Earthlinggb's Blog

David Icke: Is TPV breaking the law?

Posted in Media by earthlinggb on December 6, 2013

Following on from a comment on my last blog. The law regarding Internships is that the intern must be paid. Is this journalist that David Icke “synchronistically” stumbled upon being paid?

Synchronicity

Mr Baker said that interns should know their rights.

“Companies are taking advantage of the fact that there is a high level of graduate unemployment and we advise people to know there rights. They have a right to claim money even if they have finished working with a company,” Baker added.

The National Union of Journalists, which has run a  campaign against exploitative unpaid work, gave us a statement from the NUJ’s general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet: “This practice continues to exploit dreams and exclude new talent, undermining the diversity of our profession, just when we should be nurturing and supporting the people coming into the industry.  Employers in the media should be warned; we will continue to take on those who seek to exploit young people and new comers to the industry.”

http://www.internaware.org

Furthermore, are the likes of Deanna Amato and Elissa Hawke being paid? And, if they are, do they hold the correct visas (working visas) to be paid? If they are not being paid then how do they possibly live while working for the People’s Voice?

These are BIG questions folks because you have no idea how, in fact, your donations are being used. If you’re simply not interested, while you throw money at a Private Limited Company run by a guy you have no idea about (Sean ADL Tabatabai) then, frankly, you’re incredibly stupid.

From “we need £300K to pay for all the cost of the amazing equipment we need to buy” to “Well it cost us £20K” and everything else which this patently amateurish set up has had you swallow in the name of “truth” while they use your money but don’t allow transparency of how that Private Limited Company is using it – and now they’re thanking you all for further donations? Somehow I doubt that suddenly they are receiving a mass of donations since Icke’s begging video. I believe (and it is just my belief) that they already have funding which will keep them running but they have to make out that they are suddenly receiving a great influx of donations from you – again, let’s see the books Icke! Or should I say Tabatabai? – plus they don’t pay expenses for volunteers but pay an inner core of people. WHO is getting paid by you and how much? It’s YOUR money folks! How many of you are out of a job?

How STUPID are you?

Destroying the mindgame!

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on November 28, 2013

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.

Debate or shut up!

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, [1939] 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

Reviewed work(s):

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).

See Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_Kingdom

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.

LEGAL SUPREMACY

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!

The SOVEREIGN Order of Malta: Legal person and legally sovereign.

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

Abstract

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.

129.abstract

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:

Another difficulty regarding the claimant’s ability to have a cause of action
concerns their legal personality. In order to establish a duty of care it must be proven
that at the time of the injury the claimant was a legal person, which is problematic in the case of the unborn child.
Although in the realm of medicine it is an agreed upon fact that a child
commences to exist before birth and that the child’s “ante-natal development”
should be taken into consideration, English law refutes this notion contending that it
is a firmly established principle of law that a child does not receive an “independent
legal status” until it is born. (Please notice here that the circumstances of the unborn child still residing in its mother’s womb is PRECISELY the circumstances by which the married woman, previously, was considered a “non person” who was the property of her husband. The child does not exist as a person but is one and the same as, and the property of, the mother)
Furthermore, L.J. Dillon also acknowledged the fact that a fetus does not
have legal personality in English law, as verified in the cases of Re F (in utero) and
Paton v. B.P.A.S.. However, he placed emphasis on “other contexts” in which the
English courts have integrated the civil law axiom “’that an unborn child shall be
deemed to be born whenever its interests require it.’”12 On this basis the Canadian
Supreme Court made its ruling in Montreal Tramways v. Leville and contended:
“To my mind it is but natural justice that a child, if born alive and viable,
should be allowed to maintain an action in the courts for injuries wrongfully
committed upon its person while in the womb of its mother.” (Here, it is stating that once, and only if, the child is then physically born, will it then be able to sue its mother – or another – who caused it to suffer a tort while still within the womb)
However with each of these approaches theoretical difficulties arise and contradict Common Law’s standpoint that the damage suffered must have occurred at the time the claimant was a legal person, thus at birth or post-natal. Where a child is born and has injuries perpetrated while in the womb, the harm is “to be sustained by him at the moment of his birth and not before, since prior to his birth he had no legal personality.
index.php?page%3Dredirect%26id%3D158+does+a+court+possess+a+legal+personality&hl=en&gl=uk

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.

 

The Human Rights of dolphins

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 27, 2013

Yes it’s ANOTHER “legal person” blog. Just because this message does not seem to be sinking in with the vast majority of Human Beings on this planet.

Now, before I go on, I think it’s great that we protect species on our planet (but PLEASE do not think this is done by the likes of the WWF etc – it is NOT) so I’m all for this initiative. BUT, like ANY initiative – just like the government’s initiative and legislation which protects gay rights, women’s rights, ethnic minority rights etc; if you have ANY experience with the law whatsoever you will know that such initiatives are exploited as positive discrimination practice which is, in itself, anti “Human Rights” because it literally gives certain groups MORE “rights” than others. Take employment law for example. If you are either of the previous 2 mentioned groups, you are FAR more protected and have a MUCH better chance of winning a legal case than if you are a white, straight male.

Don’t believe me? Try this:

EVEN WITH AN OUTRIGHT ADMISSION OF GUILT IN BLACK AND WHITE, THE STRAIGHT, WHITE MALE IN THE UK CANNOT, IT SEEMS, EVEN FIND REPRESENTATION IN COURT.

Now, what you all have to understand (for if you don’t this human race is finished – the majority being slaughtered by tyrants and the rest enslaved) is that YOU HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS! They DO NOT EXIST! The documents which state they are “Human Rights Acts” DO NOT apply to human beings! They apply ONLY to LEGAL PERSONS! For until you are recognised as a LEGAL PERSON you do not exist in law. If you do not exist in law then how can a “non-existent” entity be conferred ANY benefits? It is a LOGICAL FALLACY!

So what is the problem of being a LEGAL PERSON as well as a Human being? Well it really does not take too much synapse energy to work it out and I have beat that path before on other blogs so, if you’d like to know, read them! If you don’t like my tone then too bad. Spite yourself by not learning because you don’t like the “teacher”. Do I give a fcuk?

I wrote a blog some time back re the “Natural person”, in which I included the following:

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov's Bible!

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov’s Bible!

“As Martine explains, this colloquium was inspired by the long-running colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, which began in 1958.  She sees a connection between space law in 1958 and human rights of futuristic persons right now, in that they are both incredibly cutting-edge in 1958 and today, respectively.  In 1958, the experts decided that some things that were taken for granted, like national borders, had to be tossed out in the face of the new technology.  For instance, if a space probe is orbiting the Earth, it will violate the “airspace” of many countries whether they like it or not.  We may have to discard similar assumptions to come up with a serious legal framework for futuristic persons.  The point of this colloquium is to move forward the law on these new areas, as the law must evolve together with improving knowledge.  One crucial area is that personhood should be regarded based on intelligence and values, rather than substrate or superficial appearance.

This colloquium could go on for a long time — 10, 20, 30 years.  It won’t be done overnight, but the point is to move forward the law and ensure that the rights of futuristic persons are duly protected by the legal system as they are created.”

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/12/the-terasem-movement-4th-colloquium-on-the-law-of-futuristic-persons/

Clones and Robots of the 21st Century WILL be given LEGAL PERSON STATUS. As will animals of various kinds. Now Corporations already have them and are given greater preferential treatment over human beings (while the idiotic human beings that we are WORK for the very corporations – and, in essence, give them “life” – who rule over us! THINK about that! We WORK the very systems of oppression {government, law, religion and corporations} which dictate our very lives! We give them the ‘breath of life’ which provides them the status and, ultimately, the very power over us that they have! We then have issues with them, as individuals, and THEY win hands down over us. THINK OF THE SHEER MADNESS OF THIS!

Next up, we have DOLPHINS (and I personally think they are beautiful creatures).

Dolphin persons

Give this some thought however. You may then just begin to recognise how absolutely controlled and anything but free that you are. You see, this is not a blog about giving dolphins rights. This is a blog to demonstrate and display to YOU that you have none!

1. “Bans holding them in captivity for commercial entertainment”

Let’s compare that with you. Are you held in captivity? Oh I really think that if you consider it seriously, you will recognise that, in fact, you are.

Commercial entertainment? Well let’s see. Let’s go back to those Corporations for example. They’re commercial and they are using you – perhaps not strictly for entertainment purposes (unless, of course you ARE an entertainer and there are many girls in certain clubs who are for instance) – but do you get to choose your working hours? Your working days? The work you do? The holidays you get? And do you REPORT to anyone? Even if you are the Vice President of Disney Corporation you STILL report to the President.

But then, just to really take the piss out of you, you have MPs who get paid over £2000 for 14 hours work per month for a water company. What does he do? Does he pump the water for them for 14 hours? Even that would be a decent hourly wage for a water pumper!

Then you get the non executives who you find on the Board of Directors of TENS of different companies! HOW can they possibly be doing a decent job for any of them while, for each, they may be getting paid hundreds or tens of thousands of pounds each directorship (or perhaps they just get tons of stock!). While YOU get a 9 to 5 and a contract which states you can’t work for anyone else while you are in full-time employment for the company. Now HOW does that work eh?

YOU’RE A SLAVE THAT’S ALL.

2. Do you think they’ll issue dolphins with passports? I guess not. Dolphins then, are FAR more free and less captive than you are even as a legal person.

3. Will they start having to pay VAT on their food bill? Will they even have a food bill? I doubt it somehow. Humans have the greatest intellect on the planet yet here we are, PAYING to live! (when we don’t have to).

4. Do they pay interest on their promissory obligations to each other? Oh yes, Dolphins and ALL sentient beings take on all sorts of promissory obligations. Again, we are the “intellects” and we have set up a system we allow to run which steals our own promissory obligations to each other AND charges us interest on them! Humans? Top of the food chain? Pull the other one!

There is a VERY interesting question to be raised here however. You understand the word “standing” when related to legal issues don’t you? For instance, if you are not a party to a contract, you have no “standing” in court to be heard in relation to any contractual dispute.

Look at it another way: The girl called Jade Jacobs Brooks from Essex, was considered non existent so she had no “standing” to demand her human rights be acknowledged and “benefits” (not that being given a passport and a citizenship is a “benefit” but, again, I’ve covered that elsewhere) conferred upon her.

But here’s a beauty: As stated by the UN, the child with no birth certificate, non existent in law then just like Jade, has no standing and, therefore, cannot be protected by the state. Those children all around the world in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine who have no ID/birth certificate, have NO STANDING in law such that, if they are murdered by America, Britain or Israel, there is NO legal basis on which to prosecute. Genocide can take place and if those who are killed have never had legal standing, they did not legally exist. They CANNOT, therefore, be legally considered as murdered! 

Now, that would APPEAR to be a good argument for ensuring one has a birth certificate and, therefore, is legally recognised right? But let’s look at the dolphin issue once more:

If a dolphin is killed, it has no birth certificate so HOW then does it achieve “legal personality”? Well, simple. A dolphin is obviously a dolphin right? So one dead dolphin means someone has murdered it. Or, if it is kept in a tank somewhere then it’s obviously a dolphin!

What about all those human beings who are trafficked year after year? Isn’t obvious they are human beings? Pretty obvious really if they walk into a court and say “Hey judge! I’m being held against my will for the purposes of prostitution”, What’s the first thing the judge or police will say? “ID and address please!” Yet what the FCUK has that got to do with what that person – sorry, human being – has just stated? IF, then, that human being has no ID or birth certificate or Social security number to give, then that human being DOES NOT exist as a person in law and the law will do NOTHING to help them!

Will a dolphin have to fill in form after form and submit them to court? Will it have to follow legal procedure? Will it have to submit all documents with a 7 day window? Will it have to write out an affidavit? No!

So let’s say someone has it captive in a tank somewhere. Someone else sees it and reports it to the authorities. Here’s the thing – under any circumstances related to HUMAN person’s rights (if such existed), to complain under such (and watch out because the British government are looking to introduce a new Bill of Rights which, in parliament, they have stated will be NON JUDICIABLE – figure that one out!) requires that you MUST be the one DIRECTLY affected by any action. All others who may complain generally about issues affecting you (or even them – if it is too generally applicable to society) have NO “standing” in the matter.

It reminds me again of our friend Ken Clarke when, in Parliament, he just laughed at the idea of a parliamentary question relating to Bilderberg. He said he does not see what interest Parliament have in a Private organisation and how that organisation is or can be under parliamentary scrutiny – effectively, then, what he is saying is that Parliament have no “standing” wrt Bilderberg because Bilderberg is private.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY AND YOUR PRIVATE CAPACITY?

Answer: You don’t have one!

Why? Because YOU are a LEGAL PERSON SLAVE!

Meanwhile……. in Canada.

Canadian Queen oath

Forcing would-be Canadians to pledge allegiance to the Queen before they can become citizens is discriminatory and a violation of their constitutional rights, three permanent residents are set to argue in court on Friday.

All three maintain they oppose the oath on religious or conscientious grounds, saying pledging allegiance to Canada should be sufficient.

The Citizenship Act requires applicants for citizenship to swear or affirm they will be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.”

People born in Canada or abroad to Canadian parents are automatically citizens and don’t have to take any such oath.

“All of the applicants would willingly take an oath to observe the laws of Canada and fulfil their duties as Canadian citizens,” the document says.

That they cannot have the “convenience” of a Canadian passport or the right to vote is a small price to pay for adhering to their principles, the government argues. (Ahh! So they WILL allow them to adhere to their principles – and, I assume, believe they are providing for their “human rights” – but there’s a BIG problem with such an argument. It is a “human right” to be provided with a passport and the means to travel. It’s also a “human right” to be provided with citizenship and NOT a cut down version! So they may be allowed their beliefs BUT with a penalty of foregoing another human right? hahahaha. The legal person system is so incredibly see through it should be coming apart at the seams by now!) 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/canadian_citizenship_oath_to_queen_will_be_challenged_in_court.html

 Why would ANYONE willingly take an oath to a piece of land and to abide by laws which they have not read or, perhaps, even understand the full implications of? It is this ignorance which provides these statist maniacs their power to manipulate and control every last person on this earth.
Discriminatory; Which it is. To live “freely” you must pledge allegiance to another? So much for free human beings to have freedom of conscience, thought and expression plus freedom of faith, religion etc. From the outset, no commonwealth country provides that freedom! How about that?But hey, no-one ever thinks of that! And the monarchists will ignore the pure contradiction in it and say “If you don’t like it, then leave”. But where does one go because one must accept “citizenship” and therefore, allegiance to another piece of earth with fictional boundaries drawn up.So, to have all those freedoms, one MUST become stateless. However, do that and they win again because their legal system will not provide any “human rights” to you including a passport.

And you think you are not captive? :-)

 

 

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………
Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”

 

Constitution

HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

Secondly, and more importantly, the Royal prerogative is a fiction and a dangerous fiction. It includes a wide range of ministerial appointments and vast areas of patronage. It makes it difficult for the Royal Family. The present Queen has behaved impeccably but it is possible that a future head of state, for example, might have different views on fox hunting—I throw that out as a possibility—and that that might lead to problems. At present, the whole situation with regard to the Royal prerogative is an enormous cop-out for Ministers of any party. It has absolutely aided the growth of uncontrolled, undemocratic and unaccountable patronage—the so-called “demi-monde” of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has written. I believe that it also has the effect of emphasising the status of our citizens as subjects and not as citizens.

Finally, I refer to the Prime Minister. Any Prime Minister is a beneficiary of Royal prerogative. We have seen the dangers of it in the Butler report. That report showed how changes in our constitutional mechanisms have led to serious effects in our foreign policy, and it absolutely makes the case for a far more written constitution.

First, the Prime Minister’s power to declare war under the Royal prerogative should absolutely come to an end. As it happened, there was a parliamentary vote in March, before the Iraq war. But simply leaving it to one individual, particularly in the way in which the Butler inquiry showed that that decision was reached and with all the misrepresentation attached to it, means that we should go towards the American system of having parliamentary approval and should draw a great distinction between it and the fiction of the prerogative.

Finally—I know my time is up—the question of legality should be set out. If a war is to be undertaken, it should be clearly set out that it is legal and that constitutionally and internationally it is approved in law. Far too much is taken on trust. Our presently informal, secret, enclosed constitution is dangerous to our liberties and I greatly welcome the Motion that has enabled me, however briefly, to say that.

 

CROWN LANDS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65

MR. HENLEY

said, he supposed that the management of certain rights included the receipt of any profit from them?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER            Yes.
§MR. DARBY GRIFFITH            said, he understood the proposition to be a sort of adjustment between the property of the Crown and of the public, equalizing a liability on the one hand and a debt on the other. The property of the Crown and certain other matters frequently spoken of were all pure legal fiction, for the property of the Crown had been, since the settlement of 1688, arranged by the Civil List, and the Crown could not possibly resume that property. The foreshore rights were of an uncertain character originally, and had been sometimes exercised in a hostile manner to individuals.

 

INDEED YOU ARE CAPTIVE! Your “legal person” is a created fiction by, ironically, another legal fiction called the Crown (a legal person in of itself) which assumes a greater status of legal person than your legal person and, in doing so, imposes its legal statutes and rules upon you.

 

A fundamental of law is the following: ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE IT.

The biggest joke played upon the world’s population ever to be conceived (along with the theft of our own promissory obligations to each other – again given legitimacy by the legal fiction of the Crown.

 

INCREDIBLE WE ARE STILL ACCEPTING THIS. BUT WE ARE!

THE “HUMAN RIGHTS ACT” DECEPTION

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on May 13, 2013

[ADDENDUM: I've been waiting a LONG time for ANYONE within the legal fraternity to challenge the logic of anything I've stated in this blog. While it's been sent to Mr Ustych and others and i have challenged them to comment on it. Not a word! You might think "Why would they bother themselves with you?" I would say "Because there are sites which are legal and human rights sites which are trying to suggest the "freeman" stuff is all "quasi legal mumbo jumbo". Of COURSE they would say this because, in legal language and legal form, this cannot possibly be acknowledged and it IS outwith "legalities" simply because it is EXPOSING the fiction and illogic and deception of the legal world. When these people say "This is not legal and, therefore, the argument would not hold up in court", I say "Well of COURSE it wouldn't! How can you argue logic and reality in a court which is entirely based upon fictions?"

This is why the legal fraternity - "the Brotherhood of the Inns" - cannot possibly refute or debate what is written here. They know it is FACT and not FICTION]

Good evening to you all!

ARE YOU HUMAN?

YES?

ARE YOU 100% SURE OF THAT?

YES?

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!

CRAZY SUGGESTION?

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?

Alex 1

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!

HRA 1998

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:

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1

http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR32/20-22.pdf://

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

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:

EXHIBIT 4

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?

“Of course”.

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?

“Yes”

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!

Humans are among us

“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:

HRA 1998 1

“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:

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSHən/

Noun
A violent uprising against an authority or government: “opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection”.
Synonyms
rebellion – revolt – uprising – insurgency – rising

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:

Article 3.

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:

Article 6.

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!

However, their own fundamental flaw to be attacked (HARD) is this:

“Everyone has the right to recognition AS A PERSON before the law”.

IF IT IS A “RIGHT” THEN EVERYONE (BAR NONE) HAS THE “RIGHT” TO WAIVE THAT “RIGHT”. Think about it. It’s plain as day. They could NOT argue against it (logically).

You hit a Judge with that and there is NOTHING he has in his armoury (except deception and brute force) to argue against it. If he did not offer you the right to waive your “right” then it is NOT a Right and he and the entire basis of law is exposed and compromised. The Judge and court has then, effectively, breached your Human Rights. But then, through the categorisation (please note the Barrister’s reference to my category of person once more in the video) of each individual human being as a specific category of “person”, the “law” is breaching your human rights every single day.

ADDENDUM:

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!

Quell

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?

ANSWER: NONE!

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!

U.N. inadvertently confirms “Freeman” concept

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on October 22, 2011

THANK YOU U.N. YOU COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR!

[I've noticed another surge in views of this blog entry particularly from "Godlikeproductions". I have read all the new comments and can I just say, with every respect, some of you are getting bogged down in minutiae, missing the point and starting to talk as if "what do we do without law?" This blog is NOT about having no law, it is simply about the absolute admission by the UN - and therefore all bodies underneath it including ALL governments - that STATUTORY LAW is what we know it to be and that they use that law purely for the basis of increasing every control on society. People en masse, then understanding this, could and would have a perfectly formed argument together to attack the very basis of STATUTORY laws. There would be no need to approach it all with all the other freemen arguments which they shall evade and make changes in law to evade. You attack the very fundamental issue and you demand COMMON LAW. But it needs a mass of people to understand and work together to create the voice needed. Nothing needs done by force just force of will and concrete proof. I have given you the proof.]

This is not, in any way, a “quick fix” for just a few people to take on the system. What it is, is a factual, verified, “report” on what it is and how it is that the present system uses the legal fiction known as the “person” to totally control a life (and a corporate life) from birth to death. Due to ignorance within a democracy, there is no way of any one person (I should say, human) taking on this system and winning with this absolute, proven, verified logic. Verified, no less than by the U.N. itself – it is, in fact, manipulation and control hidden in clear sight. Article 6 of the U.N Declaration of Human Rights actually destroys their entire construct where itself, it states what I show on the following blog. Please read this blog also and simply work through the logic. I assure you, there is not one legal Barrister, judge or lawyer who can argue against this logic. Logic is NOT what the legal world works on because, if it did, it would simply fall apart. http://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/the-human-rights-act-deception-2/

I have seen this blogpost now go viral and have read many comments on it from various other blogsites. Many people are speaking about the dangers of leaving the system and also the benefits of having no Birth registration. I would, therefore, ask the reader to read very carefully what is being said because, in fact, there is no need to leave the system. There is no need for having no birth certificate and having no conferred benefits. There is only ONE need to be stated ON the birth certificate to “kill” the issue of the state and the legal UN articles which are corrupt and deceptive. That statement is provided as an addendum at the bottom. It is simple and entirely effective but ONLY when the human race understands what has occured. We live in this “democracy” (and to the US reader, democracy was NEVER what your founders intended) which deems that the majority rule. If the majority are ignorant and uneducated about what is written here and are unable to grasp the reality and logic of it, then we will never get the mass of people to demand the statement – and what it means – to be inserted.

However, there is one other point I wish to make: OWS need to understand this because this is at the heart of everything. If they do not understand this then they are throwing rocks at a machine and the machine will prevail.

I have been studying this issue for some time now and while I have to state I do not perceive myself as a “Freeman” simply because I do not align with any particular movement, I have, in the past few years, been compelled to look at what it is that gives an entirely corrupt government and judiciary (and it is I can assure you) the “power” to consider themselves the authority by which they can introduce any and all “law” that they wish which, many times, impinges upon personal freedoms from freedom of speech to smoking to how fast you drive your car to coercing you to pay taxes. Let me explain in a short couple of sentences why I took this path:

I went before a court which I then proved, a year or two later, never had jurisdiction in a case. According to THEIR own law, there were two conditions, either one of which which would allow their jurisdiction and neither one was satisfied by either party and the COURT AND LAWYERS knew this all along! They didn’t care but became incensed I found out and decided to coerce me at Supreme court level. I have all the proof of this and, at the time, I gave it to the British government (FCO). I received a letter from Meg Munn saying they would do nothing for me even though it was a direct assault on my human rights. This court was going to jail me (with no record and based upon “contempt because I exposed their corruption in court) for a second time unless I handed over my ENTIRE wealth to the other party (even though I proved to the court via 5 years of bank statements that the other party had stolen £35,000 from me, which they accepted but didn’t care – the other party had the children). I had advised my lawyer to go into court and strike the whole proceedings and while he accepted that I was right, he refused to do so because it would embarrass HIM AND embarrass the COURT. He obviously had words with the opposition lawyer about my findings and with the court and it was, at that point, the coercion began. I was to “negotiate and do a deal” with the other party who had perjured themselves in court and in affidavits over and over again (seen and accepted by the court but ignored) otherwise I was going to jail again for not abiding with a court order which, I had proven, was based upon false evidence. The FCO, then, were going to allow another court to abuse my human rights when it is their stated principle to uphold the human rights of every UK citizen. Why were they willing to do this? The excuse was because they could not interfere in another sovereign nation’s legal system. I hope you realise what a joke this is! It all depends upon which country’s legal system they are being asked to interfere with. If it is Syria’s or Sudan’s (and THEY are sovereign nations) then it’s ok. If it is a country accepted by the west (which it was) then no, they won’t. The hypocrisy and corruption is so obvious to me now. It ended then, with me literally running for my life (I know it sounds dramatic but it is fact), jumping on a plane back to UK and finishing the whole thing off in the Royal Courts of Justice. Faced by a lawyer and barrister who laughed when I entered court saying I was representing myself. They were not laughing at the end of the day however when I explained the entire jurisdiction issue. The barrister had written to the court in England saying they had jurisdiction to hear the case because the two parties were domicile in England. When I pointed out to him that the other party was asking the court to uphold the other country’s court order which had assumed jurisdiction being held in the other country based upon DOMICILITY there, the barrister realised he was whipped! Here is where it gets interesting: The result was that, in absolute fact, the other party to the case is now an unrecognised bigamist. That is what our “law” allows!

“Domicile” and why that Barrister shit himself: set15

But then that Barrister, himself, broke the law by not advising the Court (The Royal Courts of Justice indeed) that the overseas proceedings were entirely null and void and that, now with re-marriage, the other party is a bigamist because the original divorce was illegal! Nice eh? :-)

During all of this, the other party demonised me to my kids who were only 10 and 12 when it started. They still don’t seem to understand the incredible lies the other party has told them (and the Singapore court) and that now, the man the other party is “married” to is, of course, the same man they were told was “just a friend”.

Two daughters, who are now nearly 20 and 18 and they despise me because I only have one way to show them their father didn’t ever lie to them and that is by showing them the lies of their mother which creates their impressions of me. But then, you don’t win because the last thing these girls wish to do is admit to themselves that they can see these lies. I’ve lost almost a decade of a relationship with my own kids and no matter I can prove every single last element of perjury and brainwashing of them by the other party, the law doesn’t give a damn.

So, back to the issue:

It would seem strange that the U.N. itself could possibly confirm something as “bizarre” as a Freeman concept, I agree, but one only needs to read the following and, hopefully, if you have a logical mind, you will appreciate it quite clearly.

The U.N. states:

“Registration means proof of legal identity. It is vital for securing recognition before the law, protecting rights such as inheritance and making children less vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.”

“Under international law then, every child is entitled to registration of their birth, including children born to irregular migrants.”

20-22.pdf

Now, please consider carefully, the word “entitled” above. It would sound like an offer, a choice wouldn’t it? “You are entitled to such and such if you so choose to accept”. But the reality is that, in each state/country, you HAVE no choice. The State will punish ANY parent who, on your behalf as a baby, does not wish to CONTRACT with the state. The State’s propaganda machine, however, is great and the ignorant populace will be led to believe you are, somehow, abusing your child. They will say “we cannot confer benefits on this child because LEGALLY, it does not exist” Therefore, you as a parent will be demonized.

Again, directly from the U.N.

“The child who is not registered at birth is in danger of being shut out of society – denied the right to an official identity, a recognized name and a nationality. In 2000, an estimated 50 million babies – more than two fifths of those born – were unregistered. These children have no birth certificate, the ‘membership card’ for society that should open the door to the enjoyment of a whole range of other rights including education and health care, participation and protection.
This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist”.

UNCF Innocent Digest No.9 March 2002:  birthregistration_Digestenglish.pdf

So there you have it in the UN’s own PLAIN language: In LEGAL TERMS they don’t exist. IF then, in legal terms, they do not exist then, by definition, the legal world can have NO AUTHORITY over them. They are EXPLICITLY saying this. There is no room for misinterpretation. It is precise. The UN and legal world spell out the ADVANTAGES of having a birth certificate (all the benefits) but not the DISADVANTAGES which they trust you will not even begin to consider.

“The value of birth registration continues to be overlooked, according
to the report. It says that registration is a critical measure to
secure the recognition of every person before the law, to safeguard
the protection of his or her individual rights, and to ensure that
any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.”

Child-rights@hrea.org: msg00069.html

“Registration at birth is a fundamental human right that confers a distinct legal identity on every child. This paper emphasizes that, while a person’s name may be their most distinctive “mark” of individuality, additional information – such as age, family ties and nationality – promote the child’s right to legal protection by parents and by the state.”

“every child is entitled to State protection against exploitation and abuse. In the case of the unregistered child, however, he or she has no guaranteed protection of a specific national jurisdiction.”

“Birth registration is a permanent and official record of a child’s existence. It can be generally defined as the official recording of the birth of a child by some administrative level of the state and coordinated by a particular branch of government. Registration at birth is a fundamental human right that confers a distinct legal identity on every child.

“Ideally, birth registration is part of an effective civil registration system that acknowledges the existence of a person before the law, establishes his or her family ties and tracks the major events of that individual’s life, from birth, to marriage and parenting, to death. A fully functional civil registration system should be compulsory, universal, permanent and compulsory.”

“A birth certificate is the most visible evidence of a government’s legal recognition of the existence of a child as a member of society.”

“In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, for example, Palestinians have been motivated to register their children in order to establish legal identity. On the basis of this registration, identity cards are issued which designate whether the child was born in Gaza, the West Bank or Jerusalem. This in turn establishes categories of the population subject to controlled mobility, leading to stigmatized treatment and additional discriminations.”

“….without a birth certificate it is difficult for an unregistered child, or that child’s family, to seek legal redress.”

“Experience from the field indicates that the registration of every child is a practicable possibility, even in challenging circumstances. To give just one striking example, in Afghanistan, between May and October 2003, a total of 775,000 children were successfully registered, representing 97 per cent of the target group of all girls and boys under one year of age. This was achieved using trained volunteers who accompanied polio vaccination teams as they made house-to-house visits to immunize young children.”

The entire document is very well worth a read but I think we get the picture very clearly Council of Europe.

3_WEB%20E%20Rep.%2012.pdf

Now, I am NOT suggesting that people should not register their child’s birth. No, no no. What I am saying is that EVERYONE should understand, from this, that the existing corrupt system – top to bottom – which allows some to “break the law” (such as elites, wealthy, corporations – who are considered ‘legal persons’) is using the registration of your birth – WHICH IS ACTUALLY A TRUST SET UP BY YOU AND THE STATE WITH YOU AS SOLE BENEFICIARY, THEREFORE, YOU and ONLY YOU, dictate how that trust operates and what its “laws” are – uses it AGAINST YOU where and when it sees fit. And they will and DO use it corruptly particularly if you prove to be an “annoyance” to them.. You have to understand that statute law (the legal world) requires consent and they ASSUME you have given them consent to act ‘on your behalf’ because you have been REGISTERED with the state – just as you register your car and the state (DVLA) has been given authority by YOU to tow away your car – which then allows them to ACT upon your person in accordance with ANY and ALL statutes that they see fit. But this is in YOUR IGNORANCE of how this deception works.

By registration of your child, you have entered – and entered them – into a contract with the state which SUBBROGATES their inherent, god given, human rights which are UNALIENABLE – UNLESS you subbrogate them! This has been done deceptively, fraudulently because, as with ALL CONTRACTS, one must be afforded FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS. YOU WERE NOT GIVEN FULL DISCLOSURE OF WHAT THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS WERE BY REGISTERING THE BIRTH!

“Let he who allows himself to be deceived, be deceived”

So consider this because this is the result of the population’s ignorance regarding how the birth cerificate and REGISTRATION of your child is actually used against you. You give the state the power and authority to remove your child from you in precisely the same way you give the DVLA power and authority to remove your car:

The bottom line is this: While it is right that all children should live in safety, be registered, be confered the benefits of society – education, the necessities to operate in the world etc. The states are using “carrots” of benefits (which, in fact, as we are seeing are a huge cost to each individual in society because, as you know, being part of that society and a taxpayer for instance, has you liable for the losses of the banks) to ensure you register your child and hand authority to the state which then allows the state to use the legal system against you. Before you transferred authority to the state, your child (and you) had unalienable rights bestowed only by God. You were a completely free human being only limited by the true law (no harm, injury or loss to another human being). Since contracting and registering for all those “benefits”, the LAW SOCIETY, on behalf of the State, has removed, deceptively, all power from you and DO NOT, in fact, bestow upon you, the man or woman, human rights because you already HAVE rights which can never been taken from you AS a man or woman. Neither does the state abuse your unalienable rights because you have effectively transfered the authority to them to act upon your LEGAL PERSON. You have created a LEGAL PERSON. A LEGAL FICTION with which you play in the “game of life” like the piece you use in monopoly. That piece is not YOU but you control the piece and if you did not have it you would not be able to play the game. That is PRECISELY how your Birth Certificate (Registration with the state) is being used. That is your game piece in the game of life and it is being deceptively used against you.

So what is the solution? Have no birth certificate?

No. The solution is that we put the State on notice that we now appreciate what they have been and are doing and we advise them, very clearly, that it is fraud and deception on their part and we are now taking control over our trusts. The registration of your birth created a trust (even though you nor your parents thought of this or considered it, you just did what everyone has done). The TRUSTEES of that trust are the public servants. Public servants serve the PUBLIC. YOU are the public and the Judge, Police, government are YOUR servants. GOD KNOWS they do not wish you to understand this but I think the above makes it quite clear.

They treat YOU as a trustee in YOUR ignorance. You are NOT the trustee, you are the BENEFICIARY of that trust and as such, only YOU can appoint the administrator of it. The Judge is acting as administrator in your ignorance. YOU need to advise him/her that he/she is WRONG.

The U.N. has given you absolute confirmation here that it is the birth certificate and ONLY the birth certificate which creates a legal personality which the legal world can recognise an act upon. If they cannot confer benefits on you because you are not recognised legally, then they cannot POSSIBLY argue that they can hold you to legal statute law. Common law yes – absolutely. No harm, injury or loss and there MUST be an injured party. But other than that, they have NO authority over you.

THIS IS WHERE FREEDOM AND TRUTH BEGINS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO BREAK THE COMMON LAW. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO CAUSE HARM, INJURY OR LOSS. THIS IS ABOUT REMOVING THE SUBBROGATION OF YOUR RIGHTS BY A CORRUPT SYSTEM WHICH IS ABUSING ITS POWER.

Now, here is another interesting comment in the UN digest document:

 “Similarly, an unregistered child is unlikely to be able to obtain social protection from the state. In Israel, the fact that many Palestinian children born in camps are unregistered seriously jeopardizes their access to Israeli public health and welfare services”.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sick!

WHAT DOES YOUR ZIONIST/JEWISH VALUES SAY ABOUT THIS CAMERON? “It’s ok the kid had no birth certificate so didn’t exist”?

Consider this seriously for a moment: Is it possible that, due to the lack of legal recognition and, as the UN has stated, these children DO NOT LEGALLY EXIST, that to massacre such children AND adults is no crime at all legally?

DO NOT THINK THIS IS A FLIPPANT REMARK!

Think about this. HOW does a Palestinian child (or parent) or a person from a country or region (think native peoples – Papua New Guinea etc) bring a charge of murder or genocide or any charges into a court of law if they have no STANDING because they have no birth certificate therefore, no legal identity? How does a people then find justice? Answer: THEY DON’T. There IS no other mechanism.

So think of the massacre of native American Indians by those who stole their land. Those who stole the land were recognised in “law” as existing. They HAD birth certificates. The British system would, therefore, consider these “savages” as non-existent. If they did not exist in law then they both, could not be confered benefits NOR would anyone miss them or be able to act LEGALLY on their behalf. So, we massacred nobodies. In legal terms IT DID NOT HAPPEN! THINK about that!

But here’s another thing: While the UN and the state say you cannot be given any benefits – and let’s take health and medicine for a moment shall we? – if you do not have a birth certificate and therefore, do not exist. DO YOU THINK FOR ONE MOMENT THAT, IN PALESTINE AND ELSEWHERE, THESE CHILDREN AND ADULTS ARE EVER TURNED AWAY FROM HOSPITALS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF NATO or AMERICAN/BRITISH or ISRAELI BOMBS? DO YOU?

So then you tell me? WHO is the most humane? Those who would turn their backs on their people because they LEGALLY DO NOT EXIST such as that which the UN and western states subscribe to? Or those who see a human being suffering and the LAST thing they think about is “Do you have a birth certificate?” and “Do you have enough of these “bills of exchange” to pay to live? Quite literally then, the western idea is of having a Health service which acts as a “Highwayman” – “Your money or your life!”

To further point to the seriousness of that earlier remark think of slavery. Think of American Black slavery. They were not recognised as people with rights BUT, while all that changed and they were then conferred benefits of statehood, allowed passports, “given” rights through their registration, do you think for one moment that the same group of elitist psychopaths were going to make everyone equal?

“We have stricken the (slave) shackles from four million human beings and brought all laborers to a common level not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by practically reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”
- Horace Greeley – (1811-1872) founder of the New York Tribune

No. They then used and abused the system of registration which they “wrap up in ribbons” with nationality and passports and driving licences, education, health etc while, quietly they are using it to tax you, to fine you and to suck the wealth from humanity deceptively.

“The money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.”
- Democrat Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.

They STILL have their slaves because they set the system up to ensure it.

So Morgan, if you ever stumble across this, give it some thought!

Morgan Freeman: The blacks achieved their freedom? No, they were just added to the “herd”.

ADDENDUM 8th Nov 2011:

While I understand fully, people suggesting such as “bringing the system down” etc in their heartfelt anger about this massive con on the human race – and it is – I do not believe in bringing the system down because it would simply result in an unholy war and millions of deaths. For what?

The “system” has been built by us. The system is actually, basically fine. What is wrong is the corruption of that system by nothing more or less than the manipulation of law by those who hold the wealth which they have accumulated across centuries by ensuring the corruption of the system. It is necessary to expose and destroy (peacefully) these people’s grip on humanity by their having bought politicians and governments to install the legislation they have wanted for the purposes of societal control.

Specifically with regard to the birth registration issue. It is easily dealt with. The solution is:

“In signing this birth certificate as a RECORD of birth ONLY, I, as sole beneficiary of this trust, do not subrogate any and all god given rights of the child”

And for my atheist friends, of which I could be considered one, do not get caught up and pedantic by the use of the term “god given”. Whether you see them as god given or not, you surely understand you have, and should have, unlimited rights fom the moment you are born. Please read the supporting comments to this which were written over two centuries ago by Thomas Paine within his book “Rights of man”. You can find the link to the post on the right hand side column.

Colonel Edward Mandell-House:

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.

They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the
bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly.

The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our
dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

- Letter from Rothschild Agent Colonel Edward Mandell House to Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] found in Wilson’s personal diary/logs

I take no quote as being a fact unless it can be supported by source documents (as is the UN statement herein). So I cannot claim to know the certainty of the above quote which has been published widely across the internet. If anyone can confirm by way of providing a copy of the original source (Woodrow Wilson’s diaries) then such would be quite an incredible find which goes even further (if further were needed) to confirm the content of this post. However, I must add that, while I recognise the extreme arrogance of these people in what others have said, which have been solidly confirmed, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be QUITE so arrogant and, frankly, stupid, to write such as this in a letter to the President of the United States. If this were to be proven as factual, then these people are even more stupid than I give them credit for!

I cannot access this to check. Perhaps someone else can or find the source document elsewhere:  papers

ADDENDUM 30th November 2011:

Once this entire issue is grasped by the reader then, like me, you will probably find that you stumble across so many things which just verify it over and over (if such were needed). For instance, the Thomas Paine book I stumbled over just a few days after writing this initial blogpost. Now, today, this interesting (largely forgotten and much unused word) element came to my attention. Again I am not stating that this particular explanation is factual and entirely relevant. I am only adding it from the perspective that I find it very interesting. It does not subtract from the facts presented above re the entire birth certificate issue. -

Origin of terms ‘Negro’ and Afrika

By Dr. Kwame Nantambu January 09, 2007
According to Anthony T. Browder in From ‘The Browder File: 22 Essays on the African-American Experience’ (2000), “…the Portuguese were the first to enslave Afrikans and they were the first to call them Negroes. When the Spanish became involved in the slave trade, they also used the word Negro to describe Afrikans. Negro is an adjective which means Black in Portuguese and Spanish. But since 1444 and the beginning of the slave  trade, the adjective Negro became a noun and the legitimate name of a  newly enslaved people.” (p.1).
The fact of the matter is that under Euro-centrism, “…the word for Black was typically associated with aspects of death. The word death is derived from the Greek word Necro which means dead and is similar in sound and meaning to the word Negro.”
As part of “the manifestation of the evil genius of Europe,” Euro-centric thought process deceitfully juxtaposed the words “Necro” and “Negro”. “…to reference the physical, spiritual or mental death of a person, place or thing.” (Ibid).

0901.htm

I trust you recognise how this fits in precisely with the above discussion re the benefits and emancipation of blacks once they were legally recognised by the state. They then LEGALLY existed whereas, beforehand, they were “negro”, DEAD. They were effectively dead due to their non legal existence! It then became unacceptable AND illegal to use the term “nigger” and/or “negro” because, effectively, they were no longer such! A good thing you would say (and anyone would agree) BUT, as you already have read, it was anything but emancipation. If anything, they were promoted to “debt slave” like the rest of us rather than “dead slave”.

Here is another aspect of the control the birth certificate creating the “legal person” has over you. It’s called creating a taxpayer:

Additionally, here is my confrontation with a British MP whom I “educated” (not that he needed it) on the entire legal person issue. Of course, you will see he freaked out at being on camera. It’s not a controlled environment like the BBC you see. The BBC will never ask such questions and put such points to these people (for obvious reasons i hope you are aware).

Damian was very camera shy. Can you tell? Good name for an MP by the way!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 330 other followers