Earthlinggb's Blog

Jail-time for Canadian Radio Broadcasters!

Posted in Law, Money by Earthlinggb . on March 26, 2014

Money burning or burning money is the purposeful act of destroying money. In the prototypical example, banknotes are destroyed by literally setting them on fire. Burning money decreases the wealth of the owner without directly enriching any particular party. However, according to the quantity theory of money, because it reduces the supply of money it increases the value of the remaining money, increasing (by roughly the same amount as the money burnt) the collective wealth of everyone else who holds money.

 

Burning money is illegal in some jurisdictions.

The Currency Act states that “no person shall melt down, break up or use otherwise than as currency any coin that is legal tender in Canada.” Similarly, Section 456 of The Criminal Code of Canada says: “Every one who (a) defaces a current coin, or (b) utters a current coin that has been defaced, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
However neither the Currency Act nor Criminal Code mention paper currency. It therefore remains legal to completely destroy paper currency.

Therefore, the following BBC article is yet another fraudulent piece of reporting (plus the BBC omit to advise you of the fact above OR are too damned ignorant to know it) OR the Broadcast Radio presenters who did it are not using real money OR they are ignorant of the law (and ignorance of the law is no excuse) and they are due jail-time.

However, considering the collective wealth of those who own the vast majority of money increases then they’ll probably be let off even if it was real money.

Strange but true that if you destroy something it becomes more valuable. It’s called “scarcity” but then how is paper scarce? ;-)

 

Canada burning currency

The “magical” monetary system. Don’t you just love it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26734552

But no, it is totally legal to burn or deface paper money it seems. Just shows you how worthless it is! :-)

Tagged with: , , , ,

I think I’m going to kill myself!

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by Earthlinggb . on March 6, 2014

No no no. Sorry to disappoint some of you out there but I don’t mean me. :-)

Singapore: Nice place on the surface where you could eat your dinner from the pavement. But don’t dig deeper because I can assure you, it stinks underneath the “gloss”. That facade of democracy and safety is just that – a facade. The population of Singapore are hamsters on a wheel of commerce just turning the handles of the machine that empties $billions into the same oligarchical rulers we have in the west. That’s why the west loves Singapore after all. Well partly that and partly it’s strategic position and shipping lanes.

To all intents and purposes, Singapore is run on English law but with a few “departures” from it.

One of those “departures” was something I ran into myself (as some of you know who have been reading this blog for a while).

Let me crystallise it for you:

Jurisdiction of court in matrimonial proceedings
93.

—(1)  Subject to subsection (2), the court shall have jurisdiction to hear proceedings for divorce, presumption of death and divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage only if either of the parties to the marriage is —

(a)
domiciled in Singapore at the time of the commencement of the proceedings; or
(b)
habitually resident in Singapore for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings.
Now this guy:
irving
is Irving Choh. He was my Lawyer in Singapore and along with the following two ladies:
beeli stephanie
Beel li Lim (top) and Stephanie Loo,
He committed fraud by way of omission because once I brought it to his and their attention that I had researched the Women’s Charter as well as having read through the entire 5 or 6 ring binders dedicated to my case (a divorce) and found the jurisdiction paragraph above, he not only stated to me point blank that he knew (and, therefore he had always known) that our case had never met the criteria for the Singapore Courts having jurisdiction, but he then gave me an ultimatum: “Find another lawyer” which he knew I would never be able to do because, just like him, once I asked any other lawyer in Singapore to walk into the Supreme court and advise a Supreme Court Judge that the proceedings were void and had always been so on the basis that the jurisdictional requirements were never met, they would never represent me. Irving simply stated “I will not do it because I will not embarrass myself nor the Singapore Court”.
You see, it had nothing to do with what was right (AND what was THEIR legal written rules!). It was about making money. It wasn’t even about saving their own ass because, had it been, he would have killed the entire proceedings at the beginning because the first thing he would have done was check the jurisdiction. If a lawyer doesn’t of that fundamental due diligence on a matter then he/she is an impotent, careless (or corrupt) lawyer.
Now what do I mean by money? Well, while Irving was going to be paid at the end of the job (but got nothing because his client had to eject himself from Singapore pretty damned quick because he had shared with the opposition and the judge that “Earthling” had found them out and the judge decided he was going to jail me again if I didn’t pay up to a perjurer who they all knew was a perjurer) the opposition lawyers were being paid VERY handsomely by someone who thought they were going to crucify me (because of the other aspects of the Women’s charter which protects perjurer women while crucifying men no matter where the blame lies). All of that money being paid to the opposition lawyer, strangely enough, being mine because it is the only income the opposition had!
So, you see, Irving and co, working for a law firm called “Rajah & Tann” at the time, had me absolutely screwed to the wall and jailed with no jurisdiction. He wanted to help me – yes. But he wanted to do it within the restrictions of what they all knew – there was no jurisdiction! And I despise the little bastard for that! I despise the entire Singaporean judiciary for it in fact because they ALL knew! But they didn’t anticipate me finding out because most people just put their entire trust in their lawyer in the mistaken belief that, because they’re paying for the service (and it’s a huge amount of money) a lawyer MUST be doing their utmost for you. So, when I did, they all closed ranks and would have seriously fcuked me over while the British High Commission (another bunch of tossers including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London) allowed it because they would not “interfere with a sovereign jurisdiction” and “if you have a complaint, you have to set it before the Singapore court”. Do you see the irony in that? “Hello Singapore court, I’ve just found out you have no jurisdiction in this case and you all know it so you want to jail me to teach me a lesson so I’m telling you you can’t do that because you have no jurisdiction! Oh I see! That’s precisely why you wish to jail me and you don’t care you have no jurisdiction?”
“HELP British Foreign & Commonwealth office” – “Piss off Earthling and fcuk your human rights. Singapore is a good country and one of our friends so they do whatever they want to you”.
So then, on arrival back in the UK and the opposition having got a Singapore court order giving them everything down to the shirt off my back (literally) because I had fled from the scene of what was a crime, it was time to take on a Barrister and Lawyer in the Royal Courts of Justice. Only this time, I had no lawyer representing me. 8 hours of a barrister telling me I didn’t have a hope in hell and he didn’t understand what it was I was hoping to achieve. Until I asked him where the two parties were domiciled and his reply was “England”. And he was right! The only problem being that HE hadn’t done his homework either because when I pointed out to him that the court order from Singapore he was waving around like it was a blank cheque, was based on the two parties being domiciled in Singapore, he just about had a heart attack and I have never seen a black gown move through the air so quickly before that day or since.
So, with the court oder from Singapore being void, this particular Barrister should have pointed out that that meant the divorce was void – no jurisdiction from day one – but he didn’t. He just wanted a quick end to things.
Now, ask yourself the question: If a divorce is void then two people are still, in fact and in law, married. If one of them subsequently remarries what does that make them? ;-)
So, anyhow, that was really just to give you a flavour of what can and does happen in Singapore (and in the UK) and how bent this lent ire law system is and how it can affect your entire life and family. And none of them give a shit! And you can’t get remedy because they close ranks left, right and centre and they will intimidate (and jail) you for causing them embarrassment or a headache. In fact, they call it “Contempt of court”.
Now, what’s been happening in Singapore recently?
Well, we’ve had a couple of “suicides”:
Singapore suicide 1
Singapore suicide 2
Singapore suicide 3
Singapore suicide 4
Now, my whole point here is this: You do NOT live in a place like Singapore as an expat with money and a good job (no matter how “stressful” it is and I had it) and it even cross your mind to commit suicide. To live (normally with no issues such as I had – e.g. thrown in jail and dealing with a corrupt police and judiciary) in Singapore and have the lifestyle it gives you under those circumstances, you’re REALLY living and you’re living well. The weather, the money, the surroundings, the freedoms, the holidays etc etc etc – everything is what most people would dream of.
To have a high level corporate job out there as an expat, you need to have a certain level of intelligence and sanity (although, to be honest, I did come across a few “nutters” I have to admit) and you certainly are not prone to suicidal thoughts UNLESS there is something immense that you are dealing with. To me, I was dealing with the most immense issues (not just the one I’ve described) at the time and it never even entered my head to commit suicide. BUT, if you seriously get on the wrong side of certain people, your head can end up detached from your body and in a rubbish bin. It did happen! It was always hushed up but the word got out about some insane murders in that city/state. The authorities will ALWAYS rule “suicide” because Singapore needs to keep its squeaky clean image untarnished to the outside world.

These people did not commit suicide, they were murdered.

 

So, with that, altogether now…..

 

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Paedophilia by Earthlinggb . on February 16, 2014

Yes you read that right. From ZETA – a group of what I guess we have to call humans who like to fuck animals.

So, by the same token, the mere concept of morality regarding sexually abusing a child or even murder have no business being law. If this is the way you want your world to go and this is the world you want your children and grandchildren to live in, then just keep liberally accepting the “progressive” laissez faire and “live and let live” and “Do what thou wilt” culture of depravity that just keep creeping along while our governments don’t listen to the moral concerns of most people but give way to the well funded minority groups who lobby. When did you ever hear of a group of lobbyists for “normality”? Never.

First homosexuality

then bisexuality

then omnisexuality (anything goes)

paedophilia

One thing though: When did you ever hear of a donkey speaking a language and, therefore, giving consent? Or do the zoophiliacs suggest that “Eee haw” is chinese for “Yes please”? ‘Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,’ said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok. Just state it is a “lifestyle choice” and demand your “human rights” to make such a choice and hey presto! You get a licence to shag a sheep! But people like Dharmabro (an ex commenter on here) can’t really say anything against it (thereby supporting it) because, as he says “homosexuality is natural and exists in the natural world”. Yes Dharmabro it does. Just as cross species sexual activity does, therefore, that MUST be ok too. You can’t argue with that otherwise your entire reasoning for homosexuality being “natural” is damned – which, by the way, it is. So what we have here is the homosexual community, simply by their own reasoning, support bestiality. It might not be their preference BUT, if they speak out against it, they are hypocrites and, not only that, they are zoo-o-phobes! Now you don’t want to be labeled a “‘phobe” of any type now do you homos? So what’s your way out? I can’t HEAR you! Bestiality http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html What I find strange with this comment re “his once friendly flock of sheep were beginning to shy away from human contact” is that do the new batch of sheep never see the older batch being taken away by humans and slaughtered? Doesn’t it even occur to them? Stupid sheep! But then who are we humans to talk? We ignore the shearing of ourselves by the governmental and banking shepherds. BAAAHH!

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

And there lies the entire problem because, in fact, as has been stated by the lawmakers themselves on many occasions, morality does not enter into it. In fact, lawyers I have personally been up against stated such in their reply saying they believed my argument to be a moral rather than legal one. It was both but, nevertheless, they had the audacity to state it.

Bob Geldof’s New World Order

Posted in Media, Money, Music artists, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by Earthlinggb . on February 3, 2014

The British Establishment are pulling out all the stops.

The British people – and probably a whole lot of others across the world – are going to fall for it hook, line and sinker.

The establishment know how to pull your strings. The youth are going to be enticed into the New World Order (which, as we know, already exists) by the celebrities. There may even be a Worldwide rock event on the horizon to usher in a “New Age” where football stadiums in the UK and the USA are filled with “V for vendetta” masks and Muse headline with “Uprising”.

I mean, how many people are going to question Bob Geldof, Russell Brand and the long list of celebrities they will accumulate to get on this bandwagon? Bono will be up next.

What did the establishment do when it came to getting Barack Obama in office? To a lesser extent, what did they do to promote Tony Blair that little bit more? They brought the musicians and the celebrities in. Something, by the way (and this isn’t a cheap shot) that David Icke would LOVE to do for TPV (and he’s trying god bless him, just not very successfully).

Now, i know most of you people who read blogs like this are far too savvy and knowledgeable that you will see right through all of this crap but we’re talking about the vast numbers out there who ain’t got a scooby doo. THEY are the danger and THEY are who the establishment can rely on to be so thoroughly ignorant and in love with the celeb culture that they’ll gulp it all down like a thirsty twat in a hot, Ibiza nightclub.

Geldof's New World Order

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/mar/02/bob-geldof-africa-tony-blair

 

Ah Bob and Bill. Not quite the flowerpot men.

Let’s consider for a moment where the Live Aid money went. At least a portion of it. And then consider what happened to Bono’s charity money.

Band Aid millions

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259061/Sorry-Bob-Geldof-Band-Aid-millions-DID-pay-guns.html

 

I acknowledge that the BBC, having reported on this early in 2010 then retracted saying there was no specific evidence of it and apologised to Geldof BUT we hear this all the time don’t we? It’s like Philip Schofield handing Cameron a piece of paper with a list of pedophiles and then apologises and it all goes quiet afterwards.

Bono's 9,6 millionWhile, isn’t it interesting that both men and their charitable exploits are so strongly supported by our governments and monarchy but also, both, by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

And what, precisely, is it that the elitist pricks of this world want? The destruction of the political status quo to make way for their New World Order.

Now, have a good read of this Geldof commentary about Russell Brand…

Bob Geldof 1

 

Bob Geldof 2

 

Isn’t it all just a little too transparent for you?

Major point: He speaks about the fraud in the banking scandals. Ok and? Is fraud dependent upon the type of political system one has in place? I mean the UK is a Constitutional monarchy while the US is a republic. Quite a difference, then, in constitutional and political make-up. The banking scandals rocked just about every nation on earth – strangely, not so much, if at all, some of the islamic states or the People’s Republic of China or Russia. So what are they suggesting? We turn to communism? Aha! That may just be it. After all, they are FULL of socialist values these guys aren’t they? While, IF the world did have they’re intended revolution, what they are bleating about would then come to bear upon their personal wealths wouldn’t it? Or wouldn’t it? You see, it probably wouldn’t because they would be well taken care of (just like the politicians have been) for helping to achieve the establishment elite’s very wishes.

But here’s the other point about this banking fraud Geldof speaks of: Fraud exists in ANY political system. Fraud is fraud and it is just as capable of existing in communism, socialism as it is a democracy (and the UK, to a degree is socialist anyhow as is the US today). So what is it that Geldof is missing here? Could it just be that fraud is not handled by politics but by simple LAW? So instead of wishing to upend the whole political system, why is old Bob (and Brand for that matter) not just focusing in on making the LAW work properly?

Because that is not their agenda. Politics and political systems is all about agendas. Nothing else. LAW is where the real solution lie but they don’t want to tell you that.

NONE of these people are “Revolutionaries”. They are pawns of the state whether they appreciate that fact or not.

Geldof warned Brand that replacing the current political system with anarchy was “not viable or plausible”, adding: “You can’t just have a free for all. It just wont work because we will form structural organisations within that as it’s the kind of thing we do.”

Geldof, here is opposed to freedom. He couches it in “you can’t have a free for all” but the fact is you can. You see, Geldof is representing the word “anarchy” as “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law” but that is not what anarchy, in fact, is. The condemnation of the word “anarchy” is the same as the condemnation of the phrase “Conspiracy theorist”. Both terms have been given a “re-write” so as to pour scorn over any adherents to the terms. Geldof is speaking of (whether he fully understands it or not) the systems of politics. Again, he is choosing to ignore basic law. YES we would create structural organisations. However, that does not equate to a lack of freedom (anarchy). What it would be would be the formation of a WORKING set of laws! Such would not be difficult given that everyone understands the basics of law (forget the statutory crap). Such a formation of law would then have placed within its very centre, the freedoms which we are BORN with, not what some POLITICALLY motivated document states. With a working law system, there would be no need for any political isms to exist! Politics is mind control and there to manipulate beliefs and dogma (just as do religions). In fact, when you get to the core, politics and religion are one and the same. They work continuously on belief systems and perception.

So let’s consider “anarchy” from the point of view of reality and use Gary Allen’s book “None dare call it conspiracy” to do so. Such a view was also expressed in the video/blog “Corporate Fascism” just posted yesterday.

None dare 1

 

None dare 2

 

But again, and finally, what do we have from Brand, Bono and Geldof? Multi-millionaires who consistently flirt with monarchy, government and the United Nations, saying we need a revolution. That revolution which they are portraying, or trying to, would destroy the very institutions they all flirt with. So what do they say to people like the Queen, Charles, the Blairs, Camerons, Bushes and Obamas when they meet them at functions and G8 summits etc and when they support events such as Live 8 (which was, in part, promoted by a holographic Prince Charles and handouts re climate and sustainability by the Rothschilds) while, just as the elite want – they ask the public for donations when these institutions have so much money (or should I say their representations of our wealth as money), there is absolutely no need to come “begging” for our good natures to give. Sure they will say that they “give” in vastly greater sums but they don’t. Their “philanthropy” (“their meaning the institutions) is utterly tied up with geopolitical aims and the intention of taking control of countries and their people. All well and truly established. So they use our wealth (by tax theft) to make their “investments” in overseas – which then globalises the planet and destroys the first world’s populations wealth due to there being fewer and fewer jobs, because these institutions and the corporations they control and own want greater profits, then they revisit us to make us even more poor by giving our money away to “good causes” which, in fact, are countries and situations they wish to capitalise on.

BOB GELDOF: “HELP ME AND RUSSELL PAVE THE WAY FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER.”

It’s what he is saying and has said in his Guardian commentary above. Gleneagles and Tony Blair was his thing.

GO BOB! GEEZ A JOB!

Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose!

Beautiful jews and UN news!

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by Earthlinggb . on February 3, 2014

I am attacked continuously for being “Anti semite”.

People read but do not interpret the words properly.

People are so used to simply reading or hearing a few words which they then focus on and remove from all context. It is the world of soundbites.

People read and hear then interpret, not what is actually being said but what they wish to interpret.

I have literally been face to face with people who have simply closed down and refuse to listen or discuss and communicate to try and reach a conclusion where they would then actually understand what is meant rather than what they wish to interpret. I have been the victim of police/judiciary action specifically because of this. Even the latter don’t listen. They interpret a statute and simply apply it because “that is what it says” and “from what you said and wrote, directly contravenes that statute or our interpretation of what you said and wrote while we actually do not fully appreciate the broader issues we just concentrate on the narrow focus of what the statute says and what you have written”.

So then, I ask myself: If I AM an “Anti semite” then how can I call this group of people in the video beautiful? They’re jews. They proclaim their identity as such. They are proud of their jewish roots. I realise every religion on earth is man made and a manipulation tool but I also recognise the majority do not even though it is quite obvious. As the lad says in the video “circles” and he is told to put his “circle” (the jewish circle) above all others  and he RECOGNISES the fundamental racism in this. Religions are entirely for the purpose of creating the world we have full of a single human race who are separated into factions like a Venn diagram. Each subset seeing itself as a “race” and the barriers are already set in place. Religion IS racism at its core and it has been, is and may always be a wonderful tool of those who are within  not the 1% but the 0,01%.

But, whether I recognise this or not and those who follow their religions don’t, I can still see and appreciate beautiful people of whatever “race”, nationality or religion because they simply have humanity.

These young jews see the issue. They even recognise why jews have been persecuted over so many centuries and they recognise the “jewish” (I would like to show them why this “jewish” lot within the 1% and 0.01% are not jewish) influence within Banking and Corporate worlds. AND they are speaking out against it. They see how this money is being ploughed into the deaths and oppression of so many not only in Palestine but in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else that does not play the globalist game and who wish to maintain their sovereignty.

Anyone can be evil no matter what “race” or religion they proclaim to be. The issue with the jewish “race” is that their religious teachings have been used, abused and hijacked but zionism and freemasonry. The zionist (Rothschild zionist) element have then used jews (the holocaust story while the zionists had every opportunity to transfer jews from danger – read the Transfer agreement) to enable and strengthen their “hand” and their calls for a jewish only state. They used Jewish blood to do this and they did it purposefully. Yet it is Aipac, JDL, ADL etc who proclaim the horrors of those events where jews have been persecuted yet, throughout, it has been a tiny group of wealthy and powerful men who have murdered jews to achieve their aims. These powerful individuals then setting up these Zionist organisations and brainwashing jews into believing zionism is just the wish for a jewish homeland (when, strangely, any and all other peoples who would demand such would be considered xenophobic racists).

Basically, it has been a mindfcuk. Exceptionally well orchestrated but so many jews believe in the ideology OR they have been bribed by being part of the “chosen people” who have such massive control of the entire world’s wealth through money manipulation. These young jews even refer to this and can see it.

But as there is a jewish circle, there is a circle above that which is zionist (the NWO agenda zionists motivated by money, power and greed) and above that there is a “Catholic or Jesuit” circle. There are many circles and it is the destruction of ALL circles (the Venn diagram subsets) which is needed.

If the wish for no circles, no “races” and no manipulated, state/UN controlled religion while wishing to bring an end to the LEGAL control of the world’s population through birth registration to an authoritarian state apparatus and bringing an end to the manipulation of money and the corruption of law through legislation of victimless “crimes” is anti semitic, then YES, I AM anti semtitic.

However, I can’t see how it is possible for an anti semite to literally find a lump in his throat while watching and listening to beautiful people who happen to be jewish!

So I simply wish to express my thanks to these young jews because I have children whom I do not wish to inherit a world which is becoming (and is) controlled by a very few psychopathic despots following some form of “code” which is written within Babylonian/Judaic texts. When I see and hear such from young jews, it makes everything seem so much brighter looking to the future. This “chosen ones” ideology needs to be destroyed because it is the precise equivalent of the Nazi ideology of the “Master race” – the terms mean one and the same thing.

Zionism and all circles require destruction. To do so, we need to focus on those in that 0.01% who have constructed them and maintain them. It IS a “war” and it is a real one – very much so. In fact, it has been the entire war for decades/centuries and winning it means peace. Globally. I don’t advocate violence (but then neither does the UN or any state at face value do they? but then they bomb the living daylights out of anyone in their way) because knowledge and education can achieve the same ends (and why they don’t wish for the money to go to such uses). There IS the need, however, to put the true criminals in jail for various forms of crime on humanity.

Now HERE is where I will lose some people:

The UN is a PRIME criminal organisation within the entire global scheme of things. The ironic thing is that they display it openly but people just do not wish to see it.

“What a ridiculous thing to suggest!” I can hear so many people state. Yes it appears to be doesn’t it? After all, UN Declaration of Human Rights and all that. :-)

Ok, let’s look at the first 3 articles of that declaration:

Article 1.

  • All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

  • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

  • Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Sounds good doesn’t it? Ah! But wait a second. There is a HUGE, MASSIVE, in fact IMMENSE contradiction in it.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Question: Do you wish to disagree with this statement?

No, I didn’t think so.

So then what about this.

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration.”

Question: Do you see the problem? It is staring you right in the face!

Let’s return to Thomas Paine for a moment from another blogpost:

Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice.

Question: What is the UN Articles of Human Rights?

Answer: It is a POLITICAL CHARTER and a LEGAL DOCUMENT.

While the charter states, absolutely factually, that every person is born FREE and EQUAL, it then goes on to entirely contradict this very concept by stating “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration”.

Now, there are many issues with this which I sincerely hope the reader can see quite clearly.

IF people are BORN “free and equal” (which we are and I challenge anyone to disagree with such) then they are free and equal. End of story. Being free and equal MEANS that NOONE may infringe your “god given” human rights. What obviously follows from this, then, is that, just as noone can infringe your rights, noone has the authority over another to abridge them, to reduce them or even to state what your rights are! But this is precisely what the UN has done in their declaration. They state, effectively, that these are the rights, ACCORDING TO THEM, that you are allowed. Individual states then enact these rights to varying degrees, within their own state LEGISLATION (more legality). Every single time “rights” are written within legal parameters, they are diluted and from the very day the UN Articles were written, they diluted your “rights” within the global LEGAL system.

IF you are born FREE and EQUAL then I am afraid that IF the UN and the State is serious in its proclamation of such, then YOU have every right to say “Thanks but no thanks” to their “offer” of “protection” for, as a FREE and EQUAL man or woman, you may contract with whatever INDIVIDUAL or ORGANISATION you wish. If you are effectively stopped from making such a FREE and EQUAL decision (and remember the UN, as with ALL organisations, is composed of OTHER “FREE and EQUAL” individuals) then your rights are, in fact, being impinged upon. There is no two ways about this.

Now, the number of “rights” the UN provides you (“provides you”? HOW can they PROVIDE rights when you are already born absolutely FREE and EQUAL? This is the equivalent of a magician’s slight of hand trick) are limited. Forgive me for the following but it is for the purposes of demonstrating something:

Does the UN Articles articulate in any way that you have the right to fart on a public street? OR, what if you are standing in a queue in a bank and you’ve just had a chilli con carne? What if the bank wishes to pass a bye law for it’s own PRIVATE premises that NOONE may fart on its premises? Does the UN declaration state that everyone has the right to fart (a natural human process) wherever and whenever they wish? No, it doesn’t. So, the point is, what is stopping ANY organisation or group of people (even the state) from imposing a statutory act that states “No smoking and no farting in licensed premises”?

Yes, it’s a silly example but it is meant to be. The point is that the declaration is stating “these are your rights and that is it”. No no no. If you accept this then you accept your rights being removed.

THE SUBROGATION OF YOUR “GOD GIVEN” HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE STATE IS A FUNCTION OF YOUR BIRTH REGISTRATION. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS! See the blogpost entitled “UN inadvertently confirms freeman concept”.

Now what about the third article?

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

ANOTHER interesting statement and concept from the UN so let’s look at that more closely:

Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.

Now ignoring for a moment that this makes me laugh from the perspective that it is like saying “Children have the right to live but adults don’t”, there is something just as astounding. That is the following:

The September 2001 attacks signalled the only occasion in NATO’s history that Article 5 of the NATO treaty has been invoked and consequently the 11 September attacks were deemed to be an attack on all nineteen NATO members. After 11 September, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF and the organization continues to operate in a range of roles sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and most recently enforced a NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 in accordance with UN SC Resolution 1973.

The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called “right of first refusal”. There are currently 28 member states of NATO, with the most recent being Albania and Croatia who joined in April 2009. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world’s defence spending. The United States alone accounts for 43% of the total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy account for a further 15%.

Now, let’s put some perspective on this. 70% of the world’s defence spending is borne by the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy. These countries ALSO form the major founding nations within the UN and have the most voting shares. NATO, generally, finds its LEGALITY to interfere with any and all nations on the basis of UN resolutions. The following results from this interference:

The following is a transcript of a speech given by now 13-year-old Charlotte Aldebron at a peace rally in Maine.

When people think about bombing Iraq, they see a picture in their heads of Saddam Hussein in a military uniform, or maybe soldiers with big black mustaches carrying guns, or the mosaic of George Bush Senior on the lobby floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel with the word “criminal.” But guess what? More than half of Iraq’s 24 million people are children under the age of 15. That’s 12 million kids. Kids like me. Well, I’m almost 13, so some are a little older, and some a lot younger, some boys instead of girls, some with brown hair, not red. But kids who are pretty much like me just the same. So take a look at me—a good long look. Because I am what you should see in your head when you think about bombing Iraq. I am what you are going to destroy.

If I am lucky, I will be killed instantly, like the three hundred children murdered by your “smart” bombs in a Baghdad bomb shelter on February 16, 1991. The blast caused a fire so intense that it flash-burned outlines of those children and their mothers on the walls; you can still peel strips of blackened skin—souvenirs of your victory—from the stones.

But maybe I won’t be lucky and I’ll die slowly, like 14-year-old Ali Faisal, who right now is in the “death ward” of the Baghdad children’s hospital. He has malignant lymphoma—cancer—caused by the depleted uranium in your Gulf War missiles. Or maybe I will die painfully and needlessly like18-month-old Mustafa, whose vital organs are being devoured by sand fly parasites. I know it’s hard to believe, but Mustafa could be totally cured with just $25 worth of medicine, but there is none of this medicine because of your sanctions.

Or maybe I won’t die at all but will live for years with the psychological damage that you can’t see from the outside, like Salman Mohammed, who even now can’t forget the terror he lived through with his little sisters when you bombed Iraq in 1991. Salman’s father made the whole family sleep in the same room so that they would all survive together, or die together. He still has nightmares about the air raid sirens.

Or maybe I will be orphaned like Ali, who was three when you killed his father in the Gulf War. Ali scraped at the dirt covering his father’s grave every day for three years calling out to him, “It’s all right Daddy, you can come out now, the men who put you here have gone away.” Well, Ali, you’re wrong. It looks like those men are coming back.

Or I maybe I will make it in one piece, like Luay Majed, who remembers that the Gulf War meant he didn’t have to go to school and could stay up as late as he wanted. But today, with no education, he tries to live by selling newspapers on the street.

Imagine that these are your children—or nieces or nephews or neighbors. Imagine your son screaming from the agony of a severed limb, but you can’t do anything to ease the pain or comfort him. Imagine your daughter crying out from under the rubble of a collapsed building, but you can’t get to her. Imagine your children wandering the streets, hungry and alone, after having watched you die before their eyes.

This is not an adventure movie or a fantasy or a video game. This is reality for children in Iraq. Recently, an international group of researchers went to Iraq to find out how children there are being affected by the possibility of war. Half the children they talked to said they saw no point in living any more. Even really young kids knew about war and worried about it. One 5-year-old, Assem, described it as “guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much.” Ten-year-old Aesar had a message for President Bush: he wanted him to know that “A lot of Iraqi children will die. You will see it on TV and then you will regret.”

Back in elementary school I was taught to solve problems with other kids not by hitting or name-calling, but by talking and using “I” messages. The idea of an “I” message was to make the other person understand how bad his or her actions made you feel, so that the person would sympathize with you and stop it. Now I am going to give you an “I” message. Only it’s going to be a “We” message. “We” as in all the children in Iraq who are waiting helplessly for something bad to happen. “We” as in the children of the world who don’t make any of the decisions but have to suffer all the consequences. “We” as in those whose voices are too small and too far away to be heard.

We feel scared when we don’t know if we’ll live another day.

We feel angry when people want to kill us or injure us or steal our future.

We feel sad because all we want is a mom and a dad who we know will be there the next day.

And, finally, we feel confused—because we don’t even know what we did wrong.

Charlotte Aldebron, 13, attends Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine. Comments may be sent to her mom, Jillian Aldebron at aldebron@ainop.com.

But then we’ll hear the UN, through UNICEF saying “But look what we do? Look what we ARE doing for the Iraqi mothers and children!”

And all I will say is this: Yes, AFTER you have killed their fathers and destroyed their families, their infrastructure, their way of life and are now ready to rebuild in YOUR image! Incorporate an Iraqi Central Bank and provide “loans” which are carrots with strings attached to indebt the nation, control its resources and infrastructure and make DAMNED SURE those Iraqi children have their births registered (forget so many will be born with cancers due to depleted uranium which the UN states is still legal!! FORGET THAT!) so that they can be “RECOGNISED IN LAW” just as the rest of the west is. The controlling mechanism by which you can then impose taxes and duties and have them subjugated to the legalities which YOU impose!

Your damned righteous, pius, hypocrisy makes me want to puke!

So WHERE is the rights of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children who have been MURDERED by the States, the governments who the UN states should ensure their survival and healthy development? The “right to life”? Within a legal document which also legitimizes the taking of life? The UN does not say SOME children have the right to life and that governments should ensure the survival of SOME. Neither does it say that it is ok to drop cluster bombs and tomahawk missiles and machine gun from helicopters  SOME children in the interests of saving more. It says ALL children. This is NOT a utilitarian world and neither does the UN articles suggest it SHOULD be. But the UN and the nations who compose the UN and NATO seem to think so!

So where were the rights of all these children murdered? Where were the rights of the thousands of palestinian children murdered by Israel in operation Cast Lead and others? Where are the warcrime tribunals for the Blairs and the Bush’s, Sarkozy’s etc etc? WHERE ARE THEY?

The answer? “Ah! But they’re OUR warcriminals! That’s the difference!”

But wait, didn’t you say that every child is born free and equal? Ah but then that is a pure lie UN because, as you say so very clearly, it is not until children are recognised LEGALLY, that, in fact, they do exist. And if they are not registered and have no birth certificate then they have no rights to ANY confered benefits by ANY state or government. So then they DO NOT, in your eyes, have any rights (privileges) from the moment they are born therefore, they are NOT born “free” until you bestow those rights upon them!

But then the “ying” of that “yang” is that you cannot control or tax them either if they are unregistered because they have not SUBROGATED their “god given” human rights to the legalities of which you promote. Once they do, you have them just where you want them!

One registers one’s car, one is the REGISTERED KEEPER but NOT owner. For if that car is your own private property then who (if you are free and equal) has the right to stop you from using it? But the DVLA does BECAUSE you have subrogated your ownership (rights) to your private property and may only use it under strict licence conditions.

One registers their child’s birth, one is then subrogating one’s authority (not responsibility however) to one’s child. You are transfering the legal “ownership” of your child to the state. The state, then, if it so desires, may take your child from you and this is NOT always because you are a bad parent but because you may just be an irritant to the state in one form or another. However, the bottom line is that IF we are all free and equal then NOONE, no individual or state or organisation has ANY right to remove your child. But they do because you CONTRACTED with them by registering your child. You have (ignorantly but through your ignorance, under no coercion) entered a LEGAL agreement with the state where you have transfered such inexhaustive rights to them AND they have handed you a legal document called a Human Rights Act, in place of your natural born rights. It’s brilliant and effective but it is a con and it is a crime on humanity because while they pretend it provides you with rights (and it does to a very small degree in comparison to the inexhaustive rights you were born with), it ensures that your entire life can be controlled from birth to death.

More Childs Rights:

Article 7 (Registration, name, nationality, care): All children have the right to a legally registered name, officially recognised by the government. Children have the right to a nationality (to belong to a country).

Question: Do they also have the right to forego a legally registered name officially recognised by the government state? And do they have the right to forego a nationality and retain their free, sovereign, human rights undiluted by the UN articles? When they do, the UN and the state then say they do not exist legally and therefore they are not “qualified” for any protection. They have no rights to freedom of movement around the world (no passport), they will not be allowed to find a job (oh dear! The state then won’t be able to tax anyone if everyone can’t find a job because everyone decides that they wish to utilise that freedom and equality to NOT register). So UN, all I am askng is: Are we free? :-) Not until you tell us we are right?

Article 8 (Preservation of identity): Children have the right to an identity – an official record of who they are. Governments should respect children’s right to a name, a nationality and family ties.

I had and have an identity. I had one even before my parents registered me. I was their child and they gave me a name which they then simply believed they were making a record of when registering. They did not know they were subrogating my rights and providing me with a “monopoly piece” called a birth certificate which only then would allow me to buy and sell and contract – oh! And I forgot, also made me vulnerable to going to jail for a victimless “crime” based upon state legislation AND had me liable to immense increases in taxation to pay off a national debt that doesn’t need to exist if the state did not borrow its currency but simply issued it. Neither would I then have the PM state that I am liable for bailing out the banks and having then to endure austerity measures while these criminals were paid off, destroying my career, pension, savings etc. No I wasn’t told that and neither were my parents. I would guess, then, that that constitutes a case of non full disclosure of the contract set up BY the birth certificate. Doesn’t the “law” state that, in the case of one party to a contract not giving full disclosure then the contract is null and void? Yes, I think it does. Cheerio government. Knock on my door and you can respectfully fcuk off. Our contract is null and void!

Article 41 (Respect for superior national standards):

If the laws of a country provide better protection of children’s rights than the articles in this Convention, those laws should apply.

Interesting. WHO decides this? The state? or the UN? If either one of them then it surely would be that either party will vote for itself. If not decided by either of them then by whom? Whoever it is that decides however, is that not a decision for the party who may be affected by it? That would be the child (or possibly the parent) would it not? If you are suggesting some individual or some organisation other than the child or it’s parent makes that decision then you are stating that we are not all free and equal are you not? Or is it just some are more free and equal than others?

Article 24 (Health and health services):

Children have the right to good quality health care – the best health care possible – to safe drinking water, nutritious food, a clean and safe environment, and information to help them stay healthy. Rich countries should help poorer countries achieve this.

Tell that to NATO and the major UN nations who control it.

After all of that UN – TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND RECOGNISE YOU OUTSTANDING HYPOCRISY.

But then who controls you?

Oh yes, I forgot. This guy and his ilk:

Article 6.

  • Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Yes indeed. YOUR “law”. It’s so wonderful that you want the 50M children each year who are unregistered to be registered. And it is so wonderful that you had 750,000 children in Afghanistan given vaccines while, at the same time, you had administrators, attending along with the medical staff, to register these children.

Isn’t it a coincidence, then, that David Rockefeller makes the fiollowing speech regarding his concern about the world’s population growth and overconsumption and prospects of a decent life on this planet (for who?) within a UN speech he gave:

Isn’t it also then, a coincidence that Rockefeller, within this speech, also referred to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 which promoted the entire Climate Change. Sustainability agenda as proposed by the Club of Rome originally in their publication in 1972 called “limits to growth” which was then followed up in 1993 when they published “The first Global Revolution”? Obviously being written before and during the year of the Earth summit then released as a “guidance”.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio Summit, Rio Conference, Earth Summit (Portuguese: Eco ’92) was a major United Nations conference held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 June to 14 June 1992.

Why is that all a coincidence? Well, because:

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe. It raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth. The club states that its mission is “to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public.”

Well well well, there’s old Rockefeller’s name again! But there’s more because:

In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution. According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

But then there’s even more:

Rockefellers’ 1Sky Unveils the New 350.org: More $ — More Delusion

World’s Greatest Magic Trick “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell On 6 April 2011 it was announced that the RINGO (Rockefeller initiated NGO) 1Sky and their sister organization 350.org have ‘officially merged’ into one mass climate movement – the ‘NEW’ 350.org.
Let the Vatican preach, hallefuckinglujah, as we double-up on the soma followed by a double shot of absinthe burning like the embers of hell. Thank you Rockefellers, Clintons, McKibben and friends. Make way for the onslaught of illusion in which green capitalism and false solutions will somehow save us. In one last final performance – the elites will now perform their final magical act that defies all logic. Drum roll please … ladies and gentleman … we will now embrace the same system which is systematically destroying us – splash it with a green patina … and now … this same system will magically save us. Justice for all! The illuminated signs flash toward the audience … applause! applause! applause! Follow the Money
An example of what two prominent environmental groups, 1Sky and 350.org, receive from the Rockefeller foundations alone:
Step it Up and 350.org (Sustainable Markets Foundation)
·         $100,000 for 1 year awarded on March 13, 2008 to support its project, Step it Up’s new initiative called Project 350 ·         40,000 2008 Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) for Sustainable Markets Foundation | 350.org ·         $100,000 for 1 year awarded on March 3, 2009 for its Project 350 ·         $200,000 for 1 year awarded on March 12, 2009 for its climate accountability project, The Sustainable Market Foundation ·         $75,000 for 1 year  awarded on November 7, 2009 for its project 350.org ·         $25,000 for 1 year awarded on March 22, 2010 for its Eco-Accountability project ·         $100,000 for 1 year awarded on June 17, 2010 for its 350.orgproject

1Sky Education Fund

·         $1,000,000 for 2 years awarded on December 13, 2007 ·         $20,000 for 1 year awarded on November 17, 2008 for an alignment meeting of U.S. climate change leaders ·         200,000 2008 RFF ·         45,000 2008 RFF ·         $250,000 for 1 year awarded on June 18, 2009 ·         $30,000 for 1 year awarded on April 9, 2009 to support a consultant to coordinate the alignment of U.S. climate change leaders and large grassroots organizations ·         $250,000 for 1 year awarded on November 2, 2009 ·         $250,000 for 1 year awarded on November 19, 2009 ·         50,000 2009 RFF ·         15,000 2009 RFF ·         20,000 2009 RFF

350.org: The Environmental and sustainability group who are “Anti” Big oil and big business. FUNDED by the scions of Big Oil and Big Business, the Rockefeller Foundation! (Standard Oil/ENRON) How ABSOLUTELY bizarre! Until you understand the agenda!

The Climate change scam, brought to you by the very same scam artists who crashed the world’s economy, own the central banking system, loan all governments their currency, own and control the IMF, the UN, the world’s largest investment banks, the major oil and gas corporations, big pharma (vaccines) and much anything else you can imagine. While they fund organisations proclaiming to be anti capitalist and anti big business and while the Occupy movement is filled with the Environmental “Greenies” who are completely oblivious to facts and wish to remain so:

THESIS and ANTITHESIS: WORKS EVERYTIME! :-)

But there’s even more:

Investment banker speaking about the amount of tax which could be imposed upon the world’s population to “fight” this “invented for the purpose” SCAM called Climate change, before he then introduces the one and only DAVID DE ROTHSCHILD – the “Jesus” of Climate Change while part of the other and more massively wealthy through banking and big business families.

HOW EXTRAORDINARILY BIZARRE!

But AGAIN, there’s more:

Al Gore, fresh from his attendance at the Club of Rome comes out with HIS evangelisation of Climate Change and wins a Nobel Prize for his “Inconvenient truth” movie (just like Obama wins a Nobel Peace Prize! It is hilarious!). However, this is Al Gore when faced with his OWN inconvenient truths:

Did I mention ENRON earlier?

OOPS! Goldman Sachs, ENRON and Al Gore! WHAT a combination!

But then the governments push through the legislation. LEGISLATION (LEGAL not LAWFUL). Legislation can be enacted while the next government could repeal it. It happens every single day. Now if something is a law it is a law for good reason. But legislation isn’t law but guess who they can impose it upon because of the subrogation of rights and transfering those rights by way of REGISTRATION to the state? Yes, you guessed it – YOU!

Now WHY would our legislators in government DO this to us? I mean surely it impacts them as well doesn’t it? WELL DOESN’T IT?

?utm_source=allactivity&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20110601

“Insider Trading Rules That Don’t Apply To Congress”

“Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.”

WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE……….. NO IT DOESN’T!

Now, I really do hope you are getting to grips with all of this because it is tiring me out trying to explain it in all so many ways.

Imagine if there were no such thing as continents and that the earth was just filled by 10 billion or more separate islands of about an acre each, each of which had one single family on it. Then, as the UN stated, we were all born free and equal such that everyone understood that and there was no possibility of grouping people into religions and nations. We all had boats and all had our own dedicated island. Would we have passports and birth certificates? Would we insist that if anyone visited our island, fell ill and we were Doctors that that they would need to produce a passport and then a birth certificate to be recognised as being worthy of treatment? Would one family decide to grow so large that they then said “stuff free and equal, I’m going to insist that all other islands can only trade if they use the currency I produce, otherwise I am going to build a bomb to ensure they do!”?

The world is sick because of the system which has been built up by a few. It doesn’t matter which “ism” that system falls under because each “ism” is controlled by the same few and each ism has been and will always be corrupted. It is us allowing these few to dictate to us while we are all meant to be “free and equal” that creates the misery, the deaths and the coercion. We have given them the power. It reall is time we take it back. How do we do that?

Simple: By embracing the (empty) words of the UN and giving them TRUE meaning. We cannot ever win by thinking of ourselves. Doing that just delays the time the corruption touches you or one of your family. The ONLY way is to embrace those ideas fully and apply them to all. Only then will the many tame the few.

And with that…. Goodnight.

I wiz just out fur sum bananas!

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, The Video Section by Earthlinggb . on December 24, 2013
Indy: should make a fairly good slightly tongue in cheek comedy song….poking a bit of gentle fun at the whole thing..
Earthling: Could well do mate. I’d have to let it simmer
Add a bit of inspiration from Sean and Tam, son of wee Boabie. Mix it all together and this is what you get.
Happy Christmas to Sean, Jackie, Crof, and all at Scottish sovereigns and anyone else fighting for our FREEDOM!

One fine day traversing London road gleskie I felt a bit peckish and fancied sum thin tasty
ah’d jumped in ma van wi ma bird called jackie and travelled doon the road to my local branch i tesci
( It’s legal fiction you see, it’s all the law of the sea, a con fundamentally, you were never party to the contract)

it’s a fact to be exact to say their law’s a loady fiction
but don’t get mi wrong I dinnae mean any friction
um a very peaceful man but canna say I understand
to a crown policy officer living own the land!
( It’s legal fiction you see, it’s all the law of the sea, a con fundamentally, you were never party to the contract)

You see the birth certificate is a null and void contract and they use it to impose the tools of tax extract
un am no playing their game anymore an i think you and me should speak out and settle the score

I was just out for sum bananas,
Ah’ve no goat an offshore bank in the bahamas
I canna offer my birthdate to the polis
Coz that would be tantamount to fraud within this chorus

A polis man stopped me on a traffic violation, normally this happening results in some frustration
he asked my name, address, my date of birth and registration, I wanted to say I lived on Nasa’s space station
( It’s legal fiction you see, it’s all the law of the sea, a con fundamentally you were never party to the contract)

just having slipped out tubes it was a basic disability, ma mother and ma father signed me up for liability
I canna really say when I came out ma mothers waters so yer asking me to verify as if I’m Harry Potter
( It’s legal fiction you see, it’s all the law of the sea, a con fundamentally, you were never party to the contract)

You see the birth certificate is a null and void contract and they use it to impose the tools of tax extract
un am no playing their game anymore an i think all of you should help me settle the score

I was just out for sum bananas
I could have stayed in ma pyjamas
ma ma n da were just a bunch i liars
I used to pull my teeth out wi a pair of bloody pliers!

You see the birth certificate is a null and void contract and they use it to impose the tools of tax extract
un am no playing their game anymore an i think all of you should help me settle the score

I was just out for sum bananas,
Ah’ve no goat an offshore bank in the bahamas
I canna offer my birthdate to the polis
Coz that would be tantamount to fraud within this chorus

I was just out for sum bananas
I could have stayed in ma pyjamas
ma ma n da were just a bunch i liars
I used to pull my teeth out wi a pair of bloody pliers!

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 ACT” DECEPTION

Posted in Law by Earthlinggb . on November 24, 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!

I THINK THEREFORE I AM (NOT).

Posted in Law by Earthlinggb . on October 29, 2013

Have you ever wanted to be a Klingon? :-)

Yes, a Klingon. With a “cloaking device”.

“What the hell are you on Earthling?”

Simple folks. So simple you wouldn’t believe (but it MUST be fact).

I THINK THEREFORE I AM NOT. – “Freeman” Descartes.

Kirk's jurisdiction

What do we keep hearing about the Human Rights Act? Even if it is amended or the British government pulls out of the ECHR they cannot pull out of the UN Human Rights Treaty. The courts MUST (but don’t due to the greater population’s ignorance) uphold your “so called” Human Rights.

I have blogged incessantly on this point but there are always other ways of presenting it so that the penny drops (hopefully, finally).

The UN Human Rights Act stipulates the following:

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.

THEIR LANGUAGE. THEIR STATEMENTS. YOU HAVE A “RIGHT” TO BE RECOGNISED AS A PERSON BEFORE THE LAW. IT DOES NOT STATE IT IS A DUTY.  THEY CAN HARDLY SAY “EVERYONE HAS A DUTY TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON” (ALTHOUGH THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT STATED THIS WAY OF COURSE). THEY ARE TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU INTO BELIEVING YOU ARE BEING PROTECTED BY THIS MECHANISM. IF THAT WERE TRUE THERE WOULD NOT BE SUCH A CLAUSE AS FOLLOWS (within something called “Human Rights” of all things):

Article 2 Right to life

1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b )in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

So, according to Article 2 of the UK’s “Human Rights Act 1998″ you have wonderful “rights” such as the right to allowing us to kill you! (and yet, once more, Assad has, according to the British government, been a very naughty boy since he has killed some of his people within circumstances of an insurrection against his government – Hey! Syria boy! WE can do it but you bloody well can’t!).

So anyhow, where’s this Klingon cloaking device?

In front of your eyes silly. Just THINK!

“Your honour. In entering this court, am I offered the full protection of the Human Rights Act?”

Can his answer possibly be “No!”?

“YOUR HONOUR (my ass!), I HEREBY WAIVE MY RIGHT OF RECOGNITION AS A PERSON BEFORE THE LAW IN THIS MATTER”.

SPOCK

Suddenly, you disappear. He cannot “see” you for you do not exist in law. You cannot exist in law. He CANNOT say you cannot do this because he is then removing your human rights. And you know how seriously they take these things right? From allowing prisoners to vote (they’re contemplating it and actually I do not have much against it given that most incarcerated “persons” are so because they have broken a code or policy and not because they have actually caused harm, loss or fraud – it is the courts who commit fraud every single day and every hour of the day) and for pedophiles to continue working with children or adopt children while Barristers are arguing for the age of consent to be dropped to 14 and sometimes 12.

If you have a “right” then it is your RIGHT to waive it. There are NO exceptions. You have a RIGHT to remain silent (although, once more they use you using your “right” as an excuse to say you are hiding something or you are not acting innocently – “if you have nothing to hide…” etc. And people are falling for this deceptive removal of that right continuously at their own ignorant peril. But there is no chance of getting them to recognise this. They LOVE their ever increasing servitude and believe in bogeymen that government serves up to them).

{In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client (not to the lawyer) and so may only be waived by the client. – Another example}

Now, of course, what happens in a court of law in reality is that the judge would then say “Do you have a bank account?” or “Do you own a home or a car or accept state benefits?” etc etc. Any one circumstance where you prove your “personhood” and they have you. But DO they?

What this demonstrates soundly is that they have created a system, whereby, if you do not participate in it, your freedoms (you human rights) are stripped from you. There is a human right to travel – you cannot do this without a passport- they are, therefore, exposing that, in fact, they are limiting your human right in that respect. There is a human right to contract (your services or any contract) – you cannot contract your services without providing a National Insurance number if you wish to get a job. A limiting factor (and control) then on your human right to contract. EVERY “right” you have been “bestowed” with, in fact, is no right at all. It is a control mechanism within a system that is corrupted from the ground up. That “legal person” has been created by your birth certificate (as so many of you are aware) and that certificate acts as your play piece in the real live game of monopoly each and every one of us is COERCED to play.

Why do I say “coerced”? Because the state demands that your parents register your birth. Do you think this is for no reason? STOP making excuses for the state saying things like “Oh but it is for your own good after all you can’t get a job etc etc”. If you do not have your birth registered then, whoever’s responsibility it is to register can be jailed. That is coercion plain and simple. It is coercing one to contract with another. It is that simple. BUT also, you were not (and neither were your parents) fully advised of the terms of the contract. There was NO full disclosure and now we all find ourselves contracted to follow government policy and pay taxes and bail out banks.

So, if the judge states you ARE liable due to your having acquiesced to the social contract, you have a rock solid argument that you literally had no choice. You lived in a society and system where the vast majority of people do not recognise they are being screwed in this way. As such, 99.9% of people just do as they think is natural and anyone else who does not, there are screams of “He/She is immoral” or “He/She is a criminal” etc. These screams are out of pure ignorance of the majority BUT, the people who have created this system will win everytime because they have given the majority to believe that “Democracy” is freedom and that democracy is all about the majority v the minority and those who do not comply or have grievances, must work through the system. A system, as I have just elaborated upon, is corrupt from top to bottom. But the MAJORITY can’t see this.

So, no matter if you are a “freeman” and stand up to the system or not. No matter if you “win” a judgement or two. You do not and never will win the real fight in the end because until such times as the society and population you live within see what you see and understand it, the state will get you in the end. If not you, your offspring. There is NO “WIN” in the end unless EVERYONE wins.

So, to the “Freemen” – By all means enjoy your successes – petty successes allowing you to stick your chest out for a while and write a blog or do a youtube about it – but you have won nothing.

UNTIL EVERY LAST ONE OF US WINS FOR THE SAKE OF OUR NEIGHBOURS, WE LOSE AND ALWAYS SHALL.

I WANT THAT CLOAKING DEVICE FOR EVERY LAST PERSON ON EARTH. NOT FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING AWAY WITH CRIME – NOT AT ALL – BUT FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING AWAY WITH NON CRIMES AND ALSO FOR THE SAKE OF PUTTING THE REAL CRIMINALS (RESIDING IN WESTMINSTER, THE BANK OF ENGLAND, BUCKINGHAM PALACE AND ELSEWHERE) IN JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL LIVES.

We’re dealing with politicians and lawyers. You cannot possibly consider more slippery people than this.

The Trees

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by Earthlinggb . on October 27, 2013

 

rush-hemispheres-900

Yes another Rush blogpost and a good reason for it. Neil Peart – a drummer, a poet and a man so deftly tuned in to the realities of the human experience and the battles which rage within it and between us.

A guy who, in a 4 or 5 minute rock song can capture and crystallise the essence of what we’re facing while he and his two chums create music of epic proportion for an audience who are “awake” and can appreciate the themes they elaborate on within their music.

“The Trees” is a spectacular example of a battle which has raged since time began. It doesn’t produce an answer to it however just illustrates that that battle continues and that “law” is used to manipulate and control the factions within it.

Thanks guys. The first I heard of you was 1976 and “2112″. You were hundred years too late with that prediction. And Ayn Rand, like so many of her ilk, can be read in whichever way one chooses to read her. If “the individual” is a selfish notion then that’s what I am. The irony is that, to be selfish, one would consider that the one who would wish to be individual would want all others to be part of the collective because then one would stand out from the crowd. That charge of selfishness then surely dissolves when the one believing in individuality is proposing such for all.

There is another word beginning with “c”. It is “collaborate”. You three guys are individuals yet you have collaborated for decades and your collaboration has given the world an output of art which, combined as you are, is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

IC (Individual collaboration) is FAR more powerful than C (collectivism).

 

 

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the maples
Can’t be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
‘The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

 

And that is exactly what is happening now, today as we speak. The “noble laws” being passed are destroying the “oaks” that the maples can see while the “Nobles” disappear into the shadows. The “Austerity” measures and the attacks on the “wealthy” (granted many of whom have gotten their wealth through corruption but have been enable to by the very fact that the “nobles” have created a fundamentally corrupt society) are designed as the hatchet, axe and saw. You may be poor now and celebrate the cutting down of what you see as “the rich” but the problem is, “the nobles” are simply making everyone poor while they take the government bonds (bond-age) and disappear into the night with their loot. That is what they have done – looted. The “new” system which Brand and Icke and Paxman and the BBC and all the other “talking heads” are bringing into play is the single world government, the single world religion, the single monetary system because they are creating chaos without a solution. Who then is in a position to bring us the solution?

 

You got it: Those with the existing wealth and power because we have not provided our own solution. We’ve listened to people like David Icke and Russell Brand while “the nobles” scream with laughter.

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!

Barristers and MPs CAN stop suicides!

Posted in Law by Earthlinggb . on May 12, 2013

IF POLITICIANS, BARRISTERS AND THE JUDICIARY WERE PROPERTY, THEY’D ALL BE IN NEGATIVE EQUITY!

THAT IS HOW VALUABLE THESE PEOPLE ARE TO SOCIETY!

 

From: Earthlinggb
To: GREEN, Damian, ustych@5essexcourt.co.uk
Damian Green MP

Damian Green MP

Barrister Alex Ustych

Barrister Alex Ustych

I’ll wait Damian.

Many people are just “Waiting for something”. While, I will give you a heads up. People are getting to boiling point. You probably do not know this and don’t see it. Perhaps you may even not care that much.

But when people of this country begin to see mothers throwing themselves in front of lorries because they “can’t AFFORD to live anymore”, you and that corrupt, legislating, criminal government you work for (not just you tories but also labour and LibDem – all of you feeding off the people of this country while you protect the very banks and corporations who cause this misery by legislating on their behalf in a fundamentally corrupt deception called a “monetary system”) may well see a Britain that you never could imagine could have existed.

Now, I have come to a point where I’ve had more than enough of the bullshit you and your legislators, and the judiciary which enforces it, call “law” as each of you pass the “hot potato” between each other – the MP can’t interfere with the judiciary and the judiciary turns and says “we don’t make the law, the MPs/legislators do”. While, as I hope you are well aware, I’m one of the “intelligent ones”. I’ve spent 30 years in a career Damian. I’ve hit the heights of a six figure salary. I’ve travelled the world and I’ve got the education. Many (too many) have not. It is these who will resort to violence on an epic scale because, let me explain something to you: The information highway is immense in its structure and its also immense in its capability to inform and to educate. Whereas, unlike before in earlier times, people did not have instant access to information which contradicted the propaganda of which you are a part, they do now and there are mountains of it. People are learning the abject corruption and bullshit that you people prop up.

I’m blunt Damian but I’m in no way stupid. I understand that legal person issue (even if you don’t. If you don’t, then ask) and I can articulate it extremely well. I also understand the obfuscation of our money issue and can articulate that. Without wishing to sound at all arrogant – given the podium and exposure, I could destroy every last facet of what keeps you in that office you reside in and also the office which Mr Ustych resides in. Just with pure information and knowledge. My understanding of how Ken Clarke gets away with his crap and the trips to Bilderberg (by way of his “private capacity” – if you do not understand that I am sure our esteemed Barrister shall) and a myriad of other details are not only understood by me. There is a growing “army” of people who understand it – many not fully understanding but enough to get them to a point of no return – and it is getting very close to the point where there is either going to be an intellectual revolution (preferred) or a nasty bloody one. Who decides which it will be? YOU DO! Why you?

Well, it’s you and your colleagues’ actions in parliament who are setting this scenario up. You’re not backing down. You’re afraid to speak truth to power. You’re impotent. Meanwhile Mr Ustych and his barrister colleagues are either so lacking in empathy on the whole with those who have not shared their backgrounds (Yes Alex, I gave my kids what you had and did the “expatriate experience” like your father but there is a difference – I maintained the connection with my origins and I achieved it entirely off my own back – creating that value in my “person” which the banks then obfuscate and assume as theirs) or are simply too scared to rock the boat because they may lose their juicy little career.

All of this made me learn what it is that is so wrong. My point of writing to you (however bluntly) is this: YOU can learn what is so wrong too if you are at all willing to “drop” the ego of your positions and your “capacities” – i.e. Damian Green the MP and Alex Ustych the Barrister at law (who swear an oath to the Crown which you both do).

So read this open letter I penned to the son of a woman who has felt it necessary to take her own life because she felt she could not afford to live and then click on the link to the “New Economy” and educate yourselves. Then recognise that it is YOU (and only you) who can put a stop to this by your willingness to grasp, interpret, recognise and acknowledge it. Then DO something about it! It is YOU who can turn this deception and corruption around.

Now, I FULLY expect you to read this. If neither of you choose to do so or you respond with some kind of dismissive bullshit, then I know full well where you both stand. The problem with you acknowledging this is that it takes balls in your positions. You know it would “upset the applecart” and, to be frank, I’m not sure either one of you have those balls. I would, however, be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong and would be gracious enough to acknowledge it. But then that is entirely up to you.

Here is the letter/blog. The explanation of that new economy – which is so very simple – is linked to the letter.

http://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/open-letter-to-steven-bottrill-and-family/

Both of you can decide to turn over a new leaf and, if you have any empathy for people at all, take action of some sort (any sort) which brings this to the attention of your peers. If you need help in doing so, I stand ready to provide it. If you and your peers worry about my lack of “respect” for you then that is so easily fixed: You earn that respect by showing to this country what you are really made of. I am more than willing to discuss/debate in a respectful manner (while this is not disrespectful as I see it, just blunt between men. You are at liberty to be just as blunt) but my long experience of dealing with your colleagues has me recognise the obfuscation, deception and pure outright lies that are wrapped in pleasant language. I just don’t play that game guys!

Now, how about you both begin that journey and take action in my case to do the right thing? That right thing, I have no doubt, is hard to do but, right now, while you can both see clearly the wrong here, you just don’t have the willingness to try that bit harder do you? For example, one letter from you Alex and you just cite percentages while you can see clearly the wrong. If you can see it and you say the courts won’t then you know something is wrong. And it is not only you who can clearly recognise it. The question is: Are you a “Hunter” or a “farmer” (in Sales speak). The hunter changes things and stirs things up while the farmer just grazes and takes the salary. The same goes for you Damian? Which are you?

Best Regards guys.

Earthlinggb


From: damian.green.mp@parliament.uk
To: Earthlinggb
Subject: RE: Referral to LawWorks
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:27:23 +0000

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

Thank you for your email and the attachments.

I understand from the subsequent emails you have copied to me that in fact the Pro Bono Unit is still considering whether you qualify for free legal advice, and is looking at the detailed points you have made to them. In the circumstances I think it is best to wait to see what their final decision is.

Yours sincerely,

Damian Green

From: Earthlinggb
Sent: 24 April 2013 13:28
To: GREEN, Damian
Subject: FW: Referral to LawWorks

Dear Mr Green,

I apologise for the bluntness but is this what I worked for over a period of about 5 months to achieve?

One letter from a Barrister from Pro Bono and then he gives up on a case which CLEARLY, the other party admits to having breached contract?

Admitted breach of contract

If this is so, then I would ask you to form a question to be raised in Parliament regarding this type of thing. It would seem clear, time and again, that the law as it exists at this point, does nothing to support it’s promotion of the idea that ALL legal persons are equal before it. Nor, it seems, does it reflect the so called “equity” of law it promotes.

MPs may state that one must pursue their respective issues through the courts BUT the big issue is this: The courts simply enforce the policy which you, the parliamentarians and legislation framers, create. That “law” is not equitable – not by a long shot – and this is becoming clearer and clearer as every day passes.

Mr Green, I can choose to rely on my MP to try and remedy what is clearly wrong, or I can choose to consider my MP who reads all of this, understands what is going on here, but simply says “I can’t do anything”. If it were the latter then I would ask “What is it that MPs are there to do for their constituents?

This company has brought me to the precipice of bankruptcy. THAT is a fact and it is a fact (and morality) which it is clearly seen they simply do not care about. They are flaunting the fact they breached the contract but are simply laughing saying to me and a Barrister “What precisely do you propose doing about it?”. Do you know how they can achieve this? How they can simply laugh and walk away while destroying a man’s livelihood even though having promised him something that he, in good faith and belief, acted upon to his detriment? Because you and your colleagues have allowed them to do so through your legislation.

Mr Ustych, while a Barrister, is impotent to achieve anything because he is entirely boxed in by the legislation (“law”) created by you and your colleagues. Yet you (as a group of parliamentarians) advise us we must plead to a court which you have stifled from being able to apply equitable law to so many people’s cases. The more financially strong “legal person” beats the less strong “legal person” every time. That is not law Mr Green. There is nothing which reflects “Alll persons are equal before the law” here.

No matter where one turns, the door gets shut. Thanks to British justice and the British Parliament.

Regards,

Earthlinggb


From: Earthlinggb
To: heald@barprobono.org.ukustych@5essexcourt.co.uk
Subject: RE: Referral to LawWorks
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:51:58 +0000

Dear Rebecca,

I have not heard from LawWorks.

Meanwhile, Mr Ustych wrote a Letter before claim for me to Xcel’s solicitors (attached) and it has been replied to. Copies are attached.

Mr Ustych has advised me that there is somewhat less than a 50% chance of my winning a case if I brought it before court. I do not fully understand how this is so since the company has admitted Breach of Contract and, it can be seen clearly that, contrary to their assertions it is clear, once more, from Mr Weller’s email response, that he did, in fact vary the contract.

The contradictions within their most recent letter to me are plain to see.

It’s like this: There was a contract between two legal persons. Legal persons are equal before the law. I am asserting my right to sue them on that basis. The fundamentals of this are clear and cannot be refuted. That said, it is only the figure which is awarded to me which is in question. A court could not possibly find the other party to be correct or in the clear. To do so would be a miscarriage of justice. I have spoken with Mr Ustych, other solicitors (before having the assistance of Mr Ustych) and even one of the Directors in Xcel; All of which clearly see the wrong which has been done in this case. It is not difficult to see!

Now, it is unacceptable to me that I am then told I have less than 50% chance of winning this case.

This company made a promise. They did not hold to that promise while it is clearly seen that I acted upon that promise to the tune of £40,000 of cash reserves. Yes, it MAY have been invested in a property but that was the entire basis of the waiving of the probationary period and the promise! Not only that, while I am told “But you have not lost that £40,000″. I have! I am now at a point (having been unable to finance my mortgage of £1000 per month by way of salaries) that my savings have dwindled to a point I will have to sell my home! Doing so, I am locked in to a 5 year mortgage and will have to pay penalties of approx £10,00 or more when I sell. This means I shall then have no income and far less savings than I had prior to accepting the contract with Xcel. When I come to sell my home, I will then be unable to buy another (of course – having no income and, if I am lucky, about £10,000 of savings). Further, it is unlikely that I will even be able to rent (considering landlords wish to see that one is solvent with an income). Xcel’s solicitors keep referring to my argument being a moral one rather than a legal one. Indeed it is moral (It would seem Xcel have none then since it doesn’t seem to be an issue for them) but while it is moral it is also LEGAL. I am not taking a statutory view on this (as I have stated time and time again). There is the law of equity. It is quite abundantly clear and any judge applying such law (as I would demand they do) would simply have to acknowledge that equity has not been reached in this case. Now, I would like to hear someone’s full acknowledgement and appreciation of this fact. Once so, I would then expect the law to do as it should – rebalance it!

It is abundantly clear, from all Xcel’s communications, that they admit they did not stick to contract. It does not matter that they say they have paid out according to one month’s notice because that obscures the fact that they did so having breached the contractual terms in the first place. I wish to know whether there is a Barrister (or solicitor in LawWorks) who clearly see the wrong/tort in all of this (as I know Mr Ustych does) and is willing to represent, effectively, my case in court. Or is it simply the case that if any solicitor or Barrister feels that a case has less than a 50% chance of winning, they do not take it on? If so, then HERE is the problem with that: Why do ANY cases go before court? Because, if one party says “Ok we have a better than 50% chance so we will go to court” then, assuming competence on the part of the other party’s solicitors (and we have to assume all Barristers and Solicitors are competent do we not?), the other party will back down because they must obviously have LESS than 50% chance.

Doesn’t Mr Ustych (or any Barrister) think that it is possible that that assessment of less than 50% is just a measure of their belief in their own capability to argue effectively? Also, do they not consider the possibility that, at the point where the other party gets nervous at the thought of going to court, the closer that day gets, the more likely they would think of coming to some settlement?

Lastly, I wrote 3 letters to Xcel and their solicitors and all were dismissed by them. Mr Ustych (a Barrister) writes ONE letter and it is dismissed (and in parts described as absurd) by them. Mr Ustych then suggests there is nothing more he can do? His considered opinion as a Barrister is slated by a solicitor and that’s all the Bar Pro Bono section can do or achieve? I ask myself, would it be different if a solicitor or Barrister was being paid by me?? Is that it?

Sorry for being so candid but should I seriously be impressed?

I am, therefore, asking for further advice from the Pro Bono section and solid advice which actually achieves something. This is not a game where we roll a dice and give something a punt to see what happens!

Please advise.

Regards,

Earthlinggb


From: heald@barprobono.org.uk
To: Earthlinggb
Subject: Referral to LawWorks
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:32:28 +0100

BY EMAIL ONLY

Mr xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx

Our ref:        xxxxxx/13/0124

2 April 2013

Dear Mr xxxxx,

Re Mr xxxx xxxxx v XCEL Power Systems Ltd

Further to your emails, I do apologise for the delay in referring your case to LawWorks. This letter confirms that I have referred your case to LawWorks’ Individual Casework Scheme.

Once LawWorks has received your case, they will be in contact with you directly.

Please note that LawWorks can only assist in some cases and there is no guarantee that they will be able to assist in your case.

Should you need to contact LawWorks before you hear from them, their details are as follows:

LawWorks

National Pro Bono Centre

48 Chancery Lane

London

WC2A 1JF

Tel: 020 092 3940

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me,

Yours sincerely,

Rebecca Heald

Caseworker

Direct line 0207 092 3962

Email heald@barprobono.org.uk

Address: Bar Pro Bono Unit, The National Pro Bono Centre, 48 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JF

Who are Xcel? A company with a Managing Director by the name of Richard Weller, who waived a probationary period of employment (proven) and were sufficiently happy with one’s performance that Mr Weller waived it and advised that one could, comfortably and with his assurance, purchase a house which meant the laying down of approx £40K of savings. One, then, had a £5K monthly income from the employment to pay the mortgage which is over £1K per month. Within 2 to 3 months after making this statement, Mr Weller, out of the blue with no justification of any kind and no notice, decided to terminate one’s employment. Leaving one to pay one’s mortgage from one’s now much smaller level of savings and no income.

I repeat once more – NO REASON and the company and Mr Weller have had many opportunities given to them to state the reason – any justification whatsoever – and they have refused point blank. They have admitted a breach of contract (which it is) and while there are many other legal points – such as estoppel – for which damages may be claimed, the above Barrister states he believes there is less than 50% chance of winning!

So, I will leave you with this. It is only my opinion and I have an absolute right to my opinion as he does to his. In my opinion, this man is an incompetent businessman (and I have good reason for this not just sour grapes I assure you), he also seems to enjoy jokes in Directors’ meetings about the possibility of a war with Iran resulting in more business for the company (he tends, then, to ignore the human casualties of such a war while he profits) and lastly, I would never trust the man as far as I could throw him. His word seems not to be his bond.

Richard Weller. MD of Xcel Power Systems Ltd.

Richard Weller. MD of Xcel Power Systems Ltd.

Defamation is non justified statements (which you used son in your termination letter to me). Defamation is not a statement of fact or of a justifiable opinion.

The Pot smoking “Truthers”: They want Cannabis legalised! :-)

Posted in Gross stupidity within society by Earthlinggb . on October 19, 2012

What would you say if the government made PRIVET HEDGES illegal?

What would you say if the government made ROSES illegal?

What would you say if the government decided to make underarm hair illegal?

What would you say if the government legalised the height of the blades of grass on your lawn such that it was illegal to grow your grass any higher than 2 inches? (or for those who have gone metric, 5cm).

What would you say if the government made it illegal to grow potatoes or any other vegetable in your own garden? What if they made a law stating Apple trees were illegal?

Or what if they said you could grow an apple tree but they would tax it based on how many apples it produced? They would then be LEGAL and by that process, they could tax any one of the above – ALL naturally occurring plants (and naturally occurring hair!)

WOULD YOU SHOUT AND SCREAM AND SAY “WE DEMAND THESE THINGS ARE LEGALISED!”?

SO THEN WHY DEMAND CANNABIS BE LEGALISED? YOU’RE ACCEPTING THE PREMISE THAT A NATURALLY OCCURRING PLANT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT!

EVEN THE “GOD” of “LIBERTY”, Ron Paul, is suggesting legalising the damned stuff! Ron Paul’s great but, when it comes to gold and cannabis etc, he’s actually a dummy!

GOLD IS CONTROLLED BY THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO CONTROL CURRENCY!

CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PLANT YET HE WANTS TO LEGALISE IT!

MOST OF YOU “TRUTHERS” STILL DON’T GET IT DO YOU? MARIJUANA SHOULD NOT BE LEGALISED! IT SHOULDN’T EVEN COME IN TO THE LEGAL WORLD AT ALL!

BUT YOU STILL DON’T GET IT DO YOU!

YOU’RE BLOODY STUPID THAT’S WHY!

So let them continue their control and their debates and the decision to keep it illegal OR, if it suits them, legalise it so they can tax you for it like they tax nearly everything else in life including the CO2 you breathe!

YOU REALLY ARE LAMBS TO THE SLAUGHTER AND YET YOU SPEAK OF THE “SHEEPLE”. MOST OF YOU STILL ARE SHEEPLE!

Then again, perhaps the government and the United Nations have a direct line to God! Who knows? ;-)

PERHAPS AGENDA 21 is God’s idea?

As so many of you say: “Namaste” :-)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 310 other followers