) fact – legal fact that these institutions are LEGAL FICTIONS!
The Juristic Person.I
Author(s): George F. Deiser
Source: University of Pennsylvania LawReview and American Law Register, Vol. 57, No. 3,Volume 48 New Series (Dec., 1908), pp. 131-142
Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review
The law has been playing with such a fiction for centuries, in the course of which, the fiction, instead of disappearing, as it so conveniently does for the mathematician, has increased in girth and height, and has maintained its ghostly existence, in the face of the anathema of the philosopher and the fiat of the judicial decree. In an evil day the law, like the hospitable Arab, who permitted his camel to shelter his head within the domestic tent, gave shelter to an imaginary person-the persona ficta,-then an infant, seemingly of little promise and of precarious tenure of life. The most uninformed mind has an idea of capacities, and can even follow the ramifications by which a man by marrying his first cousin, loses some of his second cousins, or becomes second cousin to his own children, but the separation of individual wills from collective wills is a task which even the academic mind has but unsatisfactorily accomplished. Person, collective property-persona ficta-the name is very nearly matter of indifference so long as we understand by it an existence distinct from the members that compose it; for, be it understood, one may be a member of this corporate body and yet deal with it-may sell to it-buy from it,-in fact, maintain business relations with it, precisely as he does with any other natural person. The matter begins with dogma; men, in law and in philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply that there are also persons of another sort. And that is a fact.
Men/Women are “Natural persons” in law because a “Natural person” is, and only is, a LEGAL DEFINITION used to differentiate from a “legal person” (or “Corporate person”)
It was said by an eminent authority that when a body of twenty, or two thousand, or two hundred thousand men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body, which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted. Now the state is a body of this kind, and beginning with the state and coming down by successive gradations, we encounter by the way, the subordinate state, which, if autonomous, is the next body of this sort, the self governing county, district, or department; finally the municipal corporations such as cities, boroughs or townships. We have very little difficulty in recognizing that when the state acts, it is a different matter from the action of any member or citizen of the state. If the state owe money, it is not owing by the citizens; nor if half the citizens emigrated would anyone think of following them to collect from each, his proportion of the debt. It is not a conception that the rationalistic mind finds easy.
No? Then WHY ON EARTH has the world’s population “rationalised” the idea of bailing out Privately held banks on the demand of the State? I would like to ask each and every individual who have just shrugged their shoulders and considered it ok exactly what the hell they are thinking of? Anyhow, that is an aside on the subject of this blog.
The conception of the persona ficta is an inheritance from the Roman Law, developed and expanded by the ecclesiastical lawyers of the Middle Ages, and bestowed on modem legal thought by Savigny. Real men are united to form a fictitious being; a fiction which holds property. It has necessarily, no natural rights. The theory hence, has no regard for members; nor can the persona ficta exist except by virtue of some creative act of the state. The Juristic Person.-A right is inconceivable without corresponding relations between some individual and the community to which he is subject. If we find a right, such as that of ownership, in existence, we must discover a subject for that right. If the right attaches to a human being, he is the subject; if it attaches to a name used to designate the collective will of a group of men, the name or collective will is the subject. By advanced abstractions, by reasoning a priori, jurists have reached the conclusion, that in relation to the quality of being a subject of law, the individual, and the group of individuals as such, occupy a like position. Personality is considered therefore, an attribute not only of men, but of groups of men, acting as a unit for the attainment of a common end. The term juristic person is simply the legal expression for this fact, that above the individual or specific human existence there stands generic human existence. In other words, when we encounter the problem of defining, interpreting, explaining, the actions of human beings in groups, as such, as contrasted with the action of any members of the group as individuals, the group stands for genus, and the individual stands for species. The collective will of a group of men so acting and holding property, when recognized as a subject of law, or as having legal subjectivity, or more plainly, when recognized as capable of holding definite legal rights, is no more a fiction than is the personality of any human being. This juristic person, or collective will of the group, is not a creation of the law; the law does not create its personality, but finding a group engaged in some common pursuit, endows it with a definite legal capacity. It is capable of exercising rights, capable of committing wrongs; the former, it may vindicate; the latter it must atone for. It may seem a far cry from the question of the legality of a fine imposed upon a corporation in an amount greater than that of its capital stock, to the apparently academic discussion of its personality or non-personality, yet they are in fact so intimately related that our legal system cannot ignore the relation without affecting its stability. If men as individuals can do acts that require intent, and men acting in groups cannot, the community must restrict the activity of men in groups. For the actions of groups of men, collective actions, there is no reason, no justification, no authority but that of might. Beginning with the state, and proceeding downward to private corporations, control proceeds from the power of the strong over the weak.
“Human groups,” says Duguit, in his dramatic way is
based upon community of needs, upon diversity of individual aptitudes, upon the reciprocity of services rendered; in these human groups, some individuals stronger than others, whether because they are better armed, or because we recognize in them some supernatural power; whether because they are richer, or because they are more numerous, and who, thanks to this superior power, can impose their will on others; these are the facts. Let us call the state a human group, settled upon a definite territory, where the stronger compel obedience of the weaker, and we are agreed. Call political sovereignty that power which the stronger exert over the weaker, there is no controversy. Proceed beyond this and we enter the realm of hypothesis. To say that this will of those who rule is only imposed upon individuals because it is the collective will, is a fiction conceived to justify the power of the strong-a fiction, ingenious enough, invented by the prophets of force to legitimate force, but for nothing else.” Returning for a moment to the state, which is everywhere recognized as a person, it has been observed truly, that the feeling that even the state is a very unreal person, may not readily be dispelled.14 But the difficulty is purely subjective; the existence of personality apart from a body is insufficiently concrete. Yet the notions of ownership, or of in-corporeal rights are equally esoteric. And if personality offer a solution, the difficulty of the conception ought not to stand in the way. If now, we attempt to define our problem we shall find the facts to be these. Corporations, under existing legal systems, for judicial or legislative purposes are regarded in two ways: I. The corporation is a fictitious person or entity (as in England and the United States). II. The corporation is a real person (as in Germany, France, Spain, and some other continental countries). The problems arising under both of these attitudes are these: A. Does the corporation as a group or unit possess rights and owe duties ? B. Has the corporation as a group or unit criminal or moral responsibility? C. What is the nature of the shareholders’ interest? If again, we examine the nature of corporate existence with reference to proffered solutions, we shall find again, that the corporation is a fictitious person, or a real person, or a form of co-ownership, or a form of agency or action by representation. It remains to consider these views with reference to the extent to which they resolve the problem.
George F. Deiser. 3313312.pdf
The following is from: 0njp9-concept-legal-personality-english-law.html
The idea that a husband could not rape a wife comes down through the ages from the ancient belief that a wife was her husband’s property. The legal principle that a woman was a separate being from her husband was not established until 1882 in England by the Married Women’s Property Act – see Married_Women\’s_Property_Act
Where a party changes their gender, or wishes to change their gender, UK law has gone through a transformation. Once a gender change, although medically possible, did not alter the realities of the gender at birth for a person. That changed, as the UK began to grant rights to transexuals (recognising them as PERSONS).
By providing transexuals these rights, the UK has granted them standing to be treated as persons whose rights must be respected and who have valid claims to make against those who refuse to respect their rights to life, liberty, property, and their names. Legal personality determines and establishes the patterns which help determine the rights, duties, and powers of persons. Minority groups, be they minorities due to age, gender, religion, or other classifications, are not able to control their own destinies until the law recognizes them as having the right to exist and make demands on others.
The above crystallises the facts: ONE IS NOT A “PERSON” until the legal world recognises them as such. The transexual, although in reality a living and breathing being, was not a “person” until the legal system said so! This is crystal clear and there is no way whatsoever that the legal system can argue that YOU exist and are recognised within the legal system by the sheer fact that you literally exist. The transexual literally exists but, only recently, did they exist from a legal standpoint as a PERSON.
What the constitution says: The EU will for the first time have a “legal personality” and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: “The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” What it means: This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails. By having a “legal personality”, the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.
Now, here, one must recognise that the ONLY reason the EU law has primacy over, for example, UK law is because when the member states agree to the treaties, the entire idea of the treaties is to give the EU that power. There is no other reason. Any and all member states were and are SOVEREIGN nations and have the right to enter treaties OR remove themselves.
2950276.stm It gives the EU a legal personality – like a country, not an international organisation. This argument seems to rest on the assumption that international organisations do not have a legal personality. But most do. It also glosses over the fact that the European Community – which still exists on paper as a legally separate entity from the EU – already has a legal personality. (Whether the EU already has a legal personality is a matter of dispute.) But could the EU, if it acquired a single legal personality, end up joining international organisations or signing international treaties instead ofmember states? This has not been the practice up to now. Both the European Community and the EU have been signing treaties for years, and the European Community is a member of the World Trade Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Hague Conference. This has not prevented member states from signing the same treaties and joining the same organisations. (This, as you can read in the link, is now old news but gives the reader a better understanding of things it is hoped).
A declaration to be added to the new treaty underlines that acquiring a legal personality will not authorise the EU to act “beyond the competences conferred on it by member states”. Declarations are a statement of political intent. They are not legally binding but the European Court of Justice does take them into account in its judgements. 6928737.stm
Now, let’s consider another element of “legal personality” and the ideology surrounding that of immunity of diplomats, heads of state and their “capacity” bestowed upon them by the “law”. The reader will, it is hoped, recognise how this entire legal system is corrupt from the very top to bottom to protect the interests of those who implement it.
The reason the Pope cannot be arrested and prosecuted in the UK is because he is entitled to Head of State immunity. Dawkins and Hitchens are not unaware of this problem. Apparently they have enlisted Geoffrey Robertson QC to provide an opinion stating that the pope is not a head of State and therefore not entitled to head of State immunity. Robertson elaborates on this point in a recent article in the Guardian. Robertson argues that the Pope is not entitled head of State immunity as a matter of international law because the Vatican is not a State. His arguments are simply incorrect. The Vatican has a tiny territory and a tiny population but it does fulfill the criteria for Statehood. As James Crawford puts it, in his authoritative work The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed, 2006), p. 225, after detailed analysis: “it is clear that the Vatican City is a State in international law, despite its size and special circumstances.” The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood. What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935). The Vatican as a territorial entity does have a government: the Holy See which is headed by the Pope. As Crawford’s analysis makes clear, the Holy See has its own independent legal personality (about which more later on) and that personality predates the Statehood of the Vatican. However, the Holy See is also the government of the Vatican City State. More imporantly, the Vatican is independent of any other State. Its independence from Italy which is the State that could have had claims to control that territory is recognised in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. So, since the Vatican is a State then the head of that State, the Pope, is entitled to head of State immunity under international law. This immunity is recognised by Section 20 of the UK’s State Immunity Act which extends to “a sovereign or other head of State”, the same immunities accorded to diplomats. These immunities are absolute in the case of criminal proceedings. In other words there are no exceptions to the immunity. The International Court of Justice’s decision in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) 2002 confirms that this type of immunity continues to apply even when it is alleged that the head of State has committed international crimes. So an allegation that the Pope may be responsible for crimes against humanity will not suffice to defeat his immunity.
INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE!
It should be noted that the immunity of a head of State from criminal prosecution in foreign States is there for very good reasons. In the first place, those State agents charged with the conduct of international relations are given immunity in order to allow international relations and international cooperation to continue to take place. (So understand this well: The Head of State can rape, murder and much anything else but, so as to allow continued International cooperation, they can commit these crimes and walk away. Do you accept that? If you do and if the International community does then how can the International community possibly argue that the Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were legally justified? The Head of State is allowed to commit genocide and atrocities! Or is that only if they are OUR” accepted Heads of state? This is no joke folks. I sincerely wish it was!) Secondly, the immunity of foreign heads of States assures that just as States may not engage in regime change by armed force they may not achieve this end by criminal prosecutions either. It respects the fundamental autonomy of each State to determine who it is governed by.
So, again, one has to ask: What on earth was it that didn’t provide that assurance to Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein etc?
Even assuming that the Vatican were not a State under international law that does not mean that the Pope will not be granted immunity from criminal process in the UK. First of all, the UK courts in determining the question of immunity will not be asked to determine whether the Vatican is a State under international law. Under Section 21 of the State Immunity Act, the question whether the Vatican is a State is to be resolved, conclusively, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So as long as the Foreign Office is of the view that the Vatican is a State, the Courts are bound to accept that. The State Immunity Act aside, deference to the executive on matters of Statehood is in line with longstanding case law of the English Courts. It is almost certain that the Foreign Office will certify that the Vatican is a State, as the US executive did in a case against the Vatican in the US. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with the Holy See and has an Ambassador with the Holy See. It may be argued that this is not quite the same as recognising the Vatican as a State – and it isn’t. The embassy is to the Holy See and not to the Vatican. Nonetheless, as far as I know Britain has not objected in the past to the Vatican’s claims to be a State nor has it, as far as I know, opposed the Vatican’s accession to treaties that are only open to States. A second reason that the Pope will be entitled to immunity from criminal process in the UK even if the Vatican were not a State is because there is general acceptance of the international legal personality and in particular of the “sovereign” status of the Holy See. The relationship between the Vatican and the Holy See are complex. Crawford’s book referred to above, deals with this question very well. What is clear is that the Holy See as the central authority of the Catholic Church is not just the government of the Vatican. In addition, it has a special status in international law and has international legal personality which precedes the creation of the Vatican in 1929. What is important here is the nature of that international legal personality. Like the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, the Holy See is deemed to have a sovereign status akin to Statehood. This includes possession of the immunities that States are entitled to. It may be significant that Section 20 of the State Immunity Act provides immunity for “a sovereign or other head of State.” Does sovereign in that context allow for entities like the head of the Holy See, the Pope, even if he were not a head of State? It may be interpreted in this way and should be. It could be argued the word “other” in that provision, militates against this interpretation. However, even if S. 20 does not allow for the immunity of Head of the Holy See, that would not preclude the argument that customary international law does. can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal
The Crown in Contract and Administrative Law
An essential and neglected distinction between contract and administrative law is in how each conceives of the Crown as a juristic person. This article explores the extent of this distinction, and its implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers. It offers explanations—historical, jurisprudential and pragmatic—for why contract law conceives of the Crown as a corporation aggregate with the powers and liberties of a natural person, and why administrative law disaggregates the State into named officials.
The international legal system is the foundation for the conduct of international relations. It is this system that regulates state actions under international law. The principal subjects of international law are states, rather than individuals as they are under municipal law. The International Court of Justice acknowledged in the Reparation for Injuries case that types of international legal personality other than statehood could exist and that the past half century has seen a significant expansion of the subjects of international law. Apart from states, international legal personality is also possessed by international organisations and, in some circumstance, human beings. In addition, non-governmental organisations and national liberation movements have also been said to possess international legal personality. Since 1945 the international legal system has been dominated by the United Nations and the structures that were established as part of that organisation. While the UN has been the object of significant criticism, it has nevertheless played a pivotal role both in the progressive development and codification of international law. An international organization (or organisation) is an organizationwith an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types:
- International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs): non-governmental organizations(NGOs) that operate internationally. These may be either:
- International non-profit organizations. Examples include the International Olympic Committee, World Organization of the Scout Movement, International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières.
- International corporations, referred to as multinational corporations. Examples include The Coca-Cola Company, Sony, Nintendo, McDonalds, and Toyota.
- Intergovernmental organizations, also known as international governmental organisations (IGOs): the type of organization most closely associated with the term ‘international organization’, these are organizations that are made up primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states). Notable examples include the United Nations (UN), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Council of Europe (CoE), European Union (EU; which is a prime example of a supranational organization), European Patent Organization and World Trade Organization (WTO). The UN has used the term “intergovernmental organization” instead of “international organization” for clarity.
Ok, now what is the entire point of the foregoing? Well I hope it is obvious once you read it.
The Crown itself is a LEGAL PERSON. The UN is a LEGAL PERSON. The EU is a LEGAL PERSON. The State (Nation) is a LEGAL PERSON. And YOU and every other human being (within the subject of “the law”) are LEGAL PERSONS. The only differentiation which is made is that of States and Corporations etc being given the title of “legal person” and you being given the title of “Natural person” purely to differentiate the rights, duties etc apportioned to each of these “legal personality” types. BUT THEY ARE ALL LEGAL FICTIONS.
So what does this all mean?
Well it is SO easy:
You: “Your honour, are all persons equal before the law?”
Judge: “Yes indeed they are”.
You: “Can you please assure this court and those in attendance that there is no legal person – such as a Corporate – which has any authority over a natural person?”
Judge: “Indeed I can. As I said, all persons – legal or natural – are equal before the law. One would even have to go so far as to suggest that the natural person is of a higher importance since the natural person is of flesh and blood and endowed with god given rights whereas the Corporation or man made legal person has not”
You: “Then your honour, would I be correct in stating that I, as a natural person, have every right, subrogated to no-one, to enter or decline from entering a contract with another legal person? Or, if, under any and all circumstances, I am forced to do so, or by way of lack of full disclosure, I inadvertently enter into contract with such an entity, that I shall have the legal right to withdraw from any and all such contracts?”
Judge: “Well yes but that would be dependent upon certain points of law and if, for instance, you were compelled by law to enter into such”
You: “Please would your honour give me an example of such a possible case?”
Judge: “Where statute law may enforce such a contract for example”
You: “Statute law Sir? May I ask who or what imposes such statute law?”
Judge: “The State does and it is enforced by the Crown”
You: “Haven’t we just established that both, the State and the Crown, are LEGAL PERSONS and, as such, they are, at best, equal to myself before the law?”
Judge: “Shut up smart ass! Case dismissed”
Now, they can go down the route of stating “Supremacy of law” but just as a member state (a “person) of the EU must agree by treaty the supremacy of EU law over its own, the natural person must contract with the state to agree to the subrogation of his/her god given, inalienable, unalienable natural rights.
The court and the Crown and the state may ask “do you possess a birth certificate or passport or National Insurance number or any such state conferred document BUT the state gives one no choice in the matter of requiring these documents since the state will disallow all which requires such. It is, then, the state which coercively and deceptively removes the human rights and replaces them with “person” rights.
I rest my case and ALL cases your dishonour for, before I was given a “legal personality” I was neither competent nor would I have had any legal standing (obviously since I had no legal person and could not be “seen” – recognised BY the legal system ) to state I did not wish to contract with the state and subrogate such rights.
The legal system, then, is entirely fraudulent.
This guy Ben Lowry, isn’t someone I have spent much time listening to regarding his discussions on the “freeman” stuff but, having come across this video, I can only say that he has it 100% correct. The foregoing concludes that and, again, there is no lawyer or judge on this earth who could defend this.
As for Albert Burgess and his disdain for anything which he sees as running along the lines of “freeman” stuff, he’s even unwilling to read this. I have respect for Albert’s knowledge re the Constitution but I cannot, in all honesty, state that I have any respect for his absolute reluctance to acknowledge this for what it plainly is. His knowledge of the law should even have the effect of making him realise the reality of it yet he absolutely refuses to do so. Logic and facts ignored WILFULLY! It is impossible to respect wilful ignorance!
And it is that Albert which loses you your audience. Such a damned pity man! Your ideas of treason are absolutely right on the basis of the British Constitution being what it is but even the British Constitution is nothing more than legal fiction. Legal fiction, however, which has those in office who have meant to abide by it, breaking their own law. And the present MONARCH, Elizabeth and her motley clan, colluding with it.
cestui que trust n. (properly pronounced ses-tee kay, but lawyers popularly pronounce it setty kay) from old French. 1) an old fashioned expression for the beneficiary of a trust. 2) “the one who trusts” or the person who will benefit from the trust and will receive payments or a future distribution from the trust’s assets. (See: beneficiary)
CESTUI QUE TRUST, A barbarous phrase, to signify the beneficiary of an estate held in trust. He for whose benefit another person is enfeoffed or seised of land or tenements, or is possessed of personal property. The cestui que trust is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land; he may direct such conveyances, consistent with the trust, deed or will, as he shall choose, and the trustee (q.v.) is bound to execute them: he may defend his title in the name of the trustee. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4; vide Vin. Ab. Trust, U, W, X, and Y 1 Vern. 14; Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t.: 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 321, note 1; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.
// A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
COLONIAL SECURITIES—INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS.
§MR. ANDERSON(Elgin and Nairn) asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government have received communications from various Colonial Governments, urging them to consent to a provision permitting Trust Funds to be invested in certain Colonial securities; and, whether the Government intend to accede to the wishes of the Colonies on this point?
§THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)(St. George’s, Hanover Square) , in reply, said, representations had been made to the Government by various Colonial Governments on the subject; but he considered it was not so much a question for the Colonial Governments as one to be determined by the interest and safety of the cestui que trust. He would, however, see the Agents General of the Colonies in the course of the week on the subject.
ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
|Schedule of Beneficiaries.|
|Name and rank of husband, father, or decreased.||Name of Widow.||Amount of allowances or other relief.||Names of Children.||Dates of their births.||Amount of allowance.||Name of other Cestui-que-Trusts.|
Constitutional Reform Bill [H.L.]
It would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain a little matter. In Schedule 1(5) as it now stands, on page 43, there is a reference in French, which is very unusual in describing an Act of the British Parliament—the Cestui que Vie Act 1707. As a common lawyer, I find the following provision strange:
Any reference to the Lord Chancellor and keeper or commissioners for the custody of the great seal of Great Britain for the time being in section 1 of the Cestui que Vie Act 1707 is to be construed as a reference to a judge of the Chancery Division”. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say what that means and whether he intends to perpetuate it?
§Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot tell the noble Lord what it means. I am sure that it is extraordinarily sensible to transfer the Lord Chancellor’s function to a Chancery Division judge there. Cestui que Vie has some resonance with trust law but I cannot explain precisely how. I defend myself in being unable to explain it by the fact that none of my technical amendments relates to that paragraph. But I shall write to the noble Lord and explain why this—I agree, somewhat eccentric—provision appears.
AMENDMENT OF LAW.
§ 7. —”That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue.”
thought it would perhaps save time if he volunteered an explanation as far as he was able to give it. The Question arose under Section 21 of the Finance Act of 1896, and in order to understand the situation created by that section, he would remind the House that before Sir William Harcourt’s Finance Act of 1894, Mr. Goschen, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Finance Act of 1888 increased the succession duties by certain percentages. In 1889, the right hon. Gentleman went a step farther and proposed a further estate duty, the object of which was subsequently carried out by the Act of 1894.These proposals were carried out effectively by the Act of 1894, but the Act of 1896 made them permanent, and prevented overlapping of the two sets of duties. It provided that Goschen’s enhancement should not be levied in addition to the Harcourt enhancement. The whole object was that the value should be taken at the present value of the estate.
§*MR. COURTHOPE thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which, however, did not cover the point that he wished to raise. So far as he could gather from reading the Act of 1896, the result was that where a man had died setting up a trust by his will, the duty which was paid or payable on his death on the amount of his property which was the subject of that trust was to be deducted from the amount which was paid on the death of the cestui que trust.
New Clause.—(POWER TO MODIFY PROVISIONS AS TO DIVISION OF TRUST FUND.)
I want to express substantial agreement with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the last few minutes, although I hope that my constituents will not accept my hon. Friend’s precise description of Stock Exchange operations. I am not sure that I am a half-wit, or even a quarter-wit, but I have never met with any success in my limited excursions into the Stock Exchange. Therefore, I doubt whether my constituents will profit if they assume that they can operate there without any knowledge. Indeed, it is the exposition of explicit knowledge which is much more desirable in those operations.
I want to speak briefly, because I do not desire to obstruct the Bill in any way. I know that sometimes, in the interchange of ideas in our debates, we may say a lot about the difference in the effect of various party policies, but it is fundamental in this case, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said is quite correct. I am not trying to make a polemical point; I am talking about trustee investments. I began to practise in 1923, when the postwar inflation was just about to come to an end, and I lived in a time when equities fell so rapidly that some drastic events followed.
I recall the case of one large estate, the administration of which, thank goodness, I had nothing to do with. It was a very substantial estate which, deprived of a reasonably rapid realisation after probate, was not then sufficient in value to pay the Estate Duty, and so became bankrupt, in the few weeks that had elapsed between the death and the granting of probate, because of the fall in the value of equities. These things happen.
In 1937 or 1938 banks were advising investment in 3½ per cent. Conversion Stock, and it was not then bad advice. Very few of us had realised what a disastrous effect could come from the absence of dating. I have never had much knowledge of these matters, and I do not now profess to have any specialised knowledge. I have rarely had any investments, and those that I have had have nearly all been bad, but so far as I recall there was no previous striking example of the fact that dating the redemption could produce such disastrous results as occurred in this period of a rise in the value of equities.
What worries me about Bills of this kind is that I have a feeling that they have been thought out in the City of London. I do not say that there is anything nefarious about it. I would not wish to use the old description of the City of London as the moneylenders of the world. I am merely pointing out the geographical position of London as the capital City of the Empire, which provides expert services in these matters and where advice is readily available. What happens in the little estate in the country, however, is that the trustees go to a solicitor and say, “We will leave it to you.”
The average country solicitor is likely to have more things to think about than the value of equities, and he goes to the bank. Sometimes he is told, “Why not resign and transfer to our trustee investment department? Leave them to carry on. They have rather more expert advice.” In general, he will take the advice which the bank gives him. He invests the estate as advised, and it will not be until about five years later—unless something drastic has happened economically, or a General Election has occurred—that he realises that 25 per cent. of the estate has gone, or that there has been an accretion.
This is really what happens and I do not see any way of avoiding it. It is for this reason, of course, that the whole of our law of trusteeship frowned on investment in equities where the trustee was liable to be the least well-informed person in connection with the operations of the company concerned. It really is true that my right hon. Friends are committed on this part of their policy—with my support—to a reduction of the interest rate. A reduction of the interest rate would inevitably, if it succeeded at all and allowing for the fact that the operation would involve some dangers—I am not trying to make a political point—mean a rise in what my hon. Friend, who is always a kindly man, calls gilt-edged and a fall in the value of equities. It would be almost inevitable.
However, it is not even limited by this. The result of the policy of this Government from time to time, whether they be right or wrong, wise or not, have had immense repercussions on the Stock Exchange. The coming of the bank squeeze meant that people whose overdrafts were secured by Government stocks were often forced to sell those stocks in order to realise the money with which to pay off the overdrafts at a price very much lower than the investment, although normally trustees would not, of course, be interested in overdrafts.
It is a wrong thing that when the bank squeeze comes along again trustees could be penalised in any event. Their difficulties are very great. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, I know, recall one of the stories of the law about the articled clerk who was given a book on trusts and trusteeship to study. He studied it for six months and then his boss called him in for one of those interviews which are inevitable in such circumstances, and said to him, “How far have you got with the book?” The articled clerk replied, “I have come to the conclusion that only a fool would become a trustee, I certainly would not become one.” The boss said to him, “You have mastered the matter.”
One must also remember that, after all, if the testator is concerned about his investments, he has directive powers. If he wants investment in certain stocks he can authorise it. He can provide much wider powers on investment if he wishes to do so. He can give the trustees absolute discretion as to investment. Very often he gives a discretion to retain certain investments, and so on, and, provided the will is sufficiently clear, the testator’s wishes can be carried out and the trustees can still apply their own caution to the matter in the exercise of discretionary powers.
The Bill goes further, and I suggest that if we are to lay down proportions we might well say three equities to one gilt-edged during a Conservative Government, three gilt-edged to one equity during a Socialist Government, fifty-fifty in the event of a Liberal Government, and no power at all to invest during a Communist Government, and thus have the matter covered. Otherwise, it means that trustees and solicitors will have to have a political liaison officer constantly reading the Press reports of Parliament to try to ascertain the Government’s intentions regarding investments which they hold on behalf of widows, orphans, or the object of the trust.
§Mr. A. J. Irvine I think it right that should say a word at this point upon certain matters—I shall be very brief—arising from the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I think it is desirable that we should make it plain to my hon. Friends what has been in our minds in this connection having regard, among other things, to the kind of considerations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield has referred.
I thought that my hon. Friend spoke on this matter with great reasonableness and cogency, and I wish to make it quite clear that I agree with a great deal of what he says. I agree with him that the economic policies which have been pursued have contributed markedly to the movement of what we are, I think, calling for this purpose gilt edged. But I would ask him to remember that we do not regard it as following from the passing of the legislation now that it will, perhaps, have an ill effect on gilt-edged prices. We do not regard that as a necessary event.
What we are doing here is making an attempt in the Amendments which we have tabled, and the attitude we have taken up, within the limits imposed by the Bill, to help a particular class of person who is affected, and very sadly affected, in the way my hon. Friend has so reasonably and cogently described. After all, some of the people who are suffering from the movement of prices of gilt-edged stocks are trusts and beneficial trusts. My hon. Friend will have constituents of this class of person who are being adversely affected by this movement. I want him to realise that those of us who have been concerned in the matter are anxious, within the limits that the subject of the Bill imposes, to come to the assistance of a particular class of person who is suffering precisely in the way he has described. We cannot go further. Our interventions in this field have been designed with that purpose in mind.
In conclusion, I would say to my hon. Friend that he must also realise that any action to be taken by a trustee under the Bill is optional. A trustee is not required to take action. He need not do anything if he does not care so to do, but if he wants to take action which he thinks will have the effect of safeguarding or improving the prospects of the beneficiaries of his fund or of the cestui que trust, then he can take that action. We have been inclined to take the view, and do take the view, that the trustee should be given considerable liberty when he has come to a decision about the action which he should take.
§Mr. Warbey Before my hon. and learned Friend sits down, I should like to put this to him. He said that his hon. Friends took the view that the Bill, and more particularly this new Clause, would not make the situation worse as far as gilt-edged securities were concerned, but I would remind him of the passage which I quoted from the speech of our hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), in which he said that the Bill, and, still more, the variations of the fifty-fifty relationship, would, in fact, lead to a situation in which there would be a further fall in gilt-edged securities and that the power of the Government to borrow cheaply would be prejudiced.
§Mr. Irvine In reply to my hon. Friend, I would only say, first, that I do not admit that this will be the necessary consequence of the Bill. What I do say to the House and to my hon. Friend is that if that is a possible consequence, then for goodness’ sake let us give trustees the opportunity, by provisions of this kind, to come to the assistance of beneficiaries and cestui que trusts who are likely in that event to suffer.
§Mr. Stratton Mills(Belfast, North) This Bill is likely to become law at some time later this year. At that time there may be a lot of funding going on in the steel industry and the yield there will be about 5 per cent. and 5½ per cent. and may well be attractive to trustees. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give any assurance to trustees who are very likely to invest in these shares that they will be protected from people like the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey)?
86A PROCESS FOR MAKING RULES OF COURT UNDER SECTION 84
My Lords, I recall that when this matter came to your Lordships’ attention earlier this year, the question was posed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the Cestui que Vie Act 1707. Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had the opportunity to delve into the mysteries of this legislation and take the matter up with the noble Lord?
No—although I cannot definitively say no—I will need to check this. My recollection is that I wrote a letter on that, but I will instantly check when I get back to my department and provide the noble Lord with a copy—
§Lord Falconer of Thoroton My Lords, encouragingly, but not convincingly, I am being told that I did write such a letter. I will send a copy to the noble Lord. If I did not send such a letter, I will instantly write one and send it. I apologise for not being in entire grip of that aspect.
§Lord Mackay of Clashfern My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to the justices’ clerks. I have certainly been conscious of a certain, what shall I say, anxiety in that quarter. I am not altogether unaware of this having been expressed some years back in legislation that was put forward for altering the arrangements for the magistrates’ courts.
Is there any line management arrangement for the justices’ clerks? Are they completely independent, or are they answerable to managers within the Courts Service agency?
§Lord Falconer of Thoroton My Lords, they have line management responsibilities, and that is what is causing the problem, in that the Courts Act 2003 in effect made the justices’ clerks civil servants, and therefore responsible, in an employment way, to people above them. The concern was that if they were not delivering on things that might be perceived to be the goals of the administration that might be prejudicial to them in relation to promotion or movement.
Therefore, we have sought to provide arrangements that protect the sanctity and objectivity of the process by which judgments are made about the appointment of justices’ clerks and the movement or promotion of justices’ clerks, and to achieve that by involving the Lord Chief Justice if there is any question in relation to that. The direct answer to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord is yes, they are responsible to a manager in some respects. That is why, I believe, the anxiety arose.
§Lord Goodhart My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should say that we have been in communication with the Justices’ Clerks’ Society, which is not satisfied with the steps that have been taken so far. There is an amendment tabled in our name which will be taken at a considerably later stage of the Bill, and we shall return to that issue on that occasion, when we will take into account the changes proposed in this amendment.
DRAFT MANDATE FOR EAST AFRICA.
§LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the Draft Mandate for East. Africa (British) in the form in which the Council of the League of Nations will be invited to approve it. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that the terms of my Notice are not very specific, but I have had an opportunity of communicating with the noble Lord, the Duke of Sutherland, who I understand represents the Government upon this matter, and I have been enabled to tell him exactly what. are the points on which I desire further enlightenment. It is hardly necessary, although I should like to do so in a few words, to emphasise the importance of the Mandate principle. It is a new principle as regards Colonial development, introduced into the League of Nations, and, if properly exercised, as I hope it will be, it appears to me to he one of the most beneficent results which have conic from the late war.
If I may quote one passage from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I think it would be the easiest way of illustrating what I mean when I speak of the importance of the Mandate principle. The Mandates are to be applied to countries “inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.’ In other words, there is a recognition that in the relationship between more advanced countries and the less advanced countries the less advanced countries should be treated as in the nature of a cestui que trust, and their interests should be regarded as a primary duty by the Mandatory country, whatever it may be.
Now, one or two words as regards Article 22, in order to see what is the purpose of these Mandates, before I come to the actual terms of the particular Mandate. I think the principle is very well stated at the beginning. The principle is “that the well-being and development of such peoples (in the Mandated territories) form a sacred trust of civilisation.” That shows clearly that the object of the principle of the Mandate is not to exploit the Mandated territories in favour of the Mandatories in any way, but to place upon the Mandatories a high and solemn obligation to carry out their duties so that they shall do their best for the well-being and development of the people. That may be merely in one sense a matter of language, but it is a very important matter of language. But the Article goes on to say:—” Securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.”
§ Another question which I indicated to the Duke of Sutherland as one to which I wanted an answer was, What is the form of the securities for the performance of this trust, which either has been embodied, or which the Government think should be embodied, in one of these Mandates of what I call Form B? The next paragraph in Article 22 is extremely striking. It does not use the word “trust” again, but the word “tutelage.” “Tutelage,” of course, implies the relationship either between a parent and a child or between an instructor and a child. The paragraph goes on to make the statement that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. I want the noble Duke to say in what sense that is to be carried out. There has been a discussion as to whether the League there means the Assembly of the League or the Council of the League, but for my purpose, whether it means one or the other, I want to know how this instruction is to be carried out.
I have heard with the greatest pleasure that the Government do not propose to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, which I regard of the greatest importance, not only to trustees, but to the cestui que trusts. Some observations have been made as to the hardships that occasionally would occur to widows and orphans if the Bill passes. But there are hardships under the law as it at present stands, and it is with the view of removing these hardships that I intend to support the Bill. I deprecate in the strongest manner anything like allowing trustees to invest funds in speculative securities, but all the observations made by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment appear to me to be of such a character that they can be very properly dealt in Committee. I have not heard any real objection to the principle of the Bill; and what we have now to deal with is the principle of the measure. In Committee it will be the province of the House to investigate carefully what are the securities in which it shall be lawful to invest trust money. I should like a clause inserted providing that in all cases where it is possible the consent of the cestui que trusts must be had before the trustees can invest in the securities. It has been suggested that the operation of the Bill should be confined to Settlements made after the passing of the Act. I cannot help thinking there would be very great hardships under the present system if the Bill is not allowed to have a retrospective effect. To use the language of the Mover of the Second Reading, the Bill will be greatly conducive to simplicity of knowledge, not only on the part of the trustees, but on the part of the cestui qua trusts. If it is known that Parliament in its wisdom has directed that certain securities may be considered safe, that will be conducive to the peace of mind of the persons interested in the investment of Trust Funds. I do not know any measure which will prove of greater practical importance than this, and therefore I shall heartily support its Second Reading.
Here’s an interesting one:
DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS.
Parliament must also partake of that excitement, being the representative of the people. The feelings of the people might however, soon pass away: but the member of Parliament was likely to continue still a partisan. Hence, a great evil might arise from the Parliament thinking one way, whilst the people were thinking another; and out of that, another evil might arise, greater even than a contest between the people and the King—he meant a contest between the people and the Parliament. He therefore contended, that if new and frequent parliaments were necessary to Control the Ministers, new elections were necessary for the people to control the Parliaments. He agreed with the noble Lord, that the power of the House of Commons was now great, and that it had been doubled by the passing of the Reform Bill; but did it follow, that because it was great it was therefore to be of long duration? The noble Lord said—”its power is great, therefore it must last seven years.” He (Mr. Sheil) said—”Its power is great, therefore let it be short-lived.” The noble Lord said “the trust is vast,” and he (Mr. Sheil) “let the trustee, then, go the more frequently to the cestui que trust, and let him the more speedily pass his accounts. It had been said,” Let us give this Reformed Parliament a trial before we venture to prefer a charge on its constitution.” He maintained that it had had a trial, and that it had done enough to warrant a judgment.
(No. 15.) SECOND READING.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§Moved, “That the Bill be now read 2ª”—(The Lord Chancellor.)
…… Mr. Kennedy, thinking that law was on his side, went to every court in Westminster Hall; but all the courts decided as they ought to have decided—that he was not entitled to recover a single shilling; so that all his ability had been successfully employed for his client without any remuneration for himself. Was Parliament now to enable attorneys to do what barristers could not? do? Would their Lordships enable attorneys to do that which, from the nature of things, ought not to be done? Coming to another portion of his noble and learned Friend’s measure, he had to observe that in the Bill of last year his noble and learned Friend proposed that if, of two trustees or executors, one, being an attorney, proposed to commence a suit, he would not be entitled to his fees as an attorney unless he had obtained the consent of the other trustee or executor to the suit being instituted; but under the Bill now before their Lordships an attorney in such a position was not required to obtain the consent of his co-trustee nor of his cestui que trust, so that his first act might be to institute a suit against himself, instructing himself and paying himself out of the assets. With regard to the second clause, be would remind their Lordships that the Act of 1860 empowered a Judge in equity to order interest to be paid at 4 per cent on taxed costs; and the same Act also enabled attorneys to acquire a charge upon property which they might recover or preserve by their exertions.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BILL—(No. 72.) —APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
My Lords, these Bills contain one of the most magnificent schemes of law reform which has been proposed in my time; but in proportion to its grandeur is its difficulty………
The present practice has come down to us from the very earliest times; the Courts have gone on administering justice in a manner with which the people are familiar; and now you are asked to alter this system in some unknown way, which will not be submitted to the judgment of Parliament. The object is to pull down what I have before ventured to term the wall of partition which now exists between the Courts of Law and Equity; but all that my noble and learned Friend proposes to do by this Bill is to declare that the jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Chancery shall be modified by the Common Law to the extent to which it differs from it. Now, there are numbers of relations known to the Equity which are ignored by the Common Law Courts. The relations, for instance, of trustee and cestui que trust are unknown to the Common Law. The same remark applies to the power of husband and wife of dealing with each other as if they were separate persons. Much more effectual legislation, therefore, than this will be required to accomplish the object which we have in view—that a suitor shall not be driven from one Court to another. I hope my noble and learned Friend will perceive that I have not spoken in any other sense than to promote that object, which I fear cannot be effectually done until the Bill comes before us clothed with all those forms which are necessary for the purpose. I have no doubt, I may add, that we shall see the time when such a measure will be passed, to the great credit of my noble and learned Friend, and of the legislation of the House of which he is a Member.
COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The franchise is a trust; the electors stand in a fiduciary relation to the unenfranchised portion of the community; the latter have a right to know and to scrutinize how the duties connected with the trust have been discharged by the limited portion in whom the whole community vested it. But now, when much the greater proportion of the people have obtained the right to vote, the residue, in respect of whom alone this fiduciary relation arises, are so few that the obligation to them either ceases, or is reduced in extent and amount to a degree not deserving to be taken into account. It has been shown already by my hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Plunket) that, as a fact, the enfranchised still bear but a small proportion to the unenfranchised. The number of the former has been increased, and of the latter in proportion diminished. But mere variation of number, even if it were more than has occurred, cannot destroy a relation of this kind. If there were a trust, it must continue so long as any objects, be they mere or less numerous, continue. It is absurd to talk of the addition of a million or two from the whole population to the electors, being capable of terminating the responsibility of the latter, if it ever existed. To effect this, strict logical reasoning would demand the total absorption of the whole community into the electoral body, in other words, universal suffrage. But the truth is, reasoning of this kind is fallacious, and illustrates the danger of determining great questions by arguments drawn from analogies, and the incidents of what appears analogous. Nullum simile est idem. What is like is not the same. See, for a moment, where such a line of reasoning leads in respect of the subject in hand. The franchise is a trust; therefore the limited number of electors must surrender their convictions to the demands of their cestuis que trust, the masses of unenfranchised; the franchise is a privilege, therefore the elector may rise it for his own personal advantage. Accurately speaking, the franchise partakes of the nature of a trust, and of the nature of a privilege; but it is not strictly one or the other; certainly not so as to engraft into its own nature all the incidents of either, or enable its existence, or the conditions of such existence, to depend upon reasoning applicable to those incidents.
PC Fineman entered the force in 2004. His career in Law Enforcement was a stellar one as he was headhunted by every division in the UK. This guy was a “Revenue monster” and his CV read like a Policy Enforcer’s dream!
PC Fineman didn’t give a moment’s thought to what Law actually was. That wasn’t his business. That was for the judges and lawyers. He knew that all the Dun and Bradstreet listed Police divisions were now in competition with each other and each of them wanted the best! Well, Fineman WAS the best! And he knew it!
In his first year on the job, PC Fineman went to the top of his division’s revenue generation league tables within 6 months of commencement. If there was a buck to be made, he made it – whether that was putting in the overtime hours, sitting with his donuts on the side of the road with his trusty lazer cannon clocking up those fcukers who did anything over the accepted 10% faster than the speed limit and fining them or whether it was catching the eye of someone simply walking past him on the street and stopping him to achieve a search under the SOCPA rules and cite some relatively unknown clause which he stated allowed him to search the individual because he just didn’t like the look of him. When the individual made a song and dance about his rights, PC Fineman would be sure to use that authority and suggest the individual was causing a disturbance and was interfering in one way or another with a Law Enforcer while attempting to carry out his duty. Whatever Fineman did, he ensured he’d get the individual either to court and fined OR that there would be a PCN issued.
PC Fineman’s revenue generating capabilities were sought by all. After all, if a division could have a force filled with guys like him then they’d have a strong case for ensuring larger and larger budgets from their revenue hungry investors. Law Enforcement had become big business! When you have the British jail system being managed by SERCO or the like, then, yes, Prisons, Courts and Law Enforcement become a business with a cash flow, a profit and loss and a balance sheet just like any other business. AND DOESN’T MR KENNETH CLARKE KNOW THAT OH SO WELL!
“Birmingham Prison is to become the first jail in the UK to be privatised, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said.
The decision to award security firm G4S the contract to run the 1,400-inmate jail came after firms competed over the running of four prisons in England.
The Prison Officers’ Association called the decision “disgraceful” and has not ruled out taking industrial action.
Mr Clarke told MPs the “military are involved” in contingency plans should prison officers stage a strike.
Thirteen private prisons already exist in the UK – 11 in England in Wales, and two in Scotland – but this is the first existing public sector prison to be contracted out. The 13 prisons are each managed by one of three firms – Kalyx (previously UKDS), Serco or G4S Justice Services.”
Now, take into account who Ken Clarke “works” for and you’ll soon get the jist and put the very simple 2+2 together!
Anyhow, back to PC Fineman:
By 2010, he had risen up the ranks to Detective! WHAT A GUY! He’d started as a PC in Lothian and Borders Police in 2004 but by 2006 he’d also learned that he could go on what was effectively a fast track “course” which would add to his “pedigree” of fcuking people over for a buck – his seargent had loved him for it and finally introduced him to the Freemasons. PC Fineman knew this was the right move for him. Now he’d have an audience so to speak – a powerful audience full of judges – so that, for all those (and there hadn’t been many but they had pissed him off when he couldn’t get a decision upheld by the court) that managed to get away on the basis of some technicality of law (“Fuck the law” thought PC Fineman, “I don’t care about law I just care about results by imposing my version of it) or on the basis of their rights (“Fuck their rights, I’m a Police officer!!”) or on the basis that he was just carrying out an order for the top brass because some jerk was becoming a pain in the ass and the top brass wanted him silenced; NOW he’d have most of the judges accepting the little subtle sign of the freemason. “Great” he thought, “I’ll now be able to fuck over almost anyone I wish based on shit, impose any fucking statute act I want at any time and I’ll have the bastard’s balls in court because ‘my man’, the judge, knows who I am! Ain’t THAT the dog’s bollocks!”
Yes, as you can tell, Fineman was a cunt beforehand but, once his freemason status was approved (he wouldn’t be blackballed, his seargent would take care of that) he was a REAL cunt!
So then, by 2012, PC Fineman was now a star detective and a 15th degree freemason no less! This boy set all records no matter WHAT piece of corrupt, criminal, piece of shit he joined OR what corrupt, criminal piece of shit he imposed upon people.
One day, however, his younger brother, John, picked up on some issues that came to his attention and he started researching government and judicial corruption. Oh boy was this to cause some serious fucking issues!
As they say, you can pick your friends but not your family and PC Fineman hadn’t picked John for his brother! You see, John had some fucking integrity AND he had an IQ which put him into “genius” bracket in comparison to PC Fineman. The latter had joined the cops because, when all is said and done, a cop just has to do as he’s told – like the military, just follow orders. John, however, was a little bit of an analyst and he had excelled at school and had even gone on to university taking Physics and then he studied Economics and Business. The brothers, then, really never got on that well BUT they were still brothers.
John loved his brother but PC Fineman had always had that chip on his shoulder. Strangely, when John was coming home with A’s in his exams, PC Fineman was found coercing the other kids at school into parting with their lunch money. John didn’t get out much having to live on a few quid a week pocketmoney while his brother was out drinking and buying himself ipods and the newest mobilephone and picking up tarts who were impressed by it all. PC Fineman, then, learnt young, the benefits of using his brawn rather than his brain but he was still pissed off with John’s academic results.
Mother Fineman, however, being the mother all mothers are, loved both her kids. The stellar academic and the stellar coercive bastard who became the “pillar of society” as a Law Enforcement officer. Her boy protected people! SHE JUST DIDN’T KNOW WHO HE PROTECTED and neither did PC Fineman. He didn’t see it as protection because, in fact, he was meant to protect the public – he didn’t. He FUCKED the public and generated revenue and that is why he was where he was! As I said – a cunt!
John was stunned by what he had studied and found out meanwhile and he started to post his findings on blogs and messageboards. It was so incredible the info he was sharing however that it went over many people’s heads. They just couldn’t grasp the simplicity of it nor the enormity of what it meant. However, an ever greater number of people started to pick up on it all and this was beginning to have an impact on the British establishment because they realised people were beginning to understand things that they had, until then, no concept of. John was dangerous! Not to the public but to those who didn’t like exposure and ensured, up until then, they weren’t by citing “Not in the public interest”. It’s an interesting term that don’t you think? “Not in the public interest”. I don’t know about you but I’m interested in anything and everything ESPECIALLY when it is “Not in the public interest”. And one just has to ask themselves: “Who makes the decision regarding what should and should not interest me or the public?” Have YOU ever been asked? No? Doesn’t that then make you feel like some sort of child? “It doesn’t concern you Mr Jones, you should be seen and not heard. We don’t want your opinion!”
Oh which reminds me: Here’s a true story from yours truly. It happened about 6 months ago and stars me, two co stars and a prop called “Laser”.
I was driving my car to get some cigarettes at the nearby petrol station one night at about 7pm. I was on a road which was totally empy of traffic and of pedestrians. It’s a newly residential area comprising of flats which are built in their own little areas well off road all on one side of the road. On the other side of the road there is nothing much at all except field and the odd business premises which are then closed at that time of night. Again, well off the road area. Now at the start of this road (which is about a 1/3rd of a mile long) there is a slight incline and, until you reach the top of the incline you can’t see the rest of the road ahead – quite normal. There is then a bus stop half way along the straight flat section of the road and just after the bus stop there is a little layby. This particular night guess who is sitting in the layby? Yes you guessed it: A couple of PC Fineman’s friends with yellow jackets, a parked traffic car and a hand held laser gun!
Just as I reached the top of the incline, I noticed them in their little yellow “suits” and took my foot off the pedal a little – as you automatically do – but that wasn’t enough. Waved down by a yellow jacket and his gun!
So I stopped the car and left it running as I jumped out (a surprise to the yellowjackets it seemd) and walked over as they were walking toward me and the car and said “I can help you officers?”.
“Do you know what speed you were doing?
Me: “Oh perhaps about 40″
“43mph and you slowed to 38mph”
Me: “oh ok”
“Do you know the speed limit on this road?”
Me: “Oh I guess 40? (as I looked around at the totally empty road which was wide enough for 3 lanes yet only had two with a middle section which was lined)”
“No it is a 30mph zone as you can tell from the lamp-post spacing”
Me: “Oh is it? Have I broken a law officer?”
He then goes on to cite the road offences act and I explain that is a statutory act given the FORCE of law by the consent of the governed and is NOT a law. He then states “That is your opinion” to which I reply “Yes it is and I am correct in my opinion”. He does not follow up.
“Is this your car?”
Me: “Well I drive it but I don’t own it”
“Right! Who owns it?”
Me: “The DVLA”
“Oh so it belongs to the DVLA? Do you work for them?”
Me: “No, I don’t work for them but the car belongs to them”
“How is that?”
Me: “I am just the registered keeper”
“Ah so you DO own it?”
Me: “No, I said I am the registered keeper. The DVLA own it because I have registered it to them and that is why they can tow it away if they so wish”
“That is your opinion”
Me: “Yes, it is my opinion and I am correct. Look at the registration document”
“Have you been in trouble with the Police before?”
Me: Thinking ‘Am I in trouble now???’ LOL “No. I have lived in a number of countries……” About to tell him how corrupt police can be in these countries but was interrupted.
“Do you have your driver’s licence please?”
Me: “No, I don’t travel with it”
“Ok then what is your name?”
Me: “My name is David”
“And your surname?”
Me: “I don’t have a surname. I have a family name”
“Then what is your family name?” as he looks at me and they both glance at each other.
“Ok Mr Johnson…..”
Me: “Please don’t call me Mr. That is a legal title and I am not a Mr. David will do”
“Ok David. What is your address?
So I go on to give him my address.
“How long have you stayed at that address?”
Me: “About 2 years”
“What is your date of birth?”
Me: ” I don’t know for sure”
“What do you mean you don’t know!”
Me: ” I was rather young at the time. I had just dropped out of my mother’s fallopian tubes”
“You have a birth certificate don’t you?”
Me: “Well yes, I do but I cannot verify the veracity of such a document. Do you accept heresay?”
“What is the date on the document?”
Me: “Well it says, as I remember, the 18th July 1967″
“We will have to radio in and check your car and details”
Me: “Sure, go ahead”
The female officer then is on the radio and I overhear her stating ” a Mr David Johnson” to which I quickly turn and state once more “Please do not refer to me as Mr. I am NOT a Mr. My name is David Jonhson”. She looks at me slightly annoyed but carries on. While she is still speaking on the radio but has had some form of communication with the other male officer, HE turns to me and says “Well this is just a warning. Watch your speed more carefully” basically then saying words to the effect “off you go”.
During the time that the female officer was on the radio, I was explaining to this decent sort of guy (I have to say credit where it is due I suppose since, in their minds, they had every “right” to fine me for doing what they stated was 43mph in a 30mph zone) that, as a police officer, he should be catching REAL criminals, most of whom are in our government and most of our judiciary and a fair amount of police themselves rather than spending overtime at the side of a road catching people on some “statutory offence” while doing noone no harm.
When they let me go, I then said “But I would like to explain some things to you and ask you some questions about the issues I have raised AT a police station and which have not been acted upon. Perhaps I was pushing my luck BUT I’m just getting so SICK of this SHITE where these so called “Public protectors” (my ass!) are taking the piss out of law abiding people and making REVENUE out of them while they ignore the MASSIVE crimes of our establishment. Anyhow, they waved me on and it was clear they didn’t want to pass another 30 seconds with me! I WONDER WHY?
So back to the story of PC Fineman and bro:
So, John was now dangerous to the establishment while his brother was a fine upstanding coercive CUNT of the establishment but didn’t know it and couldn’t give a rat’s arse either. Just do don’t think!
One day, a bunch of detectives came to John’s door with a search and sieze warrant signed by some old fucker in a robe. John had offended someone’s sensibilities online because that someone didn’t have the first clue about what John was posting about but it offended him and he threatened John that he would report him to the Metropolitan Police since what John was saying (in the perception of some uneducated, ignorant individual who didn’t even wish to verify the points John was trying to make) was suggesting he was part of an organisation that this individual didn’t like because he perceived them as some sort of “anti establishment, racist organisation” (the SWP – yes that is what the individual stated). So the individual was actually continually refering to John as a racist and anti semite and John didn’t take too kindly to this from someone who didn’t care to check John’s sources of information even when some of it was from UK parliament!! John doesn’t like being slandered in such an ignorant fashion and made this clear to the individual in some choice words. However, it should be noted that the individual’s slandering and name calling commenced before John’s reactions to it!
So the Police entered John’s apartment and siezed approximately £2000 of equipment from him including all his computer equipment (2 laptops and a desktop), recording equipment and a few other items. They then left after stating they must go through all files and all recordings before deciding to charge John with something. The STRANGE thing, John thought, was that, of there was a charge to be made then all the evidence was online because surely the whole reason for the police’s visit was on the basis of the allegation made by this individual and that the allegation could ONLY be based upon what was already online and public. The individual could not POSSIBLY be “offended” by things he could not see on any of John’s hard disks! How totally bizarre then that the police did not just charge John then and there. If there was insufficient content to charge John on from the online exchange then what on earth would they be interested in content that was never published online to offend this person with?
[Get the point?]
So John would and could only consider that the police took his equipment to TRY and find something else to charge him with – this is very much a case of “entrapment” then because it would have nothing to do with the original allegation!
Anyhow, unknown to John and to his brother, the police had been advised to remove John’s capability to express himself online because it was causing certain people in certain positions discomfort. John had been communicating bluntly with everyone from top cabinet people in the UK government to little pondlife like the Scottish First Minister and also his MPs, making them fully aware of what John knew. John was then posting their responses online – pathetic and incompetent, evasive responses at that – and these people did not take too kindly to that because it was “Not in the public interest”.
Here’s an example of something else not in the public interest:
How many of the public think the Bank of England is publically owned? How many then scratch their heads at this:
(3) The Bank, if they think it necessary in the public interest, may request information from and make recommendations to bankers, and may, if so authorised by the Treasury, issue directions to any banker for the purpose of securing that effect is given to any such request or recommendation:
(a) no such request or recommendations shall be made with respect to the affairs of any particular customer of a banker; and
(b) before authorising the issue of any such directions the Treasury shall give the banker concerned, or such person as appears to them to represent him, an opportunity of making representations with respect thereto.
Sections 4(4) and 4(5) repealed by section 16(4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
Now isn’t that strange? A bank! And a bank “OWNED by the UK public” has sections of its act repealed by the OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT. Meanwhile if you read the first section of the act you can see quite clearly that the ownership of the bank stock was simply a swap for government stock (while the government borrow from the bank! LOL) while the treasury is only paid 50% of the bank profits annually! Now WHO get the other 50%? Ah well all of that is held very quietly behind the official secrets act.
You really can’t make this shit up you know!
So, meanwhile, John tells his brother, PC Fineman what the latter’s pals in blue did and starts to explain to PC Fineman all about the British Constitution and the law of the land etc. PC Fineman however, gets a headache and tells his brother to “shut the fuck up for once” and he’ll get his stuff back for him. John, however refuses to shut the fuck up until, one night, PC Fineman gets a call from his mother telling him John’s just died in a hit and run. His mother was with him at the time and she got a clear look at the driver and number plate and has reported it to the police.
The Police then capture who they believe to be the hit and run driver and, oddly, it turns out to be a lowly administrator within the Scottish Executive. The trial takes place and the driver is given, incredibly, a suspended sentence. PC Fineman lost his brother and he’s fucking angry while he hates politicians of all shapes and sizes and he goes off on a bender while he starts making accusations left, right and centre and promises his mother he’ll get the guy one way or another until, one night at a freemasonry event, the judge who gave the suspended sentence to the driver has a quick word with PC Fineman and whispers in his ear “You’ve lost one brother because he was a threat to the brotherhood. Now you’re doing a good job and the brotherhood doesn’t want to lose you brother! That’s a good lad!”
PC Fineman went home that night, rolled his trouser leg up and blew his brains out with his gun!
And you know what I say to that? Good riddance to bad scum! A FINE Law Enforcer was FINEman but a SHIT human and “brother”!
I am attacked continuously for being “Anti semite”.
People read but do not interpret the words properly.
People are so used to simply reading or hearing a few words which they then focus on and remove from all context. It is the world of soundbites.
People read and hear then interpret, not what is actually being said but what they wish to interpret.
I have literally been face to face with people who have simply closed down and refuse to listen or discuss and communicate to try and reach a conclusion where they would then actually understand what is meant rather than what they wish to interpret. I have been the victim of police/judiciary action specifically because of this. Even the latter don’t listen. They interpret a statute and simply apply it because “that is what it says” and “from what you said and wrote, directly contravenes that statute or our interpretation of what you said and wrote while we actually do not fully appreciate the broader issues we just concentrate on the narrow focus of what the statute says and what you have written”.
So then, I ask myself: If I AM an “Anti semite” then how can I call this group of people in the video beautiful? They’re jews. They proclaim their identity as such. They are proud of their jewish roots. I realise every religion on earth is man made and a manipulation tool but I also recognise the majority do not even though it is quite obvious. As the lad says in the video “circles” and he is told to put his “circle” (the jewish circle) above all others and he RECOGNISES the fundamental racism in this. Religions are entirely for the purpose of creating the world we have full of a single human race who are separated into factions like a Venn diagram. Each subset seeing itself as a “race” and the barriers are already set in place. Religion IS racism at its core and it has been, is and may always be a wonderful tool of those who are within not the 1% but the 0,01%.
But, whether I recognise this or not and those who follow their religions don’t, I can still see and appreciate beautiful people of whatever “race”, nationality or religion because they simply have humanity.
These young jews see the issue. They even recognise why jews have been persecuted over so many centuries and they recognise the “jewish” (I would like to show them why this “jewish” lot within the 1% and 0.01% are not jewish) influence within Banking and Corporate worlds. AND they are speaking out against it. They see how this money is being ploughed into the deaths and oppression of so many not only in Palestine but in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else that does not play the globalist game and who wish to maintain their sovereignty.
Anyone can be evil no matter what “race” or religion they proclaim to be. The issue with the jewish “race” is that their religious teachings have been used, abused and hijacked but zionism and freemasonry. The zionist (Rothschild zionist) element have then used jews (the holocaust story while the zionists had every opportunity to transfer jews from danger – read the Transfer agreement) to enable and strengthen their “hand” and their calls for a jewish only state. They used Jewish blood to do this and they did it purposefully. Yet it is Aipac, JDL, ADL etc who proclaim the horrors of those events where jews have been persecuted yet, throughout, it has been a tiny group of wealthy and powerful men who have murdered jews to achieve their aims. These powerful individuals then setting up these Zionist organisations and brainwashing jews into believing zionism is just the wish for a jewish homeland (when, strangely, any and all other peoples who would demand such would be considered xenophobic racists).
Basically, it has been a mindfcuk. Exceptionally well orchestrated but so many jews believe in the ideology OR they have been bribed by being part of the “chosen people” who have such massive control of the entire world’s wealth through money manipulation. These young jews even refer to this and can see it.
But as there is a jewish circle, there is a circle above that which is zionist (the NWO agenda zionists motivated by money, power and greed) and above that there is a “Catholic or Jesuit” circle. There are many circles and it is the destruction of ALL circles (the Venn diagram subsets) which is needed.
If the wish for no circles, no “races” and no manipulated, state/UN controlled religion while wishing to bring an end to the LEGAL control of the world’s population through birth registration to an authoritarian state apparatus and bringing an end to the manipulation of money and the corruption of law through legislation of victimless “crimes” is anti semitic, then YES, I AM anti semtitic.
However, I can’t see how it is possible for an anti semite to literally find a lump in his throat while watching and listening to beautiful people who happen to be jewish!
So I simply wish to express my thanks to these young jews because I have children whom I do not wish to inherit a world which is becoming (and is) controlled by a very few psychopathic despots following some form of “code” which is written within Babylonian/Judaic texts. When I see and hear such from young jews, it makes everything seem so much brighter looking to the future. This “chosen ones” ideology needs to be destroyed because it is the precise equivalent of the Nazi ideology of the “Master race” – the terms mean one and the same thing.
Zionism and all circles require destruction. To do so, we need to focus on those in that 0.01% who have constructed them and maintain them. It IS a “war” and it is a real one – very much so. In fact, it has been the entire war for decades/centuries and winning it means peace. Globally. I don’t advocate violence (but then neither does the UN or any state at face value do they? but then they bomb the living daylights out of anyone in their way) because knowledge and education can achieve the same ends (and why they don’t wish for the money to go to such uses). There IS the need, however, to put the true criminals in jail for various forms of crime on humanity.
Now HERE is where I will lose some people:
The UN is a PRIME criminal organisation within the entire global scheme of things. The ironic thing is that they display it openly but people just do not wish to see it.
“What a ridiculous thing to suggest!” I can hear so many people state. Yes it appears to be doesn’t it? After all, UN Declaration of Human Rights and all that.
Ok, let’s look at the first 3 articles of that declaration:
- All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
- Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Sounds good doesn’t it? Ah! But wait a second. There is a HUGE, MASSIVE, in fact IMMENSE contradiction in it.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Question: Do you wish to disagree with this statement?
No, I didn’t think so.
So then what about this.
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration.”
Question: Do you see the problem? It is staring you right in the face!
Let’s return to Thomas Paine for a moment from another blogpost:
Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice.
Question: What is the UN Articles of Human Rights?
Answer: It is a POLITICAL CHARTER and a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
While the charter states, absolutely factually, that every person is born FREE and EQUAL, it then goes on to entirely contradict this very concept by stating “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration”.
Now, there are many issues with this which I sincerely hope the reader can see quite clearly.
IF people are BORN “free and equal” (which we are and I challenge anyone to disagree with such) then they are free and equal. End of story. Being free and equal MEANS that NOONE may infringe your “god given” human rights. What obviously follows from this, then, is that, just as noone can infringe your rights, noone has the authority over another to abridge them, to reduce them or even to state what your rights are! But this is precisely what the UN has done in their declaration. They state, effectively, that these are the rights, ACCORDING TO THEM, that you are allowed. Individual states then enact these rights to varying degrees, within their own state LEGISLATION (more legality). Every single time “rights” are written within legal parameters, they are diluted and from the very day the UN Articles were written, they diluted your “rights” within the global LEGAL system.
IF you are born FREE and EQUAL then I am afraid that IF the UN and the State is serious in its proclamation of such, then YOU have every right to say “Thanks but no thanks” to their “offer” of “protection” for, as a FREE and EQUAL man or woman, you may contract with whatever INDIVIDUAL or ORGANISATION you wish. If you are effectively stopped from making such a FREE and EQUAL decision (and remember the UN, as with ALL organisations, is composed of OTHER “FREE and EQUAL” individuals) then your rights are, in fact, being impinged upon. There is no two ways about this.
Now, the number of “rights” the UN provides you (“provides you”? HOW can they PROVIDE rights when you are already born absolutely FREE and EQUAL? This is the equivalent of a magician’s slight of hand trick) are limited. Forgive me for the following but it is for the purposes of demonstrating something:
Does the UN Articles articulate in any way that you have the right to fart on a public street? OR, what if you are standing in a queue in a bank and you’ve just had a chilli con carne? What if the bank wishes to pass a bye law for it’s own PRIVATE premises that NOONE may fart on its premises? Does the UN declaration state that everyone has the right to fart (a natural human process) wherever and whenever they wish? No, it doesn’t. So, the point is, what is stopping ANY organisation or group of people (even the state) from imposing a statutory act that states “No smoking and no farting in licensed premises”?
Yes, it’s a silly example but it is meant to be. The point is that the declaration is stating “these are your rights and that is it”. No no no. If you accept this then you accept your rights being removed.
THE SUBROGATION OF YOUR “GOD GIVEN” HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE STATE IS A FUNCTION OF YOUR BIRTH REGISTRATION. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS! See the blogpost entitled “UN inadvertently confirms freeman concept”.
Now what about the third article?
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
ANOTHER interesting statement and concept from the UN so let’s look at that more closely:
Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.
Now ignoring for a moment that this makes me laugh from the perspective that it is like saying “Children have the right to live but adults don’t”, there is something just as astounding. That is the following:
The September 2001 attacks signalled the only occasion in NATO’s history that Article 5 of the NATO treaty has been invoked and consequently the 11 September attacks were deemed to be an attack on all nineteen NATO members. After 11 September, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF and the organization continues to operate in a range of roles sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and most recently enforced a NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 in accordance with UN SC Resolution 1973.
The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called “right of first refusal”. There are currently 28 member states of NATO, with the most recent being Albania and Croatia who joined in April 2009. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world’s defence spending. The United States alone accounts for 43% of the total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy account for a further 15%.
Now, let’s put some perspective on this. 70% of the world’s defence spending is borne by the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy. These countries ALSO form the major founding nations within the UN and have the most voting shares. NATO, generally, finds its LEGALITY to interfere with any and all nations on the basis of UN resolutions. The following results from this interference:
The following is a transcript of a speech given by now 13-year-old Charlotte Aldebron at a peace rally in Maine.
When people think about bombing Iraq, they see a picture in their heads of Saddam Hussein in a military uniform, or maybe soldiers with big black mustaches carrying guns, or the mosaic of George Bush Senior on the lobby floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel with the word “criminal.” But guess what? More than half of Iraq’s 24 million people are children under the age of 15. That’s 12 million kids. Kids like me. Well, I’m almost 13, so some are a little older, and some a lot younger, some boys instead of girls, some with brown hair, not red. But kids who are pretty much like me just the same. So take a look at me—a good long look. Because I am what you should see in your head when you think about bombing Iraq. I am what you are going to destroy.
If I am lucky, I will be killed instantly, like the three hundred children murdered by your “smart” bombs in a Baghdad bomb shelter on February 16, 1991. The blast caused a fire so intense that it flash-burned outlines of those children and their mothers on the walls; you can still peel strips of blackened skin—souvenirs of your victory—from the stones.
But maybe I won’t be lucky and I’ll die slowly, like 14-year-old Ali Faisal, who right now is in the “death ward” of the Baghdad children’s hospital. He has malignant lymphoma—cancer—caused by the depleted uranium in your Gulf War missiles. Or maybe I will die painfully and needlessly like18-month-old Mustafa, whose vital organs are being devoured by sand fly parasites. I know it’s hard to believe, but Mustafa could be totally cured with just $25 worth of medicine, but there is none of this medicine because of your sanctions.
Or maybe I won’t die at all but will live for years with the psychological damage that you can’t see from the outside, like Salman Mohammed, who even now can’t forget the terror he lived through with his little sisters when you bombed Iraq in 1991. Salman’s father made the whole family sleep in the same room so that they would all survive together, or die together. He still has nightmares about the air raid sirens.
Or maybe I will be orphaned like Ali, who was three when you killed his father in the Gulf War. Ali scraped at the dirt covering his father’s grave every day for three years calling out to him, “It’s all right Daddy, you can come out now, the men who put you here have gone away.” Well, Ali, you’re wrong. It looks like those men are coming back.
Or I maybe I will make it in one piece, like Luay Majed, who remembers that the Gulf War meant he didn’t have to go to school and could stay up as late as he wanted. But today, with no education, he tries to live by selling newspapers on the street.
Imagine that these are your children—or nieces or nephews or neighbors. Imagine your son screaming from the agony of a severed limb, but you can’t do anything to ease the pain or comfort him. Imagine your daughter crying out from under the rubble of a collapsed building, but you can’t get to her. Imagine your children wandering the streets, hungry and alone, after having watched you die before their eyes.
This is not an adventure movie or a fantasy or a video game. This is reality for children in Iraq. Recently, an international group of researchers went to Iraq to find out how children there are being affected by the possibility of war. Half the children they talked to said they saw no point in living any more. Even really young kids knew about war and worried about it. One 5-year-old, Assem, described it as “guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much.” Ten-year-old Aesar had a message for President Bush: he wanted him to know that “A lot of Iraqi children will die. You will see it on TV and then you will regret.”
Back in elementary school I was taught to solve problems with other kids not by hitting or name-calling, but by talking and using “I” messages. The idea of an “I” message was to make the other person understand how bad his or her actions made you feel, so that the person would sympathize with you and stop it. Now I am going to give you an “I” message. Only it’s going to be a “We” message. “We” as in all the children in Iraq who are waiting helplessly for something bad to happen. “We” as in the children of the world who don’t make any of the decisions but have to suffer all the consequences. “We” as in those whose voices are too small and too far away to be heard.
We feel scared when we don’t know if we’ll live another day.
We feel angry when people want to kill us or injure us or steal our future.
We feel sad because all we want is a mom and a dad who we know will be there the next day.
And, finally, we feel confused—because we don’t even know what we did wrong.
Charlotte Aldebron, 13, attends Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine. Comments may be sent to her mom, Jillian Aldebron at firstname.lastname@example.org.
But then we’ll hear the UN, through UNICEF saying “But look what we do? Look what we ARE doing for the Iraqi mothers and children!”
And all I will say is this: Yes, AFTER you have killed their fathers and destroyed their families, their infrastructure, their way of life and are now ready to rebuild in YOUR image! Incorporate an Iraqi Central Bank and provide “loans” which are carrots with strings attached to indebt the nation, control its resources and infrastructure and make DAMNED SURE those Iraqi children have their births registered (forget so many will be born with cancers due to depleted uranium which the UN states is still legal!! FORGET THAT!) so that they can be “RECOGNISED IN LAW” just as the rest of the west is. The controlling mechanism by which you can then impose taxes and duties and have them subjugated to the legalities which YOU impose!
Your damned righteous, pius, hypocrisy makes me want to puke!
So WHERE is the rights of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children who have been MURDERED by the States, the governments who the UN states should ensure their survival and healthy development? The “right to life”? Within a legal document which also legitimizes the taking of life? The UN does not say SOME children have the right to life and that governments should ensure the survival of SOME. Neither does it say that it is ok to drop cluster bombs and tomahawk missiles and machine gun from helicopters SOME children in the interests of saving more. It says ALL children. This is NOT a utilitarian world and neither does the UN articles suggest it SHOULD be. But the UN and the nations who compose the UN and NATO seem to think so!
So where were the rights of all these children murdered? Where were the rights of the thousands of palestinian children murdered by Israel in operation Cast Lead and others? Where are the warcrime tribunals for the Blairs and the Bush’s, Sarkozy’s etc etc? WHERE ARE THEY?
The answer? “Ah! But they’re OUR warcriminals! That’s the difference!”
But wait, didn’t you say that every child is born free and equal? Ah but then that is a pure lie UN because, as you say so very clearly, it is not until children are recognised LEGALLY, that, in fact, they do exist. And if they are not registered and have no birth certificate then they have no rights to ANY confered benefits by ANY state or government. So then they DO NOT, in your eyes, have any rights (privileges) from the moment they are born therefore, they are NOT born “free” until you bestow those rights upon them!
But then the “ying” of that “yang” is that you cannot control or tax them either if they are unregistered because they have not SUBROGATED their “god given” human rights to the legalities of which you promote. Once they do, you have them just where you want them!
One registers one’s car, one is the REGISTERED KEEPER but NOT owner. For if that car is your own private property then who (if you are free and equal) has the right to stop you from using it? But the DVLA does BECAUSE you have subrogated your ownership (rights) to your private property and may only use it under strict licence conditions.
One registers their child’s birth, one is then subrogating one’s authority (not responsibility however) to one’s child. You are transfering the legal “ownership” of your child to the state. The state, then, if it so desires, may take your child from you and this is NOT always because you are a bad parent but because you may just be an irritant to the state in one form or another. However, the bottom line is that IF we are all free and equal then NOONE, no individual or state or organisation has ANY right to remove your child. But they do because you CONTRACTED with them by registering your child. You have (ignorantly but through your ignorance, under no coercion) entered a LEGAL agreement with the state where you have transfered such inexhaustive rights to them AND they have handed you a legal document called a Human Rights Act, in place of your natural born rights. It’s brilliant and effective but it is a con and it is a crime on humanity because while they pretend it provides you with rights (and it does to a very small degree in comparison to the inexhaustive rights you were born with), it ensures that your entire life can be controlled from birth to death.
More Childs Rights:
Article 7 (Registration, name, nationality, care): All children have the right to a legally registered name, officially recognised by the government. Children have the right to a nationality (to belong to a country).
Question: Do they also have the right to forego a legally registered name officially recognised by the government state? And do they have the right to forego a nationality and retain their free, sovereign, human rights undiluted by the UN articles? When they do, the UN and the state then say they do not exist legally and therefore they are not “qualified” for any protection. They have no rights to freedom of movement around the world (no passport), they will not be allowed to find a job (oh dear! The state then won’t be able to tax anyone if everyone can’t find a job because everyone decides that they wish to utilise that freedom and equality to NOT register). So UN, all I am askng is: Are we free? Not until you tell us we are right?
Article 8 (Preservation of identity): Children have the right to an identity – an official record of who they are. Governments should respect children’s right to a name, a nationality and family ties.
I had and have an identity. I had one even before my parents registered me. I was their child and they gave me a name which they then simply believed they were making a record of when registering. They did not know they were subrogating my rights and providing me with a “monopoly piece” called a birth certificate which only then would allow me to buy and sell and contract – oh! And I forgot, also made me vulnerable to going to jail for a victimless “crime” based upon state legislation AND had me liable to immense increases in taxation to pay off a national debt that doesn’t need to exist if the state did not borrow its currency but simply issued it. Neither would I then have the PM state that I am liable for bailing out the banks and having then to endure austerity measures while these criminals were paid off, destroying my career, pension, savings etc. No I wasn’t told that and neither were my parents. I would guess, then, that that constitutes a case of non full disclosure of the contract set up BY the birth certificate. Doesn’t the “law” state that, in the case of one party to a contract not giving full disclosure then the contract is null and void? Yes, I think it does. Cheerio government. Knock on my door and you can respectfully fcuk off. Our contract is null and void!
Article 41 (Respect for superior national standards):
If the laws of a country provide better protection of children’s rights than the articles in this Convention, those laws should apply.
Interesting. WHO decides this? The state? or the UN? If either one of them then it surely would be that either party will vote for itself. If not decided by either of them then by whom? Whoever it is that decides however, is that not a decision for the party who may be affected by it? That would be the child (or possibly the parent) would it not? If you are suggesting some individual or some organisation other than the child or it’s parent makes that decision then you are stating that we are not all free and equal are you not? Or is it just some are more free and equal than others?
Article 24 (Health and health services):
Children have the right to good quality health care – the best health care possible – to safe drinking water, nutritious food, a clean and safe environment, and information to help them stay healthy. Rich countries should help poorer countries achieve this.
Tell that to NATO and the major UN nations who control it.
After all of that UN – TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND RECOGNISE YOU OUTSTANDING HYPOCRISY.
But then who controls you?
Oh yes, I forgot. This guy and his ilk:
- Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Yes indeed. YOUR “law”. It’s so wonderful that you want the 50M children each year who are unregistered to be registered. And it is so wonderful that you had 750,000 children in Afghanistan given vaccines while, at the same time, you had administrators, attending along with the medical staff, to register these children.
Isn’t it a coincidence, then, that David Rockefeller makes the fiollowing speech regarding his concern about the world’s population growth and overconsumption and prospects of a decent life on this planet (for who?) within a UN speech he gave:
Isn’t it also then, a coincidence that Rockefeller, within this speech, also referred to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 which promoted the entire Climate Change. Sustainability agenda as proposed by the Club of Rome originally in their publication in 1972 called “limits to growth” which was then followed up in 1993 when they published ”The first Global Revolution”? Obviously being written before and during the year of the Earth summit then released as a “guidance”.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio Summit, Rio Conference, Earth Summit (Portuguese: Eco ’92) was a major United Nations conference held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 June to 14 June 1992.
Why is that all a coincidence? Well, because:
The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe. It raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth. The club states that its mission is “to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public.”
Well well well, there’s old Rockefeller’s name again! But there’s more because:
In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution. According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
But then there’s even more:
Rockefellers’ 1Sky Unveils the New 350.org: More $ — More Delusion
World’s Greatest Magic Trick “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell On 6 April 2011 it was announced that the RINGO (Rockefeller initiated NGO) 1Sky and their sister organization 350.org have ‘officially merged’ into one mass climate movement – the ‘NEW’ 350.org.
Let the Vatican preach, hallefuckinglujah, as we double-up on the soma followed by a double shot of absinthe burning like the embers of hell. Thank you Rockefellers, Clintons, McKibben and friends. Make way for the onslaught of illusion in which green capitalism and false solutions will somehow save us. In one last final performance – the elites will now perform their final magical act that defies all logic. Drum roll please … ladies and gentleman … we will now embrace the same system which is systematically destroying us – splash it with a green patina … and now … this same system will magically save us. Justice for all! The illuminated signs flash toward the audience … applause! applause! applause! Follow the Money
An example of what two prominent environmental groups, 1Sky and 350.org, receive from the Rockefeller foundations alone:
Step it Up and 350.org (Sustainable Markets Foundation)
· $100,000 for 1 year awarded on March 13, 2008 to support its project, Step it Up’s new initiative called Project 350 · 40,000 2008 Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) for Sustainable Markets Foundation | 350.org · $100,000 for 1 year awarded on March 3, 2009 for its Project 350 · $200,000 for 1 year awarded on March 12, 2009 for its climate accountability project, The Sustainable Market Foundation · $75,000 for 1 year awarded on November 7, 2009 for its project 350.org · $25,000 for 1 year awarded on March 22, 2010 for its Eco-Accountability project · $100,000 for 1 year awarded on June 17, 2010 for its 350.orgproject
1Sky Education Fund
· $1,000,000 for 2 years awarded on December 13, 2007 · $20,000 for 1 year awarded on November 17, 2008 for an alignment meeting of U.S. climate change leaders · 200,000 2008 RFF · 45,000 2008 RFF · $250,000 for 1 year awarded on June 18, 2009 · $30,000 for 1 year awarded on April 9, 2009 to support a consultant to coordinate the alignment of U.S. climate change leaders and large grassroots organizations · $250,000 for 1 year awarded on November 2, 2009 · $250,000 for 1 year awarded on November 19, 2009 · 50,000 2009 RFF · 15,000 2009 RFF · 20,000 2009 RFF
350.org: The Environmental and sustainability group who are “Anti” Big oil and big business. FUNDED by the scions of Big Oil and Big Business, the Rockefeller Foundation! (Standard Oil/ENRON) How ABSOLUTELY bizarre! Until you understand the agenda!
The Climate change scam, brought to you by the very same scam artists who crashed the world’s economy, own the central banking system, loan all governments their currency, own and control the IMF, the UN, the world’s largest investment banks, the major oil and gas corporations, big pharma (vaccines) and much anything else you can imagine. While they fund organisations proclaiming to be anti capitalist and anti big business and while the Occupy movement is filled with the Environmental “Greenies” who are completely oblivious to facts and wish to remain so:
THESIS and ANTITHESIS: WORKS EVERYTIME!
But there’s even more:
Investment banker speaking about the amount of tax which could be imposed upon the world’s population to “fight” this “invented for the purpose” SCAM called Climate change, before he then introduces the one and only DAVID DE ROTHSCHILD – the “Jesus” of Climate Change while part of the other and more massively wealthy through banking and big business families.
HOW EXTRAORDINARILY BIZARRE!
But AGAIN, there’s more:
Al Gore, fresh from his attendance at the Club of Rome comes out with HIS evangelisation of Climate Change and wins a Nobel Prize for his “Inconvenient truth” movie (just like Obama wins a Nobel Peace Prize! It is hilarious!). However, this is Al Gore when faced with his OWN inconvenient truths:
Did I mention ENRON earlier?
OOPS! Goldman Sachs, ENRON and Al Gore! WHAT a combination!
But then the governments push through the legislation. LEGISLATION (LEGAL not LAWFUL). Legislation can be enacted while the next government could repeal it. It happens every single day. Now if something is a law it is a law for good reason. But legislation isn’t law but guess who they can impose it upon because of the subrogation of rights and transfering those rights by way of REGISTRATION to the state? Yes, you guessed it – YOU!
Now WHY would our legislators in government DO this to us? I mean surely it impacts them as well doesn’t it? WELL DOESN’T IT?
“Insider Trading Rules That Don’t Apply To Congress”
“Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.”
WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE……….. NO IT DOESN’T!
Now, I really do hope you are getting to grips with all of this because it is tiring me out trying to explain it in all so many ways.
Imagine if there were no such thing as continents and that the earth was just filled by 10 billion or more separate islands of about an acre each, each of which had one single family on it. Then, as the UN stated, we were all born free and equal such that everyone understood that and there was no possibility of grouping people into religions and nations. We all had boats and all had our own dedicated island. Would we have passports and birth certificates? Would we insist that if anyone visited our island, fell ill and we were Doctors that that they would need to produce a passport and then a birth certificate to be recognised as being worthy of treatment? Would one family decide to grow so large that they then said “stuff free and equal, I’m going to insist that all other islands can only trade if they use the currency I produce, otherwise I am going to build a bomb to ensure they do!”?
The world is sick because of the system which has been built up by a few. It doesn’t matter which “ism” that system falls under because each “ism” is controlled by the same few and each ism has been and will always be corrupted. It is us allowing these few to dictate to us while we are all meant to be “free and equal” that creates the misery, the deaths and the coercion. We have given them the power. It reall is time we take it back. How do we do that?
Simple: By embracing the (empty) words of the UN and giving them TRUE meaning. We cannot ever win by thinking of ourselves. Doing that just delays the time the corruption touches you or one of your family. The ONLY way is to embrace those ideas fully and apply them to all. Only then will the many tame the few.
And with that…. Goodnight.
The episode of Norman Scarth being held for contempt in a British jail for 6 months (then being reduced to 3 months when he was released) and now, Maurice Kirk being imprisoned (for what precisely?) are both examples of how the State, using the power and authority we have all transfered to them by way of our registering our births, use NOT LAW but LEGAL STATUTES against us for having the audacity to demand honesty and accountability of those who are, IN FACT OUR (yes OUR) Public servants!
Here is the current issue with Maurice Kirk:
A letter from Norman Scarth to Governor Booty of HMP Cardiff
From: Mr. N. Scarth, Associate of the Article 6 Group.
To: Mr. Richard Booty, Governor, HMP Cardiff
(Tel: 02920 923 100. Fax: 02920 923 318):
Dear Governor Booty,
We ask that you ensure this document reaches Mr. Maurice Kirk (held captive in your establishment) without delay. IT IS NO EXAGGERATION TO SAY IT COULD BE A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH.
We understand you are not eating, & have lost 11 kilograms in weight since your incarceration. It is a common misconception that as you are not eating, there will be no food in your alimentary tract. This is not so. With no incoming food, that which is already in the tract remains static, becoming progressively firmer. It can become impacted, with serious consequences. Like you, I have some veterinary knowledge, & have had to deal with newly born foals who often suffer from this condition (liquid paraffin often worked with them, linseed oil with older animals). .
WE URGE YOU TO TAKE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF SOME LUBRICANT – BUTTER, MARGARINE OR SUCH LIKE.
Back to The Governor.
You must be aware that Mr. Kirk is suffering unbelievable persecution from what PURPORT to be the ‘Forces of Law & Order’ (acting for the most ulterior motives). “Nothing to do with me” you may well say, “I just do as Ordered by the Judiciary”. I remind you that the Nuremberg Trials brought a ruling that ‘Obeying Orders’ was no defence for acting against humanity.
Prisons are not ‘Holiday Camps’ as we are constantly told by the Press. As you may well know, Martin Narey, one-time head of the Prison Service told of “A litany of failure & moral neglect” in “Hell Hole prisons” Fn1. On TV on 22 July(?) 2001 General Sir David Ramsbotham (now Lord Ramsbotham) spoke of ‘barbaric prison guards” (he had just been sacked from his position as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons).
I sincerely hope that your establishment is not such a place, & that you will show your own humanity in this matter.
You & the Prison Doctor have authority to release Mr. Kirk on humanitarian grounds (at the time of the Suffragettes, there was what became known as ‘The Cat & Mouse Act’, whereby the starving women were released, but then incarcerated again after they had recovered strength). As this telephone does not receive incoming faxes, we would be grateful if you would reply by email to
Norman Scarth, Associate of The Article 6 Group,
36 Anvil Court Chambers, BRADFORD BD8 7QW
Tel: (01274) 541 213. Email: email@example.com
PS: David Wilson one-time Prison Governor, now a Professor of Criminology at Birmingham University, expressed the view of many that prisons are a very expensive, but quite ineffective way of dealing with crime. Apart from which, Mr. Kirk is definitely NOT a criminal. His treatment is attracting attention from abroad: Britain should look at herself before expressing outrage at Human Rights abuses in far off lands
Norman’s letter: 11-10-21-kirk-govfax.pdf
There is a petition for Fair Trials and Compensation which Norman and Sabine have initiated through Victims Unite. In it they state:
“HM Partnership” has omitted Article 13 from the UK Human Rights Act 1998. In the European Convention for Human Rights, Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before national authorities, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
The Go Petition: 40825.html
Now, given Article 13 of the ECHR has been omitted in the UK Human Rights Act 1998, it is obvious to me that this may have been an additional reason for the UK government to allow my own coercion and incarceration by an overseas court having no jurisdiction (proven and details/explanation available) in a case related to myself a few years ago. It fits exactly for I was advised by the FCO when I first contacted them that I should contact a lawyer in the country I was in and take the issue through the Court of that country. This the FCO advised me, of course, before I explained to them it was not a private or corporate attack on my Human Rights but an official/judicial one. At that point, they dropped the ball. THEREFORE, it is crystal clear that “HUMAN RIGHTS”, according to the government of the United Kingdom, do not exist. This is clear official/state/judicial tyranny where the law does not apply to them ONLY us!
So what is it I am stating Norman. Sabine and everyone else who keeps complaining and trying to plead with this corrupt LEGAL SYSTEM are ignoring and refuse to listen to?
Well it is this: The FACT – plain and simple – that the ONLY reason (and therefore justification) this corrupt regime is able to do what it is doing to people is because people have transfered their authority and power TO the corrupt regime by way of the registration of their birth. AS IS DOCUMENTED AS CLEAR AS DAY BY THE UNITED NATIONS ITSELF.
Please READ the following blog: u-n-inadvertently-confirms-freeman-concept
Now for some inexplicable reason, Sabine McNeill and others have a mental block against what is clearly and unambiguously illustrating a solution to this entire problem while they keep banging their heads against a brick wall trying to use a corrupt system and its procedures and rules to plead with it to stop implementing its corrupt procedures and rules. It is fundamentally STUPID to do this but will they stop for a MOMENT to listen? NO! Why? Don’t ask me!
What they are doing, if you will excuse the “Star Wars” reference, is like pleading that the Emperor demands Darth Vader to stop choking you to death.
Again, it is like treating symptoms instead of eradicating the disease!
UNDERSTANDING THE BIRTH REGISTRATION AND WHAT IT HAS DONE IS THE SOLUTION!
YOU MUST THROW EVERY PERSON BEHIND THIS ISSUE AND ATTACK THIS SYSTEM ON THAT BASIS.
For goodness sakes use your brain. In the ECHR Articles they even have this:
“Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;”
Now, STOP for one second and re-consider the UN statements made in the blog cited above:
It says – ” This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist”.
Now consider that CAREFULLY as you read the Articles of the ECHR such as:
Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
Section I – Rights and freedoms
Article 2 – Right to life
- Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived
of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court
following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
- Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of
this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than
- in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
- in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person
lawfully detained; (A “lawful” arrest or a “legal” arrest? It does not state, anywhere, arrest for what? Stealing a paket of winegums?”)
- in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. (So WHO decides on what is termed a riot? The NYPD against Occupy Wall Street protestors? The policeman who killed Ian Tomlinson while he was acting in a CAPACITY of Law Enforcer for the State? It was the State that murdered Ian Tomlinson!)
Now just fully recognise what the UN/State are saying here in plain language: “It is a human right (LEGALLY speaking remember and remember you have subbrogated your rights TO them LEGALLY) to live EXCEPT where the UN/State think it was fair enough to kill you. WE have allowed them to create these “legal rights” on our behalf and it is in that ignorance that WE have allowed Ian Tomlinson’s (and so many others’) deaths. So if anyone is murdered during a riot (or what THEY decide to term a riot) and that murder is carried out by a representative of the state, then it is acceptable.
Or what about this one:
Article 12 – Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Now give THAT some thought rather than just read “Well of course we should all have a right to marry, would you disagree?”
THINK about it: Marriage is nothing more than a LEGAL CONCEPT put in place by the state. It is ONCE MORE a CONTRACT and through registration of your marriage you are ONCE MORE handing authority and power to the State to intervene (and it does) if the marriage breaks down. The CONTRACT is not between you and your spouse! Do you SERIOUSLY need a contract to love the person you love? THINK about all of this! Do you SERIOUSLY need a CONTRACT to have a family and to love, protect and care for that family?
A pre-nuptial agreement is a contract between you and your spouse BUT even those are very often ignored by the state even when it is a deliberately entered by both parties agreed contract! Now why would the state ignore that? Because this is ALL about state control and the shaping of society BY the state and we know “the State” or, if you wish to consider it the government, is owned/controlled by the Bankers. The bankers pay, bribe, coerce, blackmail for the legislation they wish to see. If prenuptial agreements were accepted fully then the state would not make the immense amounts of money it does through divorces.
AND NO! I AM NOT SUPPORTING THE BREAKDOWN OF THE FAMILY UNIT. IT DOES NOT BREAK DOWN IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. DO THEY HAVE CONTRACTS? IT IS THE STATE (WHEN YOU STUDY THIS MORE DEEPLY) WHO ARE DRIVING THE BREAKDOWN OF THE FAMILY UNIT.
So, OF COURSE the “Human Rights Act” is going to state everyone has the right to enter into a contract with the state! But, again, to do so, you must be recognised by the state and LEGALLY EXIST.
ARE YOU BEGINNING TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND THIS NOW?
YOU ARE ASKING THE DEVIL TO ACT LIKE JESUS! YOU ARE ASKING DECEPTION TO STOP DECEIVING YOU!
The UN is stating very clearly and precisely that these children who have not been REGISTERED as having been born, have NO RIGHTS under “the rule of law”. The truth is that EVERY HUMAN BEING BORN ON THIS EARTH HAS RIGHTS- UNALIENABLE RIGHTS and we need NO person nor organisation anywhere to BESTOW these rights upon us OTHERWISE (and here is the RUB) we are subrogating our GOD GIVEN rights from the moment we are born and we are doing it through the deception OF the State, the government, the ECHR, U.N. etc and THEY know it!
Subrogation is the legal technique under common law by which one party, commonly an insurer (I-X) of another party (X), steps into X’s shoes, so as to have the benefit of X’s rights and remedies against a third party such as a defendant (D). Subrogation is similar in effect to assignment, but unlike assignment, subrogation can occur without any agreement between I-X and X to transfer X’s rights.
They have created a LEGAL system which they apply to your LEGAL PERSON, which you have allowed to be deceptively created. Within that legal system, then, they create the rules to their liking and YOU cannot complain because you have registered and subrogated your rights to them – or at least that is how they act upon it in your ignorance. They are using TRUST law but they are CORRUPTING IT to their benefit.
The following quote most certainly applies in this situation:
“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
― Albert Einstein
So FOR GOD’S SAKES SABINE – LISTEN! You put a lot of FINE work into what you do but you are working HARD but not working SMART! You are putting so much effort into fighting symptoms!
THIS IS NOT “ROCKET SCIENCE” SABINE. THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF THIS IS IN THE UN’s OWN WORDS. NOW GATHER UP THE NUMBERS AND ATTACK THIS CORRUPTION FROM A VERY STRONG POSITION USING THEIR OWN WORDS TO DESTROY IT!
INSODOING, YOU ARE NOT DESTROYING THE LAW, YOU ARE EXPOSING THEN ERADICATING THE CORRUPTION OF THAT WE KNOW IA NOT LAW BUT IS A CONSTRUCT OF A LEGAL SOCIETY USED AS A CONTROL MECHANISM TO FURTHER THEIR OWN AGENDA!
You can rest assured that even many magistrates and/or judges (and certainly a Barrister I met previously) haven’t even given this a moment’s thought. They just implement rules. They don’t THINK about the validity of those rules and “laws”. God help the poor souls they’re minds are so full of junk trying to retain and remember all the rules of this law they have been taught that they don’t have the space to consider this. But this IS reality!