Earthlinggb's Blog

What’s easier? To murder a Human or murder a Person?

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on February 14, 2016

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE I BEEN “RANTING” ON ABOUT THIS ISSUE FROM SO MANY ANGLES?

WILL THIS CONVINCE YOU? (Will ANYTHING convince you?)

 

“Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”

Killing babies

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Does it ever sink in with some people? Read it again (and again if necessary).

The main point is “are human beings” but only “potential persons”. Until you are a PERSON you have NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE. However, the LIE here is using the word MORAL which is substituted for LEGAL. What they are saying is, until that newborn child is recognised LEGALLY, there is no MORAL need to keep it alive. Yet, that child is a fully formed (and birthed) HUMAN BEING yet, as such, it has NO RIGHTS. THEREFORE, where is all this “Human Rights” business coming from? It is, in fact, and always has been, a deception of the very first order. Not one “PERSON” on this planet has “Human Rights” because you do NOT receive them UNTIL you are recognised as a PERSON.

IS IT NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO USE YOUR MIND THAT “GOD” GAVE YOU TO EXTRAPOLATE FROM THAT FACT WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS AND ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT? If not, then type into my search bar “legal person” or “human rights” and learn about it.

DO YOU REALLY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO HOW THEY USE THIS AGAINST US ALL EVERY SINGLE DAY IN LIFE?

DO YOU REALLY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHERE THIS CAN (AND WILL) LEAD?

(and where it has been leading since its invention)

Columbia Law Review: Concept of “the PERSON”: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/columbia-law-review-supports-earthling-re-human-rights-and-persons/

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

This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist.

BUT,,,, DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that registering your child (therefore, creating the person) is doing them a service. IT IS NOT!

You MUST understand the game being played here and, for that, I ask you to read my blogs on the subject. ALL of them!

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-human-rights-act-deception/

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHO AND WHAT THESE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PEOPLE ARE?

Is Caitlyn Jenner a murderer?

Posted in Law, Media, Science by earthlinggb on June 6, 2015

INSANITY FAIR INDEED!

556c7a224ae56e586e457d3e_vf-cover-bruce-jenner-july-2015

Did this “woman” murder this man?

In the fictional realm of “law” (which we all live under), indeed she did!

The case of Caitlyn Jenner is a perfect example of the basic jurisprudence of law – the “legal person” – displaying itself as a joke but a very dangerous “joke” upon the men and women of this planet earth. But, of course, the cultural marxists, the “libertarians” (now that will be a surprise to those of you who are) and the simple, emotional, “feel gooders” of the world will not see, or wish to see, the reality of this. Nevertheless, it needs to be brought to your attention because it is through the fundamental con of the “legal person” (a fiction at law), that all of us are entirely controlled due to the fact very few of you understand it.

Bruce Jenner was a sportsman who won olympic medals. Bruce Jenner no longer exists in law. It is existence in law which gives us the “benefit” of “human rights”. You do not have “human rights” if you do not exist. I have explained this before in a previous few blogs.

In the airy fairy world of LGBT rights, we are told to accept that a person can simply become another person altogether and we should be accepting of this. Ok, let’s say we are.

So, again, Bruce Jenner no longer exists! What does this mean?

Well, let’s consider a wealthy person with a ton of insurance and their spouse murders them for that insurance. It does happen you know!

Would that spouse be liable and be imprisoned for the murder? Of course they would!

So what has “Caitlyn” Jenner done to Bruce Jenner? In the legal world, she has caused him to cease to exist. This is murder. Was it pre-meditated? Yes, of course it was. So it is 1st degree murder.

Is it possible there was a motive? After all, Caitlyn could hardly then ask for the insurance which was in Bruce Jenner’s name could she? But, perhaps, Kris Jenner could if we followed law properly. A legal person who existed is now, effectively, deceased!

But back to Caitlyn: What does she gain out of the murder of Bruce if not insurance? So it wasn’t an insurance job!

Well, what about this:

 

Insurance fraud

Now, if any of you out there want to make some serious money before you die, just get to the point where you are a 3rd rate celebrity – do anything to get there; go on a reality TV show and make a huge arse of yourself, anything at all to get that public attention – and then MILK IT!

Once you’ve done that, adopt a seriously “out there” message – like becoming a tranny – which is highly acceptable to the cultural marxist, political agenda and they’ll create the environment and the media attention you need plus support you to spread your message worldwide through talks giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars and TV appearances etc – a little like the £000’s Tony Blair gets for talks supporting the globalist agenda which, of course, Caitlyn is now a poster “girl” for!

But back to the legal issue:

There’s a petition started to demand that Bruce Jenner’s medals be given back. Is this fair? Well, of course it is! Bruce is dead and a “woman” by the name of Caitlyn has the medals in her property which do not belong to her. She is NOT Bruce Jenner and does not wish to be. She killed Bruce Jenner!

Further, it has to be asked why Kris Jenner – Bruce’s wife – is not being handed her husband’s estate?

The stupid woman should have waited! He’s no longer “Bruce Jenner” but Caitlyn Jenner so then she wouldn’t have had to file for a divorce from a non existent person! She should have just stated her husband was dead and his estate would have gone to her lock stock and barrel!
Ask yourself Kris: “Am I married to a woman called Caitlyn?” You bloody idiot!

Why did Kris Jenner apply for divorce from Bruce Jenner before he died? She should have simply hung on until he died and she would have inherited his property anyhow! What a silly woman! She could then pursue Caitlyn Jenner for all the money she is about to make by capitalising on the death of her husband. But, in reality, Caitlyn Jenner should not be able to make any money in such a fashion because it is argued she should be in jail for first degree murder!

Kris Jenner

Let’s assume “Caitlyn” Jenner now is recognised as a legal person (I don’t know if he/she has applied for such but I imagine he/she will). Then Bruce Jenner does not exist (in law).
Therefore, all of the property of Bruce Jenner (did he make a will?) is in testate”.
Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies owning property whose value is greater than the sum of their enforceable debts and funeral expenses without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the “intestate estate”.
Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law (statutory and case law) that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.
Under English law (given the probable conditions, Bruce Jenner died under):
The husband, wife or civil partner keeps all the assets (including property), up to £250,000, and all the personal possessions, whatever their value.
The remainder of the estate will be shared as follows:
the husband, wife or civil partner gets an absolute interest in half of the remainder
the other half is then divided equally between the surviving children
If a son or daughter (or other child where the deceased had a parental role) has already died, their children will inherit in their place.
So, in accordance with law, the death of Bruce Jenner means that his wife and children get all of his possessions and property. That would include the medals.
In law, your dad’s dead kids!

But there’s one further aspect: Should the legal person known as “Caitlyn Jenner” be charged with the murder of the legal person Bruce Jenner?

In law, the answer would be a resounding YES if the law wasn’t such an ass and used and abused by the lawmakers in whichever way they so choose!

But of course, now he’s a “woman” I guess you would expect him to become a money grabber! 😉

Women just remember this: You aren’t one unless the law says you are! You don’t even exist unless the law says you do!

Womanhood is nothing special ladies and you even support that idea yourselves. Any man can be a woman and don’t you dare think you’re anything special!

It’s ironic that women are, by their own will and ignorance, destroying womanhood!

Knock yourselves out girls! 😉

Now just remember when your little boy says “Mummy, I want to be a girl”, don’t be a bigot! Dress him up in little knickers, a dress and when he hits about 12, tell him he needs to wear tampons just in case!

 

Caitlyn: She didn't marry for money, she murdered for it!

Caitlyn: She didn’t marry for money, she murdered for it!

Nick Clegg’s 12 yr old remains celibate but…..

Posted in Law, Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 15, 2015

Nick Clegg and Nicky Morgan believe it is entirely normal for 12/13 year olds to participate in a bit of “hide the sausage”.

12 yr old sex

It has come to the attention of the Daily Mail that Nick’s eldest son, Antonio, now 12 – one of three sons – has made his father and mother extremely proud (why?) having stated that he aims to remain celibate until he is 17. Mr and Mrs Clegg were overjoyed by Antonio’s proclamation – why when they consider 12 year old sex normal, the Daily Mail reporter could not fathom – but they were somewhat distraught after asking the pre-teen why he had made his decision.

It appears that Antonio replied saying that he was waiting until Educational Secretary’s, Nicky Morgan, 7 year old son had hit the age of 12 in 5 years time because he really fancies the pants off him and wants to drill his butt badly! Antonio felt that his love for the 7 year old would enable him to hold off that long. It was the first time Mr and Mrs Clegg had heard their son suggest he had homosexual tendencies but they weren’t too phased about it all. After all, homosexuality and 12 year old sex is all quite normal in the 21st century and the Clegg’s support it all 100%.

1193030-nick-clegg-vice-premier-ministre-du-950x0-2

The Educational Secretary was unavailable for comment but we have learned that she has taken out a restraining order against the Cleggs. When asked why, considering she also considered 12 year old sex as perfectly natural, Mrs Morgan replied that it wasn’t so much Antonio she was concerned about being near her boy as Mr Clegg himself!

"I believe in a child's rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they're 13 years old, well that's damned fine by me!"

“I believe in a child’s rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they’re 13 years old, well that’s damned fine by me!”

 

I feel for you….

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on February 8, 2015

You lied and you deceived. Used every trick at your disposal to achieve your goal and you just about did. You almost left me for dead.

But 10 years on, in your pinterest “memories” you still can’t seem to let go and still seem so determined to justify yourself while, out in the open for my children to see, you insinuate all you did 10 years ago.

But it’s interesting to read that, just two days ago, you still seem to be needing help to believe you deserve better! Wow! After 10 years of the greatest love of your life and happiness which knows no bounds, I’d hardly think you’d still be needing that help. Or is it – could it just be – that your heart still dwells elsewhere than where you are? Of course, you’d never admit to that but such a post and comment is not the post and comment of someone who has moved on so many years ago and is blissfully happy. Yes Julz, you know I was particularly good at a little psychology and especially reading and knowing you my dear. It’s just a damned pity you cannot be honest with yourself with him and with everyone else around you. If you could, it’s amazing how things could change! But you never had the strength for such integrity.

I DO feel for you Julie because I know you. I knew you better than anyone ever did (even more than your own family and your new family and friends) because I spent 20 years of your life with you. And, contrary to the meme you post, I never walked away and never would have. You see, my vows WERE sacred to me and I loved you. You were a wonderful woman and wife and mother for such a long time. Right to the end. And, right to the end, you had everyone believe your garden was rosy – even me. It is so sad you were obviously living a lie even in your own mind.

Wow!

Wow 2

If you ever were to read this blog Julie, don’t complain that I have posted this. After all, it is already posted on a public forum for the world to see and read (including our children). All I do here is provide a commentary to it.

I find it most telling Julz. It’s now 10 years you know. 10 years since YOU (not I) decided to walk away so that section of the meme just doesn’t hold water. And neither does the rest.

I (assuming I am the “narcissist sociopath” which is obviously what you’re getting at) chose you because you were/are brilliant, bright, compassionate and caring? Let’s consider that statement for a moment Julz. YOU see yourself as “brilliant, bright, passionate and caring”? Perhaps you have even been told that is what you are but you readily accept it obviously. That takes an ego and some amount of narcissism itself to make a statement like that about oneself does it not? And here am I. I’d never think of stating that about myself and yet I am the “narcissist”? Hmmmm.

That said, I did choose you not because I saw you as brilliant or bright (not saying you weren’t either but that was not the reason) but because you were cute, fun and loveable and yes passionate and, at the time I THOUGHT – caring. I’m not going to dissect all of that now because it would take a book. I’m just concentrating on your meme as it is.

I chose you because of the qualities I lack? No… wrong again. I chose you because we got along and I perceived you as a beautiful human being. Nothing more – nothing less. My low self esteem and fragile ego? Quite incredible really. 20 years and two beautiful daughters, a substantial career and a lifestyle for you all that most would only dream of – provided by a guy with a fragile ego and low self esteem while, during the split and divorce, it was all about my “huge ego”, “arrogance” and all which is opposite to low and fragile. I can’t keep track Julz. First it’s left then it’s right. Down then up. Night and day, dark and light. But, if I chose you for all these things, were you so blind (Ahh love IS blind they say don’t they?) that you couldn’t see all of this in the beginning? It took 20 years and two kids to recognise it?

You defeated the “monster” with YOUR “beautiful heart”? Wow! Where is this brilliant, bright, passionate, caring, beautifully hearted woman? I’d love to meet her! LMFAO!

Julz 2006: Writes an affidavit to the court talking about her husband having a girlfriend (or girlfriends) – when, in fact, she was now living with the guy with my kids who SHE had the affair with which broke up the damned marriage and is now married (as a bigamist) to – but then states in her email she has not told our kids this lie. No Julz, you didn’t because, as you now know – although they will never absorb the full substance of it = the kids KNOW it was YOU having the affair! Why? Because you, ever so suddenly, decided you wanted out but you needed something/someone to “jump ship” to. You needed to maintain the “ex pat” lifestyle and have some other jerk make sure you were financially taken care of. It was a bit unsure for a while whether you’d be able to bring it off though so, while that state of being unsure about your future remained, you went for the financial “jugular” to try and ensure you got everything (100%) from me. Plus, you worked that body honey to ensure you trapped the german! Congratulations on the latter! 😉 Yes it was about maintenance and ancillaries to you and every single lie you could put into an affidavit helped along that path. Your email back to me (had I had a gf at anytime at all) would have been quick to have stated “You liar!” but it didn’t did it? Why is that? Because you knew it was you lying. If you had said it to the kids then they would have wanted to know who and details. Who and details you didn’t have! But the court never asked you for details to back up your statements did it? I wonder why that was? Could it have been due to the court being happy to just suck your husband dry financially while you had the benefit of the Singapore Woman’s Charter and the knowledge they would happily sling me in jail for refusing to do as I was told?

A “beautiful heart”? You’ve got to be joking! But I do believe, as your brother once suggested, that you hit a brick wall mentally and emotionally and that you experienced some form of early menopause just as your mother had. All those vitamin supplements you took perhaps didn’t help much then. As for fragile ego and low self esteem. My darling woman, I was not the one who would go on and on about wrinkles or stretch marks due to our babies – NEITHER of which bothered me in the slightest but, by god, it bothered you! I always wondered why it would when your husband didn’t care? Ah but then you’re a woman and a woman who needed to feel she was still Cameron Diaz! While you wanted them removed, I’d kiss them! That’s the sort of “Monster” I was!

To: “Earthling” (24/12/2006)

You know cant you just piss off. If there is any more
emails they are going straight to the lawyer. We are
divorced, get over it..It is no longer what he said
she said. Its about maintenance and ancillaries.
Do not reply to this email but be assured i have not
suggested anything of the sort to your kids. As for
affadivit you need to remove all the lies from yours!
But frankly its water off a ducks back…Its over as i
said its about the finance, its about you being a
providing father and the rest is history. There is
nothing to takein court as you say its about the
money. MOVE ON grow up and stop being an ass.
I tell your kids no matter what you love them. Always
have always will. I just spoke to katie and she showed
me the whole conversation you had…?????? what the
hell are you on about. Perhaps you need to stop being
seen with a different one in coffee bean. Do you know
they see you or you are seen there every day! So think
on that. I could give a shit but for them they dont
like it. And as katie tried to tell you quite clearly
what she doesnt like. But you never listen, you never
have and that is why you are where you are today.

This letter is threatening and if there is any more I
swear it will be used to show your true
character.!!!!!!!!!!????????? So think on

To Julz (23/12/2006)
YOU are gonna PAY for this sometime somehow!

1. IF you have (which you MUST have) even SUGGESTED to
my kids that I had ANY girlfriend ANY where at ANY
time during our marriage YOU will PAY for that! Coz I
had NO-ONE NEVER AT ANYTIME NOT EVEN A SNIFF OF A
GIRLFRIEND ANYWHERE DURING 20 BLOODY YEARS! COZ I
LOVED THEIR MOTHER!!!!
YOU had BETTER think of a good way of getting that
TRASHY lYING CRAP about a girlfriend out of your
recent affidavit. MARK MY WORDS MY KIDS ARE NOT GOING
TO BELIEVEYOUR CRAP.

2. After speaking with Katie just now, it seems their
whole remembrances of me circles around YOUR words in
YOUR affidavits. YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS GIRL!!!!

3. THAT’s why we’ve come to this……………….ALL
OF YOUR GODDAMNED LIES!!!!! I’ll take it in court – no
issue – BUT you’ve crossed the line BIG TIME if u have
our kids even REMOTELY believing their father CHEATED
on their mother when in fact the cheat is YOU!

 

To: “Earthling”

Actually

MY children have no problem with their language…just
chinese! So if you think different then perhaps that
is your influence not mine
You dont even have the balls to face me! To meet me !
or to take my calls! So get a life ! Leave me alone.
The kids …i would say happy…Peter just bought
hannah an early birthday present ..a gorgeous phone
and phone plan cos guess what her dad dont pay for
shit.

hurt,,,i bloody well hope so.
“Earthling” wrote
———————————

I really think you need to advise our children on the
language they are using these days don’t you?

———————————

From: JW2@yahoo.com.sg>
To: “Earthling”@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: mw
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:36:33 +0800 (CST)
>Ditto
>
>Save face…. i could not give a shit… about
>anything …
>
>You dont even know me .
>
>Unless you have anything of any consequence to say
>then fuck off.
“Earthling” wrote:
>Personally, I don’t give a rat’s arse what you think
>any longer. As for your “me strong… you no f**k
with
>me” stuff. YAWN! You lost your mind as soon as you
>walked out the door. BUT you CAN’T admit that can
you?
>To him, me, friends, family….no-one. Coz u need to
>save face.
>
>I wish you could see how I honestly (absolutely
>honestly) feel sorry for you. It’s so sad. Your
>predecessor was such a sweet woman.
———————–
>
>From: JW2@yahoo.com.sg>
>To: “Earthling”@hotmail.com>
>Subject: mw
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:29:40 +0800 (CST)
> > oh i guess i hit a sore point mw63 …dont fuck
>with
> >me … you have seen nothing yet.
> >
> >God you cant even hold a adult conversation with
> >me…how the hell did you think we could meet?
> >
> >As for crucifiying you …I do wat it takes for my
> >girls.
> >
> > But i am glad you get some satisfaction that
>another
> >man is paying and supporting your daughters….
> >Personally i think you have no balls,
> >
> >Good night
> >

 

Yes, another man was paying for my girls and why? Because my girls’ mother had stolen £35,000 from their father out of the bank stating one minute only she had the password because it was all her money and the next stating she had to change the password (stupidly – because that is what an incessant liar is and they can’t keep track of their statements) to stop me from accessing it. She then sends the majority to accounts in her Inspector of the Police’s father’s name and also an account in her brother’s name (and these two fuckwits wonder why I’d never utter a decent word to them again?) which is “MONEY LAUNDERING” by a member of the British Police no less! Well what a fucking surprise that is eh? Furthermore, the “other man” had, effectively, stolen my children from me while their mother led the children to believe he was just a friend and he was actually funding the children’s mother to screw their father through court because he was of the impression that he was going to be joint owner with the children’s mother, of a £500, 000 house in Surrey which, by the way, the children’s mother had taken him to and introduced to our tenants he as being me! Yes, you read that correctly. When I turned up a couple of years later when I returned to the UK, the tenants said to me “You’re not Mr X, Mr X is a german!”. The look on their faces when I showed them my passport was a picture!

So anyway, back to the meme….

“So he has to move on to a weaker woman”?? Errr.. wrong again my darling! But then that’s no longer any of your business. 🙂 I’d just say one thing more – “He” didn’t jump ship in desperation to have someone take care of him financially. Even though “he” was down to fumes! YOU, however….. Poor guy. He shall never admit to himself he was a meal ticket!

“Tolerate his lies and abuse”? You see, this is where I really take exception. By posting all of this crap in this meme and making your comment as you have, you STILL have our children believe that – though they lived through a very happy marriage between their parents – somehow must believe that “in some darkened corner when they weren’t looking”, their father abused their mother in some way! Nothing could be further from the truth and the thing is – you KNOW it! And that is what I cannot ever forgive Julz. I wish you no harm and I wish you happiness but what you did, have done and are still doing (TEN YEARS ON) is promulgating a total myth! And it is a myth which has absolutely destroyed my relationship with my two daughters who I love. Not only that but you made sure you destroyed their relationship with the rest of my family who never hurt a hair on their head!! (Neither did I by the way – nor yours!)

You see, while your father and mother ultimately later made statements against me (incredible fabrication with no supporting evidence by the way and done because they were scared of the steps you would take if they didn’t support you 100% – e.g. as your mother told me “We were afraid we wouldn’t see the girls again” (ah but they’re ok with me and my family not seeing them eh?) ) – this is what they originally had to say (and your brother too). Strange when “he” was meant to have been so abusive in a domestic, emotional, sexual or physical way isn’t it?

Glasgow lunch 1

Back to the meme:

“Keep your integrity and heart intact”? – I DARE you to! I dare you to follow your integrity and your heart! You don’t have the inner strength to yet, if you did………

“This evil man chose to walk away from you…. fake personality” : Wow! 🙂 You walked not I. I never would. And fake personality? Come on now Julzy honey, who’s the fake? 😉 You couldn’t even begin to think about making up an example of my “fake personality” because, once more, you know THAT is absolute tripe! The problem I had – as you well know and would always tell me to “stop telling people so much” – was that I was as open as a book! Watch out though because I’m even more so these days. In fact, I’m extreme! 🙂

“What an amazing testimonial to your potential and spirit”. Really? What have you made of that potential darling? Is it the potential to live off another guy? Or have you now achieved something extraordinary or, perhaps, have a career which has launched you into financial independence? Yes you had potential and you had spirit, you just allowed it all to be seduced by the dark side.That potential and that spirit could have had our children grow up happy and content knowing they had a mother and father who were seriously together (as their vows once suggested would be the case – although for the kids, well, as they said “it happens all the time dad get over it” – MY kids would never have said that but YOURS did!

You fell in love (if you know what love is that is) NOT with an illusion but with something quite the opposite. What you couldn’t handle was the reality!

Or, yes, perhaps you DID fall in love with an illusion but the illusion then would have been of your own making! Perhaps you’ve done the same thing again? 😉

By the way it is “THERE are far better men….” not “THEIR…” but you wouldn’t have noticed that would you? Anyhow, I’m sure there are. I never promoted myself as perfection. All I promoted myself as was someone who thought you were to him!

But when he put his foot down on the very odd occasion he had to, boy did he feel the cold siberian winter flow right through him!

He lied once to you and he apologised for it. He never lied again. Yet since he’s had time to look back, he’s realised and remembered just how many lies you told him about a myriad of things and the lies started from the very start!

And YOUR fragile ego and low self esteem when, even in the earliest days when i had to go on trips to Scandinavia with a certain (ugly, boyish like) female engineer, YOU would take fits! I used to laugh (and perhaps you didn’t like that) because to me, the thought that you would feel threatened by her (or anyone) cracked me up! But then you did feel threatened. Even to the point of having to dictate to me who my secretary would be in the Philippines! I was even honest enough to tell you that some I interviewed would actually state that they would “do anything the boss wanted” during or after work hours! Yet did I stray? DID I HELL!

And the last one is a cracker: “Unresolved emotions”.

1. My father left us when I was about 5 years old and one night, on my early 40s, I got emotional watching a movie about something like that BECAUSE I HAD EMPATHY AND COULD RELATE TO IT and I thought about my kids and how it would never happen to them (so I thought). And that one episode in 20 year together freaked you out? Coz I cried?

2. Shortly before my mother died – just as we were about to leave to go back to Asia – I stayed with her after everyone else left the nursing home, because I wanted to say goodbye and I undressed her and put her into bed kissing her goodnight. When I came down to Coldstream to your parents afterwards, they asked me how she was and how I was. She was like a child and I felt the tables had turned when once she would tuck me in at night. I said to your parents how I feel I had lost her already (because she wasn’t the woman I remembered and wished to remember) and your parents turned and said “Mark, you still have Julie and the girls”. No empathy. No “I know, it is sad and you must feel sad about that”. Just “You have Julie and the girls”. Well OF COURSE I DID but this was my mother we were talking about you freaks!

Then, when were in Singapore and your parents were over to see you (you having had left at this point with the kids and rented your apartment with the stolen money), my mother died and all I got from you and your parents (who had been my family too for 20 years) were phone texts saying “Sorry to hear your mum died”. That’s it. Nothing more. She did not even receive flowers at her funeral from any of you! You cold, heartless bastards!

Unresolved emotions? Mine ARE resolved because I actually possess such! You people can’t handle emotions! That’s why everything has to be “just nice”. Pathetic! But it eats away at you!

So, now we’ve covered that meme, let’s look at a couple more you posted and see just how full of shit you are! In the sense that, just like your affidavits, you STILL contradict yourself:

Wow 4 Wow 6

 

Well, you’ve never apologised and you certainly have never forgiven (for whatever it is I have to be forgiven for that is) and lastly BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST (as your meme above adequately shows) you have neither forgotten nor ignored. And I would go so far as to say you are still vengeful – after all, you are still obviously portraying these lies to our children.

Why do I still feel so sorry for you? If I’m honest, I would have to say it is a throwback to how much I adored you. But I’m not going to be honest because, after all, you certainly aren’t.

And this one says mountains to me Julz about who and what you are today:

Wow 3

A warning? Like the threat to your parents about never seeing the children again if they didn’t do as you asked and support only you 100% during the divorce?

Nice!

And finally. I need to show you this dear because it is this which supports my accusation (and it is 100% valid) that you are in a bigamist marriage:

1a 2a 3a 4a

 

Now, you see Julz, let me explain as thoroughly as I possibly can for you:

I have the Singapore documents. All god knows how many thousands of pages of them. And there is one page out of those thousands which states you had applied for a divorce in Singapore based upon Permanent Residency (that document goes back to about April 2005). Then, in April 2006 (while I was in jail for contempt of court because I would not bend to coercion – nothing to do with being a criminal as you told our children) your legal counsel in Singapore (Harry Elias and Partnership) re-submitted a document stating the basis of the jurisdiction was not Permanent Residency but Domicile! They knew they had to change it because, according to the Women’s Charter of Singapore (which is the fundamental document which are the rules set out for divorce – yes folks not the MEN’S charter but the WOMEN’s charter!), the parties to the divorce HAD to be permanent residents in the country for at least a full 2 years before commencement! We, my dear, had only been there for about 9 months or so. OH DEAR! So the document was quietly slipped in to the record while I was in jail so as not to be noticed (yes my lawyer saw it but, as I found out later, he was in on it!).

SINGAPORE WOMEN’S CHARTER

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.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=a8bfc35b-7ae8-425a-8378-5d17fd3c1516;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22f0897dd7-1f3a-45a9-b1e7-ba30fef2dbba%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0#pr93-he-

Now, notice what your Barrister, Richard Sear, says in para 6 of the above document so as to give the ENGLISH court jurisdiction over our case:

BOTH PARTIES HAVE PROBABLY ACQUIRED DOMICILE OF CHOISE IN ENGLAND AND WALES.

And when I brought this to the attention of Mr Sear Julz and explained that the Singaporean jurisdiction was based upon us being domiciled in Singapore (which we never were nor could be and he knew it), he ran to you at a rate of knots before coming back to me and saying “What do you want Mr “Earthling””? You see, contrary to what you tell everyone, I did nothing “underhand” at the court that day. I simply told your Barrister some very unfortunate truths and he had a fit!

What I didn’t realise at the time of course (but do now) is that, while this fact on that fateful day in the Royal Courts of Justice saved my financial bacon from a Singaporean order which gave 100% to you, the sheer fact that the jurisdiction of the Singapore court was void, means that we were never legally divorced! Even in Singapore, when I advised my lawyer that I had found the document which stated we were domiciled in Singapore and this could not be correct, he would not act on it even though he admitted I was correct. Again, however, as obvious as it is, I did not realise the enormity of what it meant because I was too stressed out with the entire 3 years proceedings.

Julz, you ARE a bigamist! And not only that, you and your legal team in Singapore purposefully defrauded the Singapore court to achieve what you achieved.

But, as I stated before somewhere. I just want you to know that and I have no intention whatsoever of acting upon it simply because, as I have recently learned in the last few years – THE LAW IS AN ASS. I want nothing to do with it and natural law – that is what the parties themselves want – is more real. You wanted out so enjoy it. But you ARE a bigamist my darling! 😉

And what this meme brings back to me (and what I read from it and your comment) is a similar feeling I got from this email too. A woman desperate to make her man think she’s wonderfully happy but just trying a little too hard to do so:

To: julz@live.com

Damn Julie. The least you could have done was kept me a bit of cake!!

But hey, that’s you all over eh? LOL

From: julz@live.com
To: mark@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Hannah & Katie
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:34:28 +0800

None of your concern where they are . Just like they have no clue as to where you are . And frankly not interested .

We all had a fabulous summer in Edinburgh and Scotland . The girls were stunning bridesmaids at their mum and dads scottish wedding in Edinburgh with friends and family from all over the world. Peter the father they love without question or doubt . . The husband I always dreamed for and love of my life . It was a very special time for us all . [Trying FAR too hard my darling! ;-)]

You will not hear from any of us any more . There is no more *my surname* .

You got your money and ran as I expected . Nothing for them . No help to share in their upbringing . No share of financial responsibility . No gift to make up for lost birthdays and Xmas .

I still loathe you for all you did that had an effect on my daughters .

You are forgotten . The girls are with me home in germany. I will one day fight you for the lost financial support for them . Or perhaps they will . It’s what is right and should have been . You lost them for money but that is what it was all about .! From day one . You can never be dad cos dads don’t do what you did to your own kids . . It’s that simple . Evidently .

Julie B

From: mark@hotmail.com
To: julz@live.com
Subject: Hannah & Katie
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:57:04 +0000

You’re in Scotland? Where are the girls?

 

But for anyone in Singapore who may read this, let me warn you: The following people should be steered clear of whenever possible:

Siew Fong Foo Irving Choh 1

 

Of course, if the British Courts weren’t corrupt, Barrister Richard Sear would also be in some trouble because, either by way of ignorance or the determined wish to sweep it all under the carpet, he did not bring to the court’s attention that the Singapore proceedings were void.

Richard Sear Barrister

Now, by all means Richard, if you wish to make amends for this, I am all ears! After all, I appreciate you recognised the truth in what I was telling you (because it was displayed to you) and you did the right thing to a degree by not letting a barrage of deception and lies destroy me financially. So thanks for that. But……

Meanwhile, as you know honey, this was the reality….

Bali – serenaded at midnight. Who else ever did that? I know honey. You miss the passion. after all, German vorsprung durch technik doesn’t come close. Too bad eh? 😉 x

Goddamnit! It’s your children!!

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on December 28, 2014

I read and I watch as thousands of children per year are taken from the families and put into care and foster homes.

I read and watch as many of those same children are then physically, mentally and sexually abused.

And then I sit here and think “While I’d love to help those who have lost their kids and try to stop it, these families – yes, I understand desperate and confused – don’t listen or don’t take it seriously when I and many others tell you you have registered your child as a legal person (as we all have) and it is this which gives the state the power to remove them and gives the state the power over every other aspect of our lives!”

You’d rather go to people like John Hemmings MP who you believe has a “caring ear” for your trouble. Yet John Hemmings is not an idiot! But he won’t even go NEAR the “legal person” issue with you and explain what it is. NO MP, nor judge nor barrister nor lawyer or police officer will! Their entire livelihood and existence in their roles depends upon that legal person existing!

The question is: DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN?

Now LISTEN to me! I am NOT advocating that there should be no such thing as a “legal person” (which may sound, on the face of it, contradictory) but what I AM advocating is that everyone – you, me and all you people who have had your kids stolen (plus many more people, young and old alike, who have been victim to the DISCRIMINATION and the FALSE POWERS which are wielded using the “legal person” as their source of power) – actually bring this entire issue to the attention of all those who actually do KNOW what it is all about (and that includes the lawyers, judges and, not so much MPs perhaps, but those in government) and create a “People against Persons” movement.

You want your children to remain your children? Or not? Because, as it stands, they are NOT your children even if you have them living with you when they’re 30+ years old!

The “legal person” issue is NOT “rocket science”. It is VERY simple. It is that simplicity and the size of the deception which makes it extraordinary evil and difficult to believe, that is all so, for god’s sakes, let the penny drop!

If you haven’t already, read the following three blogs at the very least:

 

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT DECEPTION:  HRAD

and

The Girl who could not commit a crime:  GCCC

and

The UN INADVERTENTLY ADMITS FREEMAN CONCEPT:  UNAFC

 

UNDERSTAND THIS: YOU CANNOT FIGHT THE LEAGL PERSON SYSTEM (or the legal system itself) WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND USING IT’S FUNDAMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE BECAUSE IT IS THAT FUNDAMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN CORRUPTED. IT IS LIKE TRYING TO BEAT THE HOUSE IN A CASINO – THE HOUSE WILL ALWAYS WIN!

BRITISH POLICE: A bunch of fairies!

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on October 22, 2014

Do you remember the bullies at school who used to go for the easiest target?

That’s the British Police – A bunch of fucking fairies!

 

I took a tour of the Houses of Parliament the other week and, during it, I spoke to a number of Police on my way around – after having to go through what amounted to an airport search before proceeding into the “womb of British democracy”. And to do this one had to pay approximately £30 for the “privilege” while no photos could be taken inside (yet the Houses of Lords and Commons are videoed and photographed in detail every damned week of the year!). Case in point:

Now, there are a few points I’d like to make about this video:

1. It’s a bunch of overgrown schoolboys (and girls) literally playing “the school debating society” that they grew up with in their Eton’s etc while Mummy and Daddy treated them as their not so precious little things. They haven’t lost their humour in the face of a country which is on its knees I see.

2. But then why should they lose their humour? 0.1% of the British population are millionaires and, within that 0.1%, 75% or more of British MPs are millionaires. So the question is: Within this “Representative democracy” of ours, who do these people represent? Well, who do you goddamn, bloody well think? Why do you think they can spend so much time laughing and joking with each other while the country crumbles? Because they’re not crumbling with it! On the contrary. And why do you think that is? Because they are sucking the life out of it. They make their millions by aligning themselves, working for, being non executive Directors for (when not actually on the benches) and lobbying for the Corporations who make sure they’re ok jack when they’re out in the political wilderness. YES, they work for these companies in a PRIVATE CAPACITY (nod to the Bilderbergers here too) but they get hired because of their PUBLIC CAPACITY KNOWLEDGE. It is INSIDER TRADING at the very highest level and I have blogged about this before – the Insider trading AND the “legal person capacities”. Just as her Madge has her capacity as the Queen of England but has another capacity as a “citizen of the EU”.

3. We have just learned of this man:

Garron Helm antisemitic tweet

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/20/man-jailed-antisemitic-tweet-labour-mp

 

Now, listen to David Cameron, once more, in the House of Commons referring to Ed Miliband – a jew – as a Marxist (Communist).

Clearly, then, it cannot be said that Mr Helm was either wrong NOR “anti semitic” referring to Luciana Berger as a “Communist jewess” – OUR PRIME MINISTER HAS STATED PRECISELY THAT TO THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION WHO HE WELL KNOWS IS A JEW!

So, is it that Mr Helm simply used his freedom of speech and thought to say he believed “Hitler was right”? Did he say what he felt Hitler was right about? Did he state that “JEWS SHOULD BE GASSED”? No, I don’t think he did!

Or is it that he stated “You can always trust a jew to show their true colours eventually”? THAT is worthy of a 4 week (or ANY) jail sentence?

Is there ANY “HATE” or “OBSCENITY” in ANY of these statements?

Shouldn’t, then, David Cameron be incarcerated for having the audacity to exclaim that a jew, in our House of Commons, is a communist?

Or is Mr Helm simply jailed because he spelled it out in no uncertain terms?

The British Justice system does not even have to justify itself for its actions (and inaction). It just does as it pleases. Because it is NOT justice for you and I (or anyone in fact) – it JUST IS! And it JUST IS for THEM not US.

But the sad, pathetic little wankers called “Police” just do as they’re told and act as the thugs with no brains or balls that their “massa’s” (because they are no better than House Negroes) demand them to and you and I are “easy pickings” while they get their salaries for keeping their eye off the real maniacs and controlling the people pointing at the “Emperor with no clothes”.

 

Anyhow, back to the tour. At one stage, I spoke with two Police officers standing around as they do, making sure everyone is just keeping “in line” and being good little subjects. I stated, quite plainly, to them that while they are here keeping a watchful eye over us, the real criminals (and paedophiles) are the ones they are protecting. Plus, I also discussed and pointed out the issue(s) with the “legal person”. As to the first point, they stated “Yes we know but we get our orders from above and there’s nothing we can do about it” (as I said – House Negroes – in this case “House of Commons Negroes”). To the second point, where I mentioned the case of Jade Jacob Brooks and how she did not exist in law and, therefore, if not existing, a non existent entity could shoot a judge in court point blank and walk away scot free – They turned and said to each other “Yeah, he has a point doesn’t he?” and then said to me “We hadn’t thought about it like that before”.

No and you know why? YOU GOONS DON’T THINK. YOU’RE NOT PAID TO THINK. YOU’RE PAID TO DO!

And like the bully at school, you just get a kick out of having some semblance of power over other people because, in truth, you have none.

You’re a bunch of overpaid (of course) losers and wasters with IQs that would only rival a gnat! And yet you expect respect?

GO TO HELL!

This is all you’re good for. I wonder what you’d do if one of your own family were to protest like this? But then they wouldn’t would they because you come from a long line of dummies and ignoramuses and families who probably just do what they’re told:

 

London’s Occupy Democracy protesters were forcibly removed by the Metropolitan Police Force from Parliament Square Tuesday, as protesters cried and made their bodies dead-weights.
“Officer, that man stole my wallet!” “Oh he did, did he? You’re nicked mate!”
The British Police: Ordered by the state and cowards. Easy pickings for you rather than go for the people who ARE breaking the law these people are protesting about! You’re a bunch of LOSERS!

“Hey slaveboy”

“Yes massa!”

“Whip Kunta Kinte’s ass until he calls himself Toby”

“Yes massa… anything you say massa…is my pension still performing well?”

Our father

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on October 12, 2014

For the bitches on this earth who consider it ok to use their children as ammunition and then subsequently brainwash them (even when the truth is staring them in the face every single day). There will be a price to pay somehow/someday however either in this life or the next so enjoy it while you have the chance.

Meanwhile, I am aware that there will be fathers who have done similarly but I am male and I am speaking to the bitches. You, if a woman reading this, can say similar to the excuses for fathers who would do the same.

It’s nothing less than child abuse and yet you have the audacity to say you love your children while you have them grow and develop into adults believing their father to be something he never was. And you think that does not follow them deeply throughout their lives? You STUPID BITCH! But you’re not stupid at all, just immensely selfish (and guilty as hell).

And to the corrupt state which wants you to be single parents/single mothers and have the break up of the family unit and, therefore, support your lies and your perjury in courts across the world: You bastards!

Bali 1a

 

 

 

“Our Father”

Oh Daddy please,
take me with you
where you going
Oh Daddy please,
come find the time,
come watch us growing
Oh Daddy please,
don’t leave there’s so
much that we want to
know before you go

I’m in need of someone
to tie my shoe,
or take hold of my hand
when I become afraid
And whose footsteps
will I follow into,
Daddy please,
don’t run away

OUR FATHER
FAR FATHER
WELL LET ME TELL YOU ‘BOUT
OUR FATHER
FAR FARTHER AWAY…

Oh Daddy please,
I pray every night
the doors will open
Oh Daddy please,
this house is just
a broken home,
left all alone

Father’s Justice Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/fathers.justice.3?fref=ts

 

Manila 12

 

 

FACT: You advised a court in Singapore that £35,000 withdrawn from a bank account in your name which I managed for years (because you were bloody hopeless with money) and which was entirely made up of MY salaries and simply put in your name for tax purposes and higher interest, was all your own savings. Lie Number 1 and the major one which stopped me from being able to continue our children’s private international education. Yet you told them “Dad” was pulling them out because he was angry with mum and wanted to exact revenge on mum. How would destroying my own children’s education exact revenge on you?

FACT: You advised the court in Singapore that the password for that account was held ONLY by you THEN, in a later affidavit you contradicted yourself saying you had to change the password so I could not gain access. The court ignored the contradiction and obvious perjury. But then they would wouldn’t they?

FACT: You deposited the bulk of that £35,000 into two accounts – your father’s (an ex, long serving Police Inspector who prided himself on being a “lawful man” haha) and your brother’s; both in Scotland – and you initially went to the court saying you had no money. The court initially, of course, believed you as you were crying crocodile tears about how you were going to feed our children if you didn’t get approximately 70% of my salary (which the court gave you). You used having the children to your every advantage. They weren’t your children, they were a meal ticket to you!! You disgusting bitch! As for your father and your brother, they were money launderers and always will be. A COP money launderer!! Well no surprise there!

FACT: You smiled and enjoyed the day I brought the proof of your perjury to court and proved that the £35,000 was and always had been, my salaries. The court accepting the proof of 5 years of bank account statements showing the flow of money from my salaries to that very account. You didn’t even work! HOW could you have saved that money? The court recognised it and did nothing!! The Judge then asked me to continue paying the maintenance money to you under court order. You KNEW the type of person I am and you KNEW I would say no. Then the third time I said no to that judge (I knew what was coming) and she banged the gavel and had me handcuffed and taken down to cells under the court before being taken to jail for contempt. And you smiled! You then told our daughters that “Daddy was jailed because he didn’t wish to pay for you!” You dirty liar!

FACT: You told our children that “Dad was going crazy” at you for nothing while you told our families that “He’s bipolar or something” (Yes suddenly after 20 years, just strangely at the same time you decide to have an affair while you’re telling everyone, including the children, family AND the court, “he’s just a friend” even when you MOVE IN WITH HIM! – It’s incredible the cognitive dissonance people will display (and our children display even now at the ages of 19 and 21 when that very same man is now your “husband” – Yes indeed inverted commas because I’m coming to that later). Again bullshit!

FACT: When I asked your parents why they stopped supporting our marriage and just supported your wishes and every step you took, your OWN MOTHER stated (with tears in her eyes): “If we hadn’t supported our daughter’s wishes we would never have seen our grandchildren again”. So BLACKMAIL of your OWN PARENTS isn’t even too low to go!!

More later……

Don’t talk to me about “Democracy”!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthlinggb on September 27, 2014

Not that democracy is perfect anyhow but we, in the west and in the UK do not have it!

So if anyone talks to you about our “great democracy” and “Who are you voting for?” or “What are you voting for?” please, do me a favour, laugh in their face! They’re just ignorant bastards.

all-seeing-eye-u-k

Royal Prerogative

HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 485
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.20 am
§Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch’s power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.

Blackstone’s 18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” referred to the prerogative as that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity”— an arrangement that Blackstone described as in its nature singular and eccentrical”. In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens’ rights.

The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe: this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn”.—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.] My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.

The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between 486 subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.

In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?

The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed: it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise. He noted that there had been “practically no authority” on the matter since 1688.

The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote: In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge. He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says: the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed. He also says: The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking. We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.

The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown’s right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

487 Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient “prerogative of perfection”—that is, “The King can do no wrong.” What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.

Munro concludes: Behind the phrase “royal prerogative” lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised. It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.

In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said: It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.] It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker’s job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.

The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1993/apr/21/royal-prerogative#S6CV0223P0_19930421_HOC_685

 

Tony Benn BBC quote

 

THE SECURITY SERVICE

HC Deb 17 January 1989 vol 145 cc180-238

Mr. Benn The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who 193 should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word “security”.

The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?

What is it about the Security Service’s political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces’ political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.

If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.

194 The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.

Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person”. That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.

It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver’s television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain’s armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.

The concept of the “enemy within” is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the “enemy within” became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.

I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright’s story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.

 

Mr. Benn The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.

I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.

 

Mr. Winnick Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§Mr. Benn I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, “Don’t go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service.” One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

196
§Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people’s democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.

 

Mr. Benn That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members’ research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
§Mr. Tony Banks Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, “What is parliamentary democracy?” It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying Why does treason never prosper?

Here’s the reason:

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the 197 sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.

Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.

In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.

The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1989/jan/17/the-security-service#S6CV0145P0_19890117_HOC_315

 

hitler

on behalf of

 

Salmond fishing

 

I hate hugs don’t you?

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on April 23, 2014

Yes folks, this blog is all about hate and anger. I have no idea why you would wish to partake in something as pathetic as this. I’d rather see you all beating the shit out of one another (especially gays). But do you see the exact same thing again? That which I REALLY hate? The state getting their thugs to put a stop to people loving one another. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO SIGN PETITIONS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HUG ONE ANOTHER! THAT IS HOW DEEPLY FUCKED UP THIS WORLD HAS BECOME! We’re all registered to them and they want control and we actually go the lengths of PETITIONING them to ask for their ALLOWANCE for us to hug one another! And the straights and the gays are literally asking – by way of legislation – for a right to be recognised as a “person”. The gays can be legislated FOR now but they can now be legislated AGAINST. SERIOUSLY! ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE HELL IT IS I’M SAYING TO YOU? WHAT THE HELL IS IT YOU DON’T GET? Let’s say, for example, that David Cameron had been a TRUE christian or that a government came along in the near future and legislated AGAINST gay marriage and gays recognised as persons. Where would you, as a gay man, stand then? You can say all you wish that that is never going to happen. Are you so damned sure? THINK about it!

By giving them the RIGHT to legislate at all you are giving them the power to go either way! Whereas, if you did not accept “personhood” and this goes for everyone – they’ve lost the power to dictate either way! THEN you are FREE you idiot and ONLY then! But it takes SOCIETY to wake up and stop wishing to impose its beliefs upon you. Governments and the politicians totally capitalise on our own bigotry and hate and fear and they always will because you refuse to understand it.

I’ll say AGAIN – I can’t stand little perves like Sean Tabatabai BUT, given his agreement to keep out of my face and impose his shit on me (which is carried out THROUGH the system as it is and this “legal person” shit they have manipulated in law), I’d happily stay out of his and anyone like him (Tatchell for instance). But I don’t go about waving the hetero flag in people’s faces demanding recognition by a corrupt system. Tatchell and Tabatabai DO! And they never stop! Have you read Tatchell’s rants about heterosexual males? I don’t even wish to be recognised by the bloody system. I despise it. Ironically, so he would state, Tabatabai despises it too (otherwise why TPV?). But the fact is Tabatabai is a change agent. If he despised the system so much and is so “enlightened” (which he clearly is not) then why would he wish to be accepted BY the system? WHY would he wish to be splashed across the front pages he purports to despise, as “the first gay marriage in the UK”?

He is a change agent. As is Icke! Sorry but if you do not see that you’re an idiot. You seriously are. From getting an OFCOM licence to taking a trip to LA and coming back with a “bride” having spent lavishly on YOUR money while out there. And how on earth – given all of the thousands of gays who would wish to be first to be married, did wee Sean and his boytoy get to be first past the post? THINK about this shit otherwise you’re as unawake as you ever were.

Adoption rejections http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2062031/Adoption-Couples-rejected-UK-agencies-white.html   And here is the propaganda displaying the destruction of heterosexual parenthood: “You don’t choose to be parents, it just happens, while gays make a conscious choice.” Gay parents “tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,” said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. “That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.” Do you notice anything about the psychologist’s surname? Are you at all surprised it is a surname associated with a particular sect? How is it that it is enormous the number of times such attacks on the fundamentals of society come from people of that sect? Haven’t you noticed? Are you that blind? Or are you just scared of acknowledging it? Gay parents http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html Then read the following and just think: Who is it that makes up these rules? And why? Are all the people in the council gay? Or gay supporters? No-one who works in the council (or in the adoption agencies) hold any ideology similar to this couple? Are the workers not allowed to be christian? Or is it like the police when they say “I’m not paid to have an opinion I just carry out orders”? I’m 100% positive it is the latter in general. Although I’m sure to get such jobs, you will be screened to ensure as far as possible that you have the right attitude. So that leaves the question: Who is screening and why? Well when you get right down to the bottom line, it is the state who is doing the screening. The question remains why? And why aren’t the couple allowed to have a baby rather than up to 10 years old? It is social engineering and it all flows down from the top – the government and civil service and Her Majesty. How do they attribute themselves the right to discriminate in these ways when they proclaim discrimination coming from any other quarter is a crime? Because THEY are the law and that is what 99% of the people in this country are simply accepting. Outright discrimination by those who create law for the purposes of control of social engineering. EVERY SINGLE CENSUS and “EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES” form that we complete is used NOT for equal opportunities but to discriminate and socially engineer. “More women” are needed. “More blacks” are needed. “More gay couples/parents” are needed. None of these decisions are actually based on capability to do something, they are based upon statistical, social engineering requirements. And they are achieved by utilising the LEGAL PERSON”. You are not being treated as a human being or an individual. You are being grouped and segregated into preference groups for various positions in society. The vast vast majority just do not recognise it and don’t wish to. Then PLEASE stop complaining!     Telegraph idealism   However, it wasn’t just our reaction to the “faeces question” that went down badly with the social workers. We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind. We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father. The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose. In our social club we have gay and bisexual people: they’ve had problems with their families and we’ve supported them. If they are not following a faith that says that their lifestyle is wrong, then we shouldn’t and wouldn’t condemn it. We are not homophobic and yet the social worker warned us our views would prejudice our chances of adopting. At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child? Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality. It was a devastating time: to be turned down after being grilled by social services for a year and a half, and also made to feel we were so much in the wrong. We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them. I wish now that we had gone through a Christian adoption agency that might have looked on us more favourably. We felt that in dealing with the local council our faith was a liability and we were discriminated against because of it. We know people who adopted via the same council 10 years ago who were not asked similar questions. Once, the government used to respect the religious views of the electorate. Now the Catholic Church and the Church of England are under attack. I agree with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, who have written to the Prime Minister saying that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”. If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith. People should be allowed to choose how they live their lives, so long as they don’t affect others. I feel that, as Christians, we are being denied our freedom to choose and are being persecuted for our faith – while a child who would benefit from all that we can give is missing out. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631526/Adopt-We-were-too-idealistic.html   THIS IS WHAT SOCIAL ENGINEERING RESULTS IN: Now, I watched this chinese couple and I cried. I hate admitting it but I cry with anger and frustration a lot these days. No-one would know that however because it’s hardly “socially acceptable” is it? But the tears don’t arise for nothing. What you see here is an audience getting a laugh out of a guy who sits on a panel and freely states that he is all for mothers killing their children if they wish to because HE believes the world is overpopulated. If he seriously believes that then – courage of convictions time again – he shouldn’t bring even one child into the world right? But that would be HIS (and his partner’s choice based on THEIR belief). However, what he is then saying is he would even consider banning people from having ANY children for 30 or 50 years (I forget which number he used). The audience member laughs, the audience as a whole laughs and he sits quite content with his eugenics-based, holier than thou, social engineering and population control stance while a woman and her husband in China have had the chinese authorities break into their house, kidnap the woman and inject her to murder her baby because of “SOCIAL ENGINEERING”. Social Engineering in China which was actually introduced to China by the ROCKEFELLER FAMILY.

What gives a group of human beings the right to murder the child of another human being?

WHAT? YOU FUCKING TELL ME? And yet you are complaining about MY anger and hate toward those who believe they are fucking gods and would slit your throat in a microsecond if it suited them? You get bitchy at ME for despising these bastards? You suggest this blog is full of hate? NO I think you have your priorities TOTALLY fucked up myself! Sorry for despising those who I know are doing you and everyone else immense harm! You fucking idiot!

They took her baby, after injecting her to murder it because THEY didn’t want her to have it, and they threw it in a bin while a guy in America casually suggests he’d go further than that!

I DARE this little bastard to have to sit in a room in such a hospital in China and watch as dead foetus after dead foetus are thrown in bins encircling him and as the mothers and fathers scream and cry their eyes out for their babies being murdered. Let’s see how this guy would then act!

To be a social engineer you HAVE to be a sociopath because you are taking it upon yourself to be, in essence, “God”.

WHO THE FUCK DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE?

AND IF YOU EVEN MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR THEM, THEN I REALLY DO HOPE, ONE DAY, THAT IT IS YOUR CHILD WHO IS DROPPED INTO ONE OF THESE BINS. THEN LET ME HEAR YOUR EXCUSES!

Meandered in this one? Not a bit. It is all part of the same issue. Humans dictating to other humans. And remember this, while they have their police and their other state actors to do their bidding (whether in “healthcare” or local government) you are basically talking about a few hundred people dictating their wishes upon tens of millions (just in this country. In the US it’s a few hundred dictating to hundreds of millions. Their social engineering being propaganised via TV and other media. And we swallow it. “It’s the law”. Yes and the “law” applies to LEGAL PERSONS. If it were enough to be human being to qualify as a person, there would ONLY be one question to answer (and no need for these forms): Form Form 2   But no, we ALL fill them in because we’re told we must and everyone complies. “Are you a human being?” “Yes” “What TYPE of human being are you?” Answer me this: What the hell difference should it make? Anyone who wishes to say there is a valid reason for such, you are part of the problem.

Meanwhile, this guy can be a little “off” at times (no disrespect there bud. I’m sure you will have the same view of me at times) but, in this case, he’s got it right (although the “acappella” could be deleted in my opinion) .

MH370: The “managed” contract

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on April 20, 2014

They really have very few places to go now with this MH370 issue.

Their lack of transparency, lack of logic and scientific honesty, their outright lies and propaganda have all served to put them in a bit of a bind. They’re taking this “search” to the last possible step and they can either come up with a black box (looking more and more unlikely) and/or debris (also unlikely given it would have been found by now floating) or they can say they took the bluefin down as far as it could go and it either malfunctioned or they couldn’t take anymore chances with it.

But here’s where the real story is:

The Malaysian government and the Australian government (think “Her Majesty’ Commonwealth”, the US, Australia and perhaps even Singapore) are now negotiating a contract. A “treaty” in a sense which transfers all (or some) liability for the “story” to Australia.

Mirror W Oz Malaysia MOU Malaysian deal

 

Haha. The people are offered no involvement in this decision. This is international law at work between two “legal persons” in the form of the Malaysian government (a legal person) and the Australian government (another legal person). The victims families are given no say in this matter because these two “legal person” authorities have decided that their interests outweigh the interests of the people. Malaysia is saying “if you want to go with this story Australia and the west, then we’re happy to allow you to as long as you provide the Malaysian government with legal protection regarding any and all lawsuits which may arise out of this and, if your story unravels, we are in the clear legally.”

Further, the Malaysian government can now say to both, its own citizens and chinese that they do not have authority over any of the found black boxes and plane parts (if ever found which, I would imagine, will be “found” at a much later date). So the chinese cannot hold Malaysia responsible. I wonder if Malaysian Airlines will also be covered by this “insurance”? Somehow, I think not. Just the government. MAS might just be held out to dry on this.

The Australians, British and the US will now simply come up with the story, present whatever they wish to the world in the ongoing weeks, months and years and the whole thing will be wrapped up nice and tightly.

IF there were actual persons lost on that flight, their families will now be told a little story and told to shut up just like the 9/11 families. You weren’t loud enough folks. “Philip Wood’s fiance” did a good job too.

Not much else to say on this topic. It’s transparent as it is.

Globalists 3 World’s population 0

Columbia Law Review supports Earthling re Human Rights and Persons

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on April 3, 2014

I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet – but BY GOD I do when, if ever, a little Barrister shit, MP, lawyer or judge dismisses (or dares to dismiss) what I have been blogging about re the “LEGAL PERSON”.

I have challenged any and all “Legal Eagles” on this matter both, in my blogs and directly. The ONLY defence they have is a non defence and that is to simply dismiss any discussion because THEY are “Legal People” and THEY should know!

NO, I’m dreadfully sorry you little arrogant, overpaid, oath taking, incompetent fools but you are now, with this, fully put on notice. The following cannot be dismissed one iota – neither could many of my previous blogs on this subject but NOW, I have even MORE concrete agreement by your very own: THE COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW!

So, listen you snotty nosed, wig wearing little creeps, don’t fuck with intellect!

Setting the scene: “This suggests that it is the component concepts – NOT PERSONHOOD ITSELF – that are INDISPENSABLE for grounding our moral and legal institutions about rights.”

This is precisely what I have been saying all along. However, the Columbia Law Review goes on to explain why this is in their terms. The discussion around Davis is crucial to appreciate here. You must also recognise what a dilemma the courts are in here. The original mid level appellant court – IF such a ruling had stood – would leave President Obama today and all “family planning” (Planned Parenthood for example) centres plus others, open to charges AND prosecutions of murder and manslaughter. This is literally what the American courts were dealing with here and they could not possibly allow that decision to stand.

You must then understand this: The line between murder and not murder lies solely upon opinion and solely upon a fundamental legal concept which they must, in all respects, protect from the general public’s understanding of it. For it is this fundamental concept which not only provides them with discriminatory control regarding “what type of person you are” (e.g. citizen, subject, illegal alien, homosexual, heterosexual, pregnant woman, racial minority, religion, sex etc etc) but also the absolute power of life and death. For example, if you are NOT recognised as a PERSON, you have NO “Human Rights” today. While they bestow personhood upon inanimate bodies with NO morality whatsoever. A Corporation’s primary basis for existence is, and has always been, recognised in law as PROFIT. Such being recognised in law is PRECISELY why the Corporation (think now The Trans-atlantic Partnership Agreement) can SUE a country’s government in the courts for trampling upon its rights. It’s MAJOR “right” being to make a profit! Yet a Corporation, while the trustee(s) are the employees, the Directors and the shareholders (the latter being the real beneficiaries), the Corporation itself (nothing more than a piece of paper precisely equivalent to how you and I’s birth certificates are used) is where the interest (Right) lies.

To explain: From the University of Pennsylvania law review and American law register…

dtc.22

dtc.23

The RIght or interest is held by the Corporate person – a non living entity. A PIECE OF PAPER which has been bestowed the “right” in law, to make a profit. The CONTROL lies in the hands of those whose job it is to pursue this interest which the Corporation has and, as such, within what is called the “nexus” of their position as a representative of such a non living entity with such rights, the REAL LIVING PERSON (human being) is, effectively, given a pass to pursue such interests in whichever way he/she deems fit. The Corporate “veil” of Personhood then protects (Limited Liability) the human beings from a vast number of actual crimes they will commit on behalf of this corporation. This is why you consistently look at the news of Banks simply paying fines and those who literally, physically and with MENS REA, commit the crimes as they control the activity of the Corporation. The Corporation as an organisation of many people also allows, then, those such as Lloyd Blankfein and many others to simply say “I didn’t know”. The worst that can happen, generally, is that he would be sacked by the Corporation for negligence or incompetence. It rarely happens however and why? Because he, in fact, has pursued and achieved the very aims of the corporation/bank that the shareholders (the real beneficiaries) want.

Ok, returning to the Human side of “Human rights” and the “person”…. I hope you can see, quite clearly, the predicament the courts were in.

 

HR person 1

HR person 2

At this juncture, I would only speculate as to why the court would not wish to explicitly say that the embryos could be treated like property. As I see it, that would ALSO cause the state a very big problem because then it could be relied upon by PARENTS that the child is the PROPERTY of their parents rather than the property of the STATE.

The “first position” of the American Fertility Society (you see? it is all opinion and they need to be VERY careful which opinion they choose in every circumstance and that they leave “margins” for arguments in other cases. They cannot afford to have absolute written law with no margin for argument – it is why the US constitution, for example, is under attack – as is the UK’s). was that the embryo is a human being (subject?) directly after fertilization. It then states that such a “view” (opinion) requires that it be accorded the rights of a person. Yet, later, this journal goes on to contradict this view and, as we know, Jade Jacobs Brooks – a British teenager, a living, breathing, human being, was not accorded such rights as a person because she was not recognised by the law as a person because she did not have a valid birth certificate.

HR person 3

“In all three positions, the concept of the person looms large”. Indeed it does!

“the embryo’s lack of personhood justifies the withholding of rights”. Along with previous blogs with statements made by the UN, law sources etc, this, once more, provides concrete proof that, until one is recognised as a person, one has no “rights” which are, erroneously, referred to as “Human Rights”.

“The quandary encountered by the court in Davis represents a general problem within legal reasoning.” Indeed because legal “reasoning” does not allow itself to be bound by logic. It cannot afford to do so. Logic would infer solid law. Think about that for a few moments. For one thing, if there were solid laws (which there certainly could and should be but they are made slightly “gaseous” by added complexities and purposefully) then there would be no need for LAWYERS! Lawyers PRACTICE “law” and they are there to ARGUE concepts. Many of our legal cases go on and on purely to give the legal system, through the use of judges hearing “arguments”, the time to decide which OPINION (or fusion of opinions) provide the correct result for the State’s agenda. That is all this total rubbish is for.

“But these sources frequently offer conflicting guidance on the exact content of the concept of the person or its relationship to the idea of human beings.” Indeed they do and for a purpose. Meanwhile “the IDEA of human beings”? They’re suggesting even human beings are an “idea” now?

(Is person a broader category than human being or merely a synonym?) – Do you remember my blog entitled “The human rights Act deception” where I challenge the Barrister upon this very issue and prove to him that his idea of the two being synonymous is total hokum and proven hokum! The LOGIC of his stance is impossible. While it is clear that a human being is NOT a Business/Corporation I would hope you appreciate!

“Rather than illuminating human rights claims, the concept of the person often obscures them. This suggests that, despite appearances, the concept of the person is unnecessary for human rights”.

“By exploring these three categories of arguments, it becomes clear that the concept of the person cannot be the foundation for a human rights claim.”

 

HR person 4

 

“To take just the most obvious examples, the U.S. Constitution ascribes Fourteenth Amendment rights to persons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes reference to human beings, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes reference to both..”

 

HR persons 5

 

So, we arrive at another core issue: “All persons are equal before the law”. It is patently untrue and unworkable under the assumption (or concept) of “the person”. I mention in a previous blog that, according to the human rights act, one “right” is the right to be recognised AS a “person” before the law. I then point to the obvious here: If it is a “Right” then you have the “right” to WAIVE that “right”. If you are not offered that choice then it is not a right at all and they are simply lying. Which they are! However, here is the issue when it comes to, not embryos, but living, breathing human beings and “All persons are equal before the law”. It is a beautifully simple demonstration of the use of “the person” concept as a discriminatory one for purposes of control of all various “categories” of “persons”.

HR persons 6

HR persons 7

HR persons 8

 

HR person 9

Now, you cannot possibly get any clearer than that stated above regarding Roe v Wade compared with the wrongful death cases. On one hand, the “law” treats a fetus as property belonging to the mother to do with as she wishes (within a certain timescale which is totally arbitrary and changes like the wind similar, then to whether homos are perverts and “non-persons” or the age of consent.) literally allowing her to murder her child, while, on the other hand, in the case of wrongful death, the mother (or father or any “person” causing injury to the fetus and death), with a fetus of the same age, CAN be charged with its murder. Treating the fetus, in this case, not as property of the mother but a “person” with full rights. This does nothing but prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the “law” is constantly tailored to fit the wishes of the state because the reality of all of this is, transparently, that the “person” is the PROPERTY of the state.

This is why it is madness for homosexuals to actually BEG to be recognised as “persons” with full rights by the state. They are literally begging for the slavery we are all under. Every marriage, every birth, every registration of any and all property we may own, is literally a begging to the state that our existence, our actions and our needs are recognised AND, therefore, regulated (controlled). We literally hand ourselves over as bonded property of the state and, insodoing, we give them THEIR RIGHT to treat us as they do.

WE ARE CONTRACTING WITH THEM IN TOTAL IGNORANCE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING WHILE THEY COERCE US TO DO SO BECAUSE WE HAVE, FOR GENERATIONS, ACCEPTED AND ACQUIESCED TO SUCH, SUCH THAT, FOR THOSE WHO WILL QUESTION IT, THE VAST VAST MAJORITY WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND A WORD WE SAY AND WILL DEMAND THAT WE REMAIN THE BONDED SLAVES THAT THEY ARE IN THEIR IGNORANCE. AND IT IS ALL DONE “FREELY”. FOR IF IT IS NOT, THEN UNDER LAW, ANY CONTRACT SIGNED OR ACCEPTED UNDER COERCION IS NULL AND VOID AND ANY CONTRACT WHICH IS SIGNED WHEREIN A PARTY TO THAT CONTRACT WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH FULL DISCLOSURE, IS ALSO NULL AND VOID. THE PROBLEM IS FOR US WHO UNDERSTAND THIS, IS THE IGNORANT MASS AND THE FACT WE DO NOT LIVE UNDER “LAW” BUT UNDER THE FORCE (FOR THAT IS WHAT IT IS) OF A DEMOCRACY WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY MAJORITY RULE.

HR person 10

Does the above consider the further conflict: If the person is dead and is no longer a person, therefore possessing no rights, then from where are the rights derived when it comes to executing an estate? You may suggest that, while alive, the deceased had appointed an Executor for this BUT, the deceased is now dead and no longer exists as a person. Therefore, the Executor has no legal identity of a person to Execute for! How does an Executor execute  for a non existent person?

How do you legalise the immoral? You create another category of person: The “Brain dead”. You may then harvest their organs. This, of course, has many uses and points to many elite wishes/agendas but I’ll leave that up to you to consider. Again, however, it displays the problem and contradictions totally inherent with the concept of “person”.

HR person 11

 

HR person 12

Ah! Animals. Dolphins and India spring to mind once more. Remember when reading all of this, that none of it is arguing for any position on the basis of who and what is deserving of rights. It is simply pointing out how the arguments in each case expose the issue with the “person” as a concept. The entire journal article, therefore, pointing at the concept as one which is fundamentally flawed and used to legalise what are discriminatory opinions.

HR person 13

HR person 14

What if you have MPD and you haven’t paid your council tax? 😉 Everytime the council knock at the door, you could say the person responsible for paying it wasn’t in! When it came to court, could they make you bankrupt and/or throw you in jail if you did not present the court with “Jimmy” while the name on your birth certificate is Bob? Or vice versa. Yet, there are times when the courts literally have distinguished between one legal person and another within the same body. THINK about that!

HR person 15

The “law” truly is an ass! It cannot make up it’s own mind about the very fundamental concept of what it prosecutes!

HR person 16

HR person 17

 

So now we come to another “person”. A “person” which truly doesn’t exist. It is a piece of paper; a document sitting in Companies House. It has no heart, no brain, no soul. It is effectively dead but it “speaks”. It “speaks” through “mediums” called Directors and employees. They do this “spirit’s” bidding even to the extent of real human beings detriment AND to their own detriment. They give it power. They pursue its aims – not necessarily because they really care about its aims (most people hate their job) but because they, themselves are “bribed”. They receive this thing called “money” to do precisely what this document wants. The document is “dead” (non-living) but it “speaks” and acts. A corpse is dead and an orator speaks. This is why it’s called a Corporation.

What if you removed the “person” status of a Corporation? Certainly, they could still exist and operate, they just simply would not have rights. The rights (and duties) would fall to the owners/Directors and employees. Do you think, then, these Corporations would begin to act more responsibly? I think so. Real people’s necks would be on the block and, after all, it is these real people who take all the actions of the Corporation. It is not a dead document which does, it is real people with no conscience and the knowledge they are protected from prosecution to a great degree by the Corporate veil. None of this is rocket science. It is all very very simple. You’d then ask how does the corporation enter contracts and hold property etc? It doesn’t, its owner(s) does. For instance, everything in Microsoft’s name would have been owned by Bill Gates personally. All property, all employee and customer contracts made with Bill Gates NOT “Microsoft”. Of course, he could delegate the administration of all of this to others if he wished but it would be his name – not as a “Microsoft” representative, but as Bill Gates, who assumed ALL liability. Of course, the Titans of business and banking would scoff at this suggestion but only because it would scare the living daylights out of them.

HR person 18

HR person 19

Subjecting a Corporation to criminal liability simply means that it is the Corporation which is solely liable for the actions of real human beings. What can you do with a piece of paper? Throw it in jail? Burn it at the stake? Hang it with a paper clip? No, all you can do is fine it and that is all that is ever done. While those controlling it walk away having, many times, been those who have committed acts of genocide, murder, financial terrorism (resulting in deaths). As you will see above, everything a Corporation is and does is related to real people. Of course that is the case because it is real people who commit the actions and who gain or lose from such. Entire countries and peoples affected by the creation of a few words on a page.

While, I have blogged before about the fact that all states and nations (including the EU now) are “Legal persons” and if they are, then all persons are equal before the law. I have then explained how THEIR justifications of states and nations having “higher rights” than we, does not hold water because, just as it is necessary for all nations within Europe to hand over their sovereignty freely to the EU – that being a fundamental of law and law of contract, as stated earlier, would null and void any contract signed under duress – the same applies to we, the people, handing our sovereignty (that is our powers) to a nation state apparatus. Again, the legal world cannot argue against these fundamentals of their own law.

HR person 20

HR person 21

HR person 22

Now, you will read from the above, that the author of this piece suggests the concept of the person is essentially adequate where there is no controversy around what a person is, such as adult human being for example (however we do know, re homosexuality and transexuality etc, that there IS controversy) BUT, he goes on to mention that the person is a “cluster concept”. He omits to mention the various “clustering” (categorisation – therefore, discrimination) which is practiced throughout the legal world based upon sex, religion, colour, married status etc and that such “clustering” can (and does) have the effect of provisioning more rights to some than to others. The perfect example being the contract between an employer and employee. You may sign a contract (and a contract which has all terms laid out plainly) but the employer decides to break that contract in the knowledge that statutory law, essentially, gives no recourse to the employee unless the employee has been with the company for at least 2 years. Such a stipulation is not stated in the actual contract but the government, in their wisdom (and it is wise because they know on which side their bread is buttered) assumes control of the employer/employee situation as it does the husband/wife contract. However, IF you as an employee, happen to be a pregnant woman, a racial or sexual minority, then you have a stronger set of “tools” to fight with. These “tools” – simply being your categorisation of “person” – are effectively, increased rights.

The law, itself, is entirely discriminatory and for its own purposes and it uses the “cluster concept” of the legal person everyday and applies it to what the author suggests are obvious persons.

HR person 23

HR person 24

HR person 25


HR person 26

Please note the obvious from the above: (a), (b), © and (d) ARE synonymous with being a human being, therefore, the NEED to be referred to, or bestowed the “title” of “person” is unnecessary. Even titles such as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Dr”, “Miss” and “Ms” are not only used to denote sex but also status. The forms we are asked to fill out regarding “equal rights” – whether they be for a job application or otherwise, are there NOT to provide EQUAL rights but to administer political objectives. Once more, that clarifies the use of the “person” and the titles and categories it requires to ensure that various groups and subgroups of human beings are treated differently and NOT equal. The sheer statement that it is to ensure “equality” is a total fabrication for, with this information, the government (and the courts on the legislative’s behalf) drives positive discrimination. How many times have you heard “We need more women in government”? Or “We need more blacks in the police force”? Or “We need more gays…”, “We need more interdimensional soul rabbits”.

The PERSON and its “clustering” (categorization) is nothing more than a vehicle for social control. It promotes political aims and it suppresses the whole idea of “free market enterprise” for example and the right of choice based upon not who is best for a position but, due to statistical requirements of having a group of people – either in a corporation, the police, the government – which category one must choose in a given situation. This is fundamentally discriminatory!

The government and the courts state that discriminatory practice is unlawful BUT, it is absolutely clear: They are the worst offenders! 

“What really matters for purposes of settling a human rights claim is the biological concept of the human being”. Spot on!

But, while he doesn’t state this, it is then emphatic that “Human Rights” should not be offered to juristic persons (corporations). This then feeds back into the idea that the rights and responsibilities must sit with the “persons” (humans) who take the actions and decisions within the corporations. By providing corporations with “human rights” the world has undermined the human rights of humans! It has undermined the reality that a human life is of prime importance.

“We would then be obliged to offer a completely independent basis for granting rights to those entities.” Yes indeed! While those rights should never, at any time, be placed higher in the pecking order or conflict or suppress the human rights of human beings. But they do because of the “clustering” of the concept of “person”.

“It also produces the uncomfortable situation of arguing whether someone is a person in order to determine if he or she gets human rights.” And there you have it. Please read my blog The Human Rights Act deception and consider and review the situation which Jade Jacobs Brooks found herself in.

HR person 27

 

“The benefit of this view is its power to ascribe rights to group agents such as corporations and nation-states.” Note, this is ONLY a benefit to those who would wish to ascribe such rights to these assumed “persons”. There is no benefit to wider humanity in doing so as I hope I have just clarified. Also, as I have touched on, there is no need to ascribe person rights to such. Once can simply ascribe the rights and responsibilities to the humans controlling them. But remember, the author of this Columbia law review article lives within the system. Yes he questions it – and insodoing, points us to the realities – but he will never attack it substantially.

HR person 28

Above, the idea of “rational agency” is once again mentioned as enough to provide for rights and responsibilities. But is it? Remember, the rationality of a corporation is stated in its fundamental documents. Its rationale is to make profit. If, then, a court is convened to consider the rationality of the corporation’s actions, it is clear that the terms within the “birth certificate” of the corporation (i.e. its Article of incorporation) will be considered by the court. Its purpose is to make a profit for its shareholders. Its purpose does not state that it will be or act as appropriate for the benefit of humanity. Therefore, the court will rule that, in its actions, it is acting rationally. Of course there is further complexity in this but that is the bottom line and from where the court begins in its determinations. A corporation has no soul. It has no heart. It has no humanity. The people controlling it for the benefit of the shareholders (and the shareholders themselves) are then able to pursue their greed with impunity. This is why no bankers go to jail!

HR person 29

 

Remember that, just as I talk about the concept of the corporation as a “person”, the same analysis can be applied to the state, government etc. Again, they are complemented by human beings who control and direct the “ship of state”. One simply needs to ask oneself: What is the goal of the state? It must have one. The vast majority of people assume it is one where their wishes are pursued by representatives. I would think, by now, that naive view is being crushed underfoot wouldn’t you? Once more however, just as there is a “corporate veil” there is an even more opaque (and protected) State veil! And why wouldn’t it protect and obscure itself? It has to. The state is a mafia plain and simple.

“Since the corporation is a valid subject of human rights – e.g., it deserves the right to property – then corporations deserve to be called persons.” But no, they do not. The writer is first assuming that corporations deserve the right to own property to come to the conclusion they deserve personhood. Step back Mr and consider your first assertion first. Who says they deserve the right to own property? Make that argument first before you use it to assert the second assumption.

HR person 30

 

“This does not mean that personhood is empty or should be eliminated from the lexicon of human rights dialogue;”  However the reality is that it should and every word stated by the writer clearly demonstrates this. His assertion here is simply the assertion, once more, of someone who operates within the system and simply cannot afford to state it as it should be. He is accepting of the basic ideology of the legal fiction concept of the person while, at the same time, he is making arguments which clearly show it is fundamentally flawed and is the most dangerous concept to human rights as one can get.

While here is an interesting statement: “Being married consists in certain lower level facts……the intention to raise a family together…”. No, entirely wrong. Two homosexuals do not get married with the intention of raising a family do they? Not even all heterosexuals who get married necessarily wish to raise a family. In fact, why would anyone wish to raise a family in this world as it is? If I were 25 again I would seriously consider not having children. What? To have them grow up into this system of utter control? Where the entire fabric of society is breaking down? No, I fear for my kids that I do have and that, fundamentally, is why I write this stuff. Not that they necessarily care!

 

HR person 31

Ah but of course the legal system wishes to recognise “Common law” marriages (whilst it ignores common law just about everywhere else and almost tries to insist that such does not exist in many aspects of law) because, with the numbers of people who are simply not married but living together, the state sees that as a loss of control. So what does it do? It preys on people’s needs and/or greed within the system which exists and has ensured such needs and greed exist by saying “We will recognise common law marriage” and those who are in such relationships think “ah! That’s nice of them”. Again similar to the now “We will recognise gay marriages”. Of COURSE they will! If they didn’t, they have no control over them. And the gays have BEGGED them to take control over their freewill!

We’re talking stupid here! Real serious ignorance and naivety. “Please legalise my actions! Please recognise them and accept our registration so you may then take control over our affairs!”

HR person 32

HR person 33

HR person 34

HR person 35

HR person 36

“These concepts were “infecting” legal theory because they could not be defined through experience. Cohen argued that these metaphysical concepts distract judges from seeing that their decisions are based on social policy, economics, and other extralegal considerations.” Just as I pointed out above: The law is only a reflection of social control imposed by a state/governmental agenda. Period.

HR person 37

HR person 38

“For example, biological human beings and rational agents might have different rights. Individual human beings and corporations need not be treated the same.” Whereas, as long as corporations are included within an umbrella group known as “persons”, along with human beings, then the corporation (AND the state/nation. intergovernmental legal person – UN, the EU etc) shall undermine the primacy of the human being and the human spirit. Non living entities used as vehicles by living entities who wish to have power and control over all others so as to shape the world precisely as they wish.

HR person 39

HR person 40

“Groups demanding human rights have not only used the concept of the person to achieve remarkable change…”. Yes, but once more, our author here approaches this from the standpoint of someone who sees politics (as it presently exists) as a necessity. And yet, politics IS the very vehicle of social control. Take politics out of law – eradicate it altogether – approach the question of human rights from a purely “libertarian” standpoint which states each and every human being has inherent rights and no corporation or state has the right to interfere whatsoever, then you have no need for these groups to use the vehicle of the “person” to create such change. They are using a vehicle for control to argue for rights that they should have anyhow and by arguing for the vehicle of control to recognise those rights, they are, in effect and in reality, providing that vehicle with MORE control!

HR person 41

 

 

The facts as stated above, confirm the fundamental truth of the matter. There is a fundamental difference/distinction between the legal person and the human being. The courts and state legislators use the former as a form of social control and for the state’s agenda.

There is a website by the name of “UKhumanrightsblog” by Crown Office Row ( http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/ ) which is attempting to demonise and target those who are understanding these concepts and how they are used. The website states this:

“The Freemen, alongside other groups with similar creeds, believe that if you change your name and deny the jurisdiction of the courts, you will be able to escape debt collectors, council tax and even criminal charges. As this member of the Occupy London movement, “commonly known as dom” wrote in guardian.co.uk (of all places) “if you don’t consent to be that “person”, you step outside the system“.

As you may have guessed, this magical technique never works in the courts, but judges are often flummoxed when faced with the arguments, which are odd and in many ways risible. But what has been lacking is an authoritative, systematic judgment explaining, in detail, why that is. Until now, that is.”

It then justifies its position, in part based upon this statement by a Canadian judge:

“Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.”

 

Do you notice the obvious?

They use the very concept of the “person” to justify (and protect) the use of the “person” as their fundamental tool. 

They are effectively stating: You are a person who is challenging the concept of “person” and, because you are a person, you are not allowed to do that and, as such, you are vexatious.

There is no other way of them protecting themselves from one who challenges their most fundamental assertion. You are “vexatious” because you have them checkmated.

Trust me. Those of you who know this information are extremely powerful – not on your own – but as a group. You are exceptionally dangerous people because you are both, knowledgeable and, I would hope, peaceful. I have no idea how many of you are out there in any one country (take Britain in this instance) but IF an organisation was put together who did not “in fight” and did not argue or sweat the small stuff, but simply concentrated their efforts on this singular issue, your danger to the system which oppresses you would be formidable. Forget voting for political parties. That has no power whatsoever. THIS is what contains power!

Globalism 101

Posted in Finance, Law, Money by earthlinggb on April 2, 2014

Just take these two points and recognise them for what they are telling you. It couldn’t be more succinct:

1. From the Office of the historian US State Department archive. Take particular note of 1980.

Office of the historian US china

US China chronology 1

US China chronolgy 2

 

2. Introduction of the legal person providing for economic reforms in China from 1979 onward…

CH legal 2

CH legal 3

“Concerning private enterprises, promulgate later in the same year………In the early 1980s, the fact that the legal person was a notion of the capitalist law….The economic contract law (1981) was the first law in which “legal person” was formally employed.”

The year the globalists took hold of China. They needed the legal person concept to do it. The two economic/finance and investment systems cannot integrate without the concept of the legal person. It is the law which enables the monetary and economic system and the economic and monetary system which controls the law. It is a symbiotic relationship. It is law which states what money is (and it could be anything as proscribed by law – anything at all can act as a means of exchange but ONLY “money” which is a true reflection of value (assets/labour) is non corruptible) but the money wich is in use at the moment is not considered purely as a means of exchange but as an investment commodity in itself (exchange rates, money markets) just like gold, silver, bitcoin, any other present commodity money. Even gold is corruptible and is used as an investment and would be even if those gold and silver supporters go their way in making it “real money”. It is all owned by the very same people who own the existing FIAT money. FIAT is NOT the problem. FIAT essentially means it is recognised as currency by the people. There is nothing wrong with that AS LONG AS, as a currency, it is ONLY a means of exchange and represents the real economy in terms of the real assets and labour in that economy. The currency can, therefore, be digits on a screen and that is precisely what you would want in such a case.

But back to China. As crystal clear in a short few sentences as it is possible to be. The globalists got China to accept the legal person concept and, from there, Chinese Banks and Chinese corporations are heavily invested in (and therefore controlled) by globalist vehicles – Nominee accounts. Globalist multinationals can also invest capital into China and benefit from the immensely reduced wages. Americans and British (and many countries in the west) lose their jobs and careers, wealth, homes, assets etc and need to accept lower and lower wages until there comes a point where wages achieve a balance across the globe. The intention is NOT to improve living standards to any substantial degree for the east but to depress living standards to a point where the slight increase in the east meets the west.

Meanwhile, the globalists, in having sold you the “dream” of improving everyone’s living standards across the world, actually capitalise from the reducing standards in the west and, by raising the east’s slightly on aggregate, they have a more mature market with a population able to buy “trinkets” and insurance.

It’s bloody brilliantly conceived I’ll give them that.

Capitalizing China (condensed)

Posted in Finance, Law, Money, Politics by earthlinggb on March 31, 2014

Capitalizing China 2n, Secret

The previous blog “Capitalizing China” can be condensed into the following simple facts:

1. From 1979 onwards the west gradually had closer and closer talks with China on their integration with the rest of the world from an economy and market perspective.

2. There was a fundamental problem which existed in China (from a globalist perspective): China did not recognise or use something called “THE LEGAL PERSON”. Such a concept did not exist in China.

3. The non existence of the legal person concept meant that the west and China could not “speak” to one another and the legal rights (invariably termed “human rights”) which were applied to CORPORATE PERSONS in the west DID NOT exist in China!

4. There was a need to integrate two very different legal systems which had two very different fundamental jurisprudences. The west using a concept called the LEGAL PERSON and China not. Someone had to “give”. That someone was China.

5. There are a multitude of what are called “Nominees” Accounts which exist as PRIVATE “subsidiaries” of Public organisations such as the Bank of England and what I have just found in Hong Kong (but US owned): HKSCC which is a PRIVATE subsidiary of the Hong Kong stock exchange.

6. Remember Hong Kong, although given back to China, is NOT fully integrated with China. It still has its own government.

7. These “Nominees” accounts DO NOT divulge who the beneficiaries are of the shareholdings which are bought through them. It is acknowledged formally, however, that those who have used BOEN (Bank of England Nominees) have been Heads of state of any and all countries. That is just the Bank of England Nominees however.

8. The HKSCC is a similar account to the BOEN (as all “Nominees” accounts are). They are entirely private (secret) accounts where the elite heads of state can invest in everything from the world’s banking institutions to the world’s largest energy and resource corporations.

9. Since the Chinese accepted the “legal person” as a fundamental of their jurisprudence, it has allowed our elite (our Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchy etc) to invest in Chinese banks and corporations entirely secretly.

10. Having achieved this change in the Chinese legal system and now having their money investing and controlling shareholdings in Chinese banks and corporations, they can also offshore the jobs of the west’s multinationals thereby reducing labour costs to a minimum.

11. Ok this is obvious as we know. BUT our elite have “sold” to us the idea of globalism as being to create ease in doing business and, therefore, creating jobs for us and allowing an easier flow of people between countries (ala the EU). Certainly the ease of flow of people is obvious and documented BUT has it provided more opportunity and wealth FOR any of these people? Yes for those coming into Britain and America – relative to their home state – but it has not had the effect of increasing prosperity on the aggregate, It has had the opposite effect.

12. The reality is that, yes, the “globalism” has made doing business easier but for whom? The BUSINESS/CORPORATE/MULTINATIONAL OWNERS.

13. It has reduced their costs by offshoring – made capable by introducing the legal person into chinese law.

14. It has, therefore, reduced the numbers of employed in the west. This results in people taking jobs which pay peanuts just to live and make ends meet.

15. Who OWNS the CORPORATIONS? The investors do! Who are the investors in the major chinese banks and corporations? HKSCC – a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON and, of course, the Chinese government and elite.

16. The western leaders “cry” about the rise of China BUT it is THEIR personal investments in it which has created that rise. They then turn to us and say we must be more competitive – which means our salaries go DOWN! So they are then the investors in corporations and businesses at home and achieve reduced costs and higher and higher profits therefore. PLUS, they are invested in China in their banks and corporations and make even bigger profits due to the low wages. They work on this over time and the result is this: The world’s labour costs are evened out across the board and they are at the LOWEST common denominator.

It’s like this:

The investor class (elite) take ownership shareholdings in banks worldwide. It is, of course, these banks which provide the liquidity (including interest) to the corporations of the world which these same investors are invested in. They, therefore, own the capital AND the labour. Why do multinational corporations hardly pay an ounce of tax? Because the banks want all the profit. Who do governments borrow from? The Banks!

The Nominees accounts are secret because what is happening is that our elite are absolutely destroying people’s lives for their own profit. YES we know that but what I’m showing you here is HOW they do it. These nominee accounts have VAST sums invested in all banks and all corporations. To ensure that the corporations make the profits they make, the elite destroy the “mom and pop” businesses, the small and medium businesses, by “choking” their liquidity cashflow. That’s why our high streets are dying and it is the large TESCOS and major multinational hypermarkets which are providing everything from clothes to food. furniture (IKEA) etc etc etc.

THE NOMINEE ACCOUNT SHAREHOLDERS MUST BE SECRET BECAUSE, IF THEY WERE NOT, PEOPLE – THAT IS THE MAN IN THE STREET WHO HAS LOST EVERYTHING AND ALSO THE SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSMAN (PERHAPS WORTH A MILLION OR TWO) WOULD SEE THAT THE VERY PEOPLE SAYING TO THEM “THE PROBLEM IS CHINA” (OR WHATEVER OTHER COUNTRY) ARE THE VERY PEOPLE INVESTED IN CHINA AND CREATING THE MISERY!

THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” FOR THESE NOMINEE ACCOUNTS TO HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND WHY YOU HAVE THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT COVERING PARAGRAPHS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1946.

AND FOR THE COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT PLAY BALL – I.E. DO NOT ALLOW THEIR ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL/LEGAL STRUCTURE TO BECOME FULLY INTEGRATED WITH GLOBALIST/WESTERN (AND EASTERN) INTERESTS – THEY WILL FIND THEY HAVE A PLANE GO MISSING AND THE REST OF THE WORLD CHASTISE THEM – INCLUDING ONE OF THEIR MAJOR ECONOMIC PARTNERS (CHINA) – OR, THEY WILL FIND THEIR “REGIME” DEMONISED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND THE US AND NATO START DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM!

But the bottom line is this: Our own Heads of state and elite (bankers/politicians) are SCREWING US while they smile in our faces.

asia-times-may-2003

Asia Times May 2003 2

ASIA TIMES 2003 THEY ARE ADVISED WHEN IT’S COMING AND WHERE TO INVEST

Capitalizing China!

Posted in Finance, Law, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on March 31, 2014

I rarely say this but I have said it before I admit on one or two occasions (because they have been) but this is one of the most important blogs I have ever written and I hope you read every last damned word of it and take it in….slowly. PLEASE share this widely and get LAZY people to READ IT!

This is how America, the UK and the West is getting slaughtered. NOT by the chinese but by our own. Your enemy lies at home America! Deep in the heart of Texas and Washington. And in the UK, deep in the heart of the City of London.

You don’t need an army to take over a country. You can do it perfectly well with a fictional idea. Two words: “Legal” and “Person” that’s it. Literally. Nothing more is required.

You think this is outrageous and ridiculous don’t you? Well you carry on believing. No skin off my nose.

Ch legal 1

China's new civil law

China's legal framework for foreign investment

The Globalists have commenced their take over control of China in 1979 and, as you will see here – as simply as I can make it – they did it with those two words: LEGAL PERSON. China accepted those two words and hey presto! The entire world and every soul in it is a market and an economic unit to be parasited from.

“I’ll ruin everything you are…

I’ll give you legal person…”

I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
It’s in the white of my eyes

My little China girl
You shouldn’t mess with me
I’ll ruin everything you are
I’ll give you television
I’ll give you eyes of blue
I’ll give you man who wants to rule the world

You are aware of the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES Ltd Private Company I assume? Wholly owned subsidiary of a PUBLIC company (so they tell us the B of E is a Public company that is) but the subsidiary is a PRIVATE offshoot. Why PRIVATE? Well, it does not come under the FOI Act does it? Just like Icke’s “The PEOPLE’S Voice” Private Limited Company funded by you. Anyhow, don’t let me go off on the Icke tangent again.

What has been in our news this last week or so?

The Bank of England has just made history (which means nothing to most people) and signed an agreement with the Chinese Central Bank to have the City of London as a clearing house for the RMB.

George Yuan

The City of London initiative on London as a centre for renminbi (RMB) business was launched on 18 April 2012. The role of the initiative is to consider practical measures to support the development of London as a centre for RMB business. It aims to:

Provide leadership to the wider financial markets on the technical, infrastructure and regulatory issues relevant to the development of the RMB product market in London
Advise HM Treasury on maximising London’s capacity to trade, clear and settle RMB and articulate practical next steps and long term aims for the development of the RMB market in London. Additionally, the group advises HM Treasury and other UK authorities on any financial stability concerns the members may perceive.
Develop and maintain, as appropriate, a private sector dialogue on the international RMB market with regulators in Hong Kong and mainland China to complement that which is already maintained by the UK public sector.

The City of London Representative offices in China.

The overall aim of the offices in Beijing and Shanghai is to strengthen trade and investment links in both directions between China and the UK through the promotion of world-class financial services and products. The offices work to promote ‘the City’ as a brand, covering financial services as a whole (including those under non-UK ownership) throughout the UK. The offices work to promote the services of the City – including the raising of capital, insurance, asset management, legal, accounting and other advisory services; emissions trading; London’s exchanges; and financial education, training and qualifications – to the government and private sector in China and promote awareness of the City as both a unique cluster of capital and expertise and a centre in which to locate operations.

The specific functions of the offices are to:

facilitate the business development of City firms by providing support for their visits to China;
support visits by Chinese decision-makers and senior financial services practitioners to the UK;
gain and disseminate information on market opportunities for City firms;
identify barriers to market access for financial and related business services; [These barriers to market are legal issues]
promote the UK as a physical location for representation and investment by Chinese financial services companies and provide support for inward investors;
organise visits by the City of London’s Policy Chairman and assist in planning and arranging visits by the Lord Mayor;
organise and support financial services related events and seminars.

Members of the City of London initiative:

Current members of the initiative are leading international banks with a strong presence in London and Hong Kong:

Agricultural Bank of China (UK)
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ)
Bank of China (UK)
Bank of Communications (UK)
Barclays
China Construction Bank (UK)
Citi
Deutsche Bank
HSBC
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (UK)
JP Morgan
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Standard Chartered
HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority are observers to the initiative. The City of London provides the secretariat.

Interestingly, this is taken from the 2012 Annual Report of the People’s Bank of China (China’s Central Bank):

中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).indd

“The PBC signed bilateral local currency swap agreements with central banks and monetary authorities in 18 countries and regions including Republic of Korea and Malaysia. Offshore RMB markets in Hong Kong, Taiwan, London and Singapore were in a good shape.”

So, Malaysia got in there before us.

Further, within this annual report, it states the following (there are many references to the “legal person” in fact). The way they refer to it, you can see, quite clearly, it is something new to them and they are struggling with it:

中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).indd

The PBC achieved significant results in statistics, survey and analytical work

中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).indd

“Statistics and monitoring of small rural financial insti中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).inddtutions based on legal person was achieved.

 

Ok. Now, for the moment, let’s just flip back to the Bank of England Nominees….

 

 

 

Investigating the Bank of England Nominees Limited

The following article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the October 2011 issue of Prosperity….

Occasionally we encounter people who refuse to believe the fact that the Bank of England is a fully, publicly-owned national institution, and has been since it was nationalised in 1946(1)

They will point to something called the “Bank of England Nominees Limited” (BOEN) to allege that there is a “secret” company attached to the Bank, into which a flow of hidden profits is presumably being directed for the enrichment of a select few. Their sources are usually unreferenced conspiracy websites.

If our reform is to gain traction, it is important that we are neither distracted by misinformation nor labour under misapprehensions about normality.

The Bank of England is Publicly-Owned

The Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government – meaning its profits go into the public purse at the Treasury. This is a plain fact and people who do not accept this are not being serious about our reform. See the statement on the Bank’s website where it states:

As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly. The principal means of accountability for the Bank is via the House of Commons Treasury Committee.(2)

Let’s look at that statement closely however because the Bank Of England Act 1946 doesn’t quite match up to what this statement by the Bank says:

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998

1 Transfer of Bank stock to the Treasury

  1. (1)  On the appointed day –(a) the whole of the existing capital stock of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank stock”) shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred, free of all trusts, liabilities and incumbrances, to such person as the Treasury may by order nominate,(3) to be held by that person on behalf of the Treasury;(b) the Treasury shall issue, to the person who immediately before the appointed day is registered in the books of the Bank as the holder of any Bank stock, the equivalent amount of stock created by the Treasury for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the “Government stock”).
  2. (2)  The Government stock shall bear interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum; and

the equivalent amount of Government stock shall, in relation to any person, be taken to be such that the sum payable annually by way of interest thereon is equal to the average annual gross dividend declared during the period of twenty years immediately preceding the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, upon the amount of Bank stock of which that person was the registered holder immediately before the appointed day.

So, all the stock in the Bank was transferred to the treasury/government BUT, on that transfer, the treasury contracted to the previous private owners of the stock in the Bank, an EQUIVALENT amount of stock in the British government! So, the Bank is owned by the government BUT the government is owned by the previous stockholders in the bank by an amount equivalent to their stockholding in the bank. FURTHER, in holding this government stock, the previous bank stockholders shall receive interest at the rate of 3% per annum IN PERPETUITY (there is no end date stated). So, in essence, it is a stock swap and nothing, in effect, has changed.

(4) After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October, [a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree.]

 

So, ONLY 50% (assuming they are stating 25% on each date rather than a total of 25%) of net profits – so after ALL costs are accounted for – goes to the Treasury. WHERE does the other 50% go?

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 19984 Treasury directions to the Bank and relations of the Bank with other banks

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998Sections 4(4) and 4(5) repealed by section 16(4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

Now, if we go to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and follow this through, we get the following:

16(4) The enactments and Order mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act are hereby repealed or revoked to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.

So then we go to schedule 2 and what do we find?

2Defence

(1)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or
(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or
(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to defence or that its disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of subsection (1) above.
(4)In this section “defence” means—
(a)the size, shape, organisation, logistics, order of battle, deployment, operations, state of readiness and training of the armed forces of the Crown;
(b)the weapons, stores or other equipment of those forces and the invention, development, production and operation of such equipment and research relating to it;
(c)defence policy and strategy and military planning and intelligence;
(d)plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services that are or would be needed in time of war.

Read them each in turn carefully and decide which, if any, something within the Bank of England Act 1946 could have anything related to such. Essentially, then, it means that the paragraphs repealed by the Official Secrets Act within the Bank of England Act 1946, relate to matters of defence. That “defence of the realm” can ONLY be related to those documents which give detail as to WHO these bankers are who own this stock. “obstructs the promotion or protection…of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad…” (which citizens precisely?). Couple that with paragraph (c).

 

What is the “Bank of England Nominees Limited”?

 

The Bank of England Nominees is a wholly-owned, non-trading subsidiary of the Bank of England, with 2 ordinary shares valued at £1 each, as the latest Bank of England Annual Report(3) states. (the ordinary share value has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the shareholdings it deals in for third party private persons – corporate or natural persons)

A reply from Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank, to an enquirer Mr E Danielyan, dated 5 March 2010 explains:

BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey.(4) (The Directors and shareholders of such shares have nothing to do with the value of shares the nominees deals in)

Both John Footman(5) and Andrew Bailey(6) are employees of the Bank and their biographies are on the Bank’s website. (so what? Uninterested.)

BOENom

What is the Purpose of BOEN?

As the following written answer from the Commons’ Hansard from 21 April 1977(7) states, it is intended to hold shares on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others. (Now we’re getting somewhere. Could be Her Heinous to his Holiness, to Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, DuPont, Bill and Melinda Gates, President Assad, any and all Heads of state no matter what they are. Dictators or not. And let’s face it, they ALL are).

Shareholdings (Disclosure)

HC Deb 21 April 1977 vol 930 cc151-2W 151W

Mr. Blenkinsop asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England (which means it does not have to disclose the beneficial interest holders of shares). Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover (a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.; (b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company; (haha. That is absolutely fucking hilarious! A shareholder who wants no control and no say) (c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital. 152W

Bank of England Nominees Ltd. has also undertaken to make a report annually to the Secretary of State for Trade of the identity of those for whom it holds securities, and, provided that it holds securities for two or more people, the total value of the securities held. The contents of such reports are to be confidential to the Secretary of State.

BOEN – No Longer Allowed Disclosure Exemptions

It is important to note, however, that BOEN is “no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements”, as the following written answer from the Lords’ Hansard on 26 April 2011(8) makes clear. (But it no longer matters since it is now dormant! They have taken the money and run and they have closed down all their accounts and put their interests elsewhere, while that just so happens to have happened before June 2010 – not long, then after the economic collapse! Nice timing!)

BOEN nominees

This must mean that BOEN is no longer granted an exemption under Sec 796 of the Companies Act 2006 to the notification provisions required by Sec 793 – which it has been previously, according to Ben Norman above.

Bank of England

Questions

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited were last published; when they will next be published; and whether they intend to review whether the company should remain exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[HL8302]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): The most recent accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited are available via the Companies House website and were published on 14 June 2010. It can be seen from these accounts that the company is currently dormant. The company is due to publish its next set of accounts by 30 November this year. The company is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements and currently no other persons are exempt from these requirements.

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited will be published; whether these accounts will take into account an indemnity from HM Treasury; and whether the accounts of the company are exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.[HL8303]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Bank of England will publish accounts for the asset purchase facility (APF) for the year ended February 2011 before the Summer Parliamentary Recess. The amount due to or from HM Treasury under its indemnity to the Bank will be identified. The accounts are not exempt from any company law disclosure requirements. 12

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accounts of the Bank of England, Bank of England Nominees Limited and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited are all audited by the same firm of public accountants.[HL8310]

Lord Sassoon: KPMG are the external auditors for the Bank of England and the Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited. As a dormant company, Bank of England Nominees Limited is not required under the Companies Act 2006 to appoint an external auditor.

 

The BOEN Company Accounts for 2010 can be viewed online.(9) These Accounts state that, “There has been no income or expenditure on the part of the Company since its incorporation and accordingly no profit and loss account is submitted.” (p.2) It has Net Assets of £2. (p.4)

In Summary

As stated in Hansard, above, BOEN is a company set up with the intention of holding shares confidentially on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others.

That is to say, presumably, HM the Queen and her “immediate family” and certain governmental bodies.

Presumably the thinking here is that if those people were to buy them through normal means, then they would be visible to staff at share dealing companies and would regularly be leaked. This could, possibly, raise various security-related matters, and it could also, possibly, raise various rumours about matters related to the economy and the health, or otherwise, of certain companies.

In any case, BOEN is presently dormant, and is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.

Imagining strange goings-on at BOEN is a complete distraction from reality.

The truth, as with most things, is quite prosaic.

Purchase back issues of Alistair McConnachie’s Prosperity money reform journal here

And here is a link to Alistair McConnachie’s Google Profile.

(1) Bank of England Act 1946, http://www.legislation.gov.uk

(2) Bank of England, “The Bank’s Relationship with Parliament”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm

(3) Bank of England, Annual Report 2011, p.69,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2011/2011full.pdf

(4) This letter can be viewed in full and downloaded at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/28738/response/74019/attach/2/D.pdf

(5) Bank of England, “John Footman Executive Director, Central Services and Secretary of the Bank”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/biographies/footman.htm

(6) Bank of England, “Andrew Bailey, Executive Director, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – Deputy CEO designate”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/biographies/bailey.htm

(7) Hansard, 21 April 1977, Written Answers,
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1977/apr/21/shareholdings-disclosure

(8) Hansard, 26 April 2011, Written Answers,

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/bydate/20110426/writtenanswers/

part021.html

(9) http://www.scribd.com/doc/56089866/BANK-OF-ENGLAND-NOMINEES-LIMITED-Company-accounts-from-Level-Business

 

Now, there are quite a number of other “Nominees” companies scattered all over the place. ONE is called “Houblon Nominees” and another is “Bank of Scotland Branch Nominees”. It’s strange for all of them that, although “Live” and still have their Directors listed, each one is “dormant” or “non trading”. Isn’t that just a tad strange? 😉

There is one “Nominees” I am coming to shortly, however, which you will see has MASSIVE investments. But, for now, let’s just take a little peek at our Dear, lovely, fluffy Queen who is “so close to bankruptcy” while she ensures that the monarchy is now fully protected from any investigation via the Freedom of Information Act or any other method/vehicle.

 

From: In and Out of Hollywood: A Biographer’s Memoir (2009)
By Charles Higham

charles-higham-washpost81-thumb-300x245-12636

You may wish to look up Higham himself. His wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Higham_(biographer) Why is it all these people same to share so many of the same perversions and issues? However, this is what he wrote in his own autobiography/memoir:

Hollyqueen 1

Hollyqueen 2

Hollyqueen 3

 

Now let’s turn to Australia for a moment:

Who owns the largest share of Australia’s Top 4 Banks
POSTED BY NESARAAUSTRALIA ⋅ JULY 15, 2012 ⋅
FILED UNDER BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, MEDIA
**Data taken from SYB
Top 4 ANZ Shareholders

Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED 446,984,331 17.46
2 J P MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED 371,451,021 14.51
3 NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED 343,611,753 13.42
4 CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED 98,249,488 3.84
Top 4 Commonwealth BA Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 210,455,886 13.59
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 154,853,734 10.00
3 National Nominees Limited 136,450,456 8.81
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 66,664,831 4.30

Top 4 National Australia B Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees 359,630,439 16.86
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 260,185,567 12.20
3 National Nominees Limited 244,446,877 11.46
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 97,543,050 4.57

Top 4 Westpac BC Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Fully Paid Ordinary Shares % Held
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 444,695,642 14.88
2 JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 379,805,564 12.71
3 National Nominees Limited 312,929,618 10.47
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 143,271,824 4.79
What an EYE OPENER. Still more. Who are these 4 private entities so secretly powerful? Many would think HSBC belongs to the Asians. Yet, have a look at what Wikipedia has to say.

HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited
They own:

17.46% of ANZ 13.59% of CBA 16.86% of NAB 14.88% of WBC
In fact, they’re the number one shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

12.09% of Bendigo & Adelaide Bank and 17.00% of Bank of Queensland.

Wikipedia had this to say about them,

“HSBC Holdings plc is a global financial services company headquartered in Canary Wharf, London, United Kingdom. As of 2010 it is the world’s sixth-largest banking and financial services group and eighth-largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine. It has around 8,000 offices in 91 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America and around 100 million customers. As of 30 June 2010 it had total assets of $2.418 trillion, of which roughly half were in Europe, a quarter in the Americas and a quarter in Asia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc (accessed 21 Feb 2011).

Here is a link to their 2010 Annual Report. Here are a few of the financial Highlights listed in that report:

Pre-tax profit more than doubled to US$19bn on a reported basis.
Underlying pre-tax profit up by almost US$5bn or 36% to US$18.4bn.
Profitable in every customer group and region, including North America
Their 2009 Annual Report wasn’t too shabby either. It says that, on a reported basis, their profit before tax was US$7.1 billion

OKAY, what about the other 3 private entities deemed so secretly powerful? Let’s see.

JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited
They own:

14.51% of ANZ 10.00% of CBA 12.20% of NAB 12.71% of WBC
In fact, they’re also the number two shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

7.92% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 7.77% of Bank of Queensland.

JPMorgan Chase had a $12 billion profit for 2009. We found this out and read all about their success in their Annual Report.

National Nominees Limited
National Nominees Limited is the number three shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Australia Bank Limited – You know the BANK that just staged a HUGE break-up. It must be an awkward break-up indeed with all of those shared assets. We think you should give them a spank purely for staging such a pathetic break-up!

They own:

13.42% of ANZ 8.81% of CBA 11.46% of NAB 10.47% of WBC
We don’t know about you, but we certainly find it a little bit strange that they own less of themselves than they do of ANZ. This certainly deserves a “Please Explain!”

They’re also a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

6.35% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 10.87% of Bank of Queensland.

NAB had a net profit of $4.2 billion for 2009. We read all about their wonderful year in their Financial Year Highlights

And Last but not Least,

Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited is listed as the number four shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group Inc. You might know them better as Citi BANK. Citi Group Inc only has the largest financial network in the world.

They own:

3.84% of ANZ 4.30% of CBA 4.57% of NAB 4.79% of WBC
In fact, they’re a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

2.13% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 2.57% of Bank of Queensland.

Citigroup Inc. (branded Citi) is a major American financial services company based in New York City. Citigroup was formed from one of the world’s largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group on April 7, 1998. The company holds over 200 million customer accounts in more than 140 countries. It is a primary dealer in US Treasury securities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup accessed 21 Feb 2011

Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 in a massive bailout by the U.S. government. Its largest shareholders include funds from the Middle East and Singapore. In the last two financial years, their core businesses, together known as Citicorp, were profitable with $10.6 billion and $14.8 billion in net income. http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar10c_en.pdf (2010) http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar09c_en.pdf (2009)

Now, many still think the RBA is a quasi governmental body and belongs to the people in Australia, IF these top four pillars have the freedom to create credit from nowhere, which affects the Australian Economy as a whole, who actually DOES the greater power belong to, the PUBLIC OR THE PRIVATE??? THINK ABOUT IT.

So, with that, you can see that Australia (just as much the UK and US and Canada and the west in fact) is wholly owned and controlled by the globalists

 

So, now, let’s turn to CHINA! (we got there eventually):

Here is the HKSCC Nominees. You would think it had its ownership and incorporation in Hong Kong wouldn’t you? But no, it is a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON

HKSCC Nominees

And this is PRECISELY why the West HAD to get China to accept the “LEGAL PERSON”. To allow western interests to take hold of greater and greater holdings of China’s assets. So what happens when the Chinese build their exports to America and the west and, on our TV screens and in our newspapers, we are fed that this is “dangerous” and it is “bad for business” in the west and “We are so in debt to the chinese and it just gets larger and larger. Oh Wo is us!” Well, ever so quietly, our leaders are perfectly happy for western multinationals to go offshore and take our jobs with them because THEY are invested in not just the chinese banks (and a myriad of other banks, central and commercial) but also invested in the largest companies on earth wherever they may be. Oleg Deripaska’s “RUSAL” aluminium company, for example is the largest aluminium company on planet earth. Do you think it’s because of Oleg Deripaska? No, it’s because Peter Mandelson and George Osbourne – both “Ministers of the Crown” – support Deripaska with the advice that Nominee accounts such as HKSCC and BOEN etc, will invest in the company and build it up and make sure that European legislation and any other legislation is taken care of to ensure it becomes as large as it is BECAUSE they all, including the Queen and the City of London Bankers (Nat Rothschild for example) want their dividends at the expense of the public. It is the same for British Gas and British Nuclear fuels and the Oil companies who drill off our coast. That is why they don’t mind that our prices go up. That is why they don’t mind if everything is “offshored” to China and India and the Philippines etc. Because THEY OWN SUBSTANTIAL SHARES IN THE BANKS AND THE CORPORATIONS.

AND WHAT THEY WANT, IS TO TAP INTO APPROX 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE!

Now, flip back to the list of Banks which were mentioned re the City of London RMB China Bank agreement. Here’s one. Look at the second largest shareholder (and the third). Both of them “Foreign-owned legal persons”:

Bank of Comms

Bank of Communications shareholding

 

Now, here is another bank on that list:

ICBC Annual report

Shareholding in Indust China bank

 

 

 

 

Now take a look at this (and I promise there is a heap more), I just wish to keep this as succinct as possible (which, as you can see, it is not simply because, to understand this, it must be laid out as fully as possible):

Capitalizing China 2

Capitalizing China

OUR HEADS OF STATE AND OUR POLITICIANS AND SO CALLED PHILANTHROPISTS AND “TITANS” OF BUSINESS OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN THE BANK OF CHINA AND ITS COMMERCIAL BANKS! BUT IT’S WORSE:

THEY OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN CHINA’S BIGGEST COMPANIES. SOME OF WHICH ARE TOP TEN IN THE WORLD TODAY!

Bank of China HKSCC

Sinopec

Sinopec 1

 

 

This is Petrochina’s annual report:

Petrochina Annual report 2012

 

Then, just for one example. You have one of Her Majesty’s “Sirs” and a “Freeman of the City of London”

Sir. Malcolm Christopher McCarthy, also known as Callum, serves as the Chairman of European Operations at J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. Sir. McCarthy served as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Gas and Electricity Markets. He served senior positions in BZW and Kleinwort Benson, as well Department for Trade and Industry, US. Sir. McCarthy’s early career was in the chemical industry, and in the DTI where he served several posts, including Principal Private Secretary to Roy Hattersley when he served as Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer protection. He served as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, US. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Office for Gas and Electricity Markets. He joined Kent Reliance in 2010. He was Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays de Zoete Wedd, London. He also served as Director of Corporate Finance at Kleinwort Benson from 1985 to 1989. Sir. McCarthy served as the Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays’ investment banking arm BZW. From 1996 to 1998, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Bank, North America and Barclays Bank, Japan from 1993 to 1996. He served as the Director-General, Chief Executive and Chairman at Gas regulator Ofgas. At Ofgem, Sir. McCarthy was responsible for the introduction of greater competition into the gas and electricity markets. He served as senior executive of Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Services Limited. He serves as Chairman of London at Promontory Financial Group, LLC. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Castle Trust. He served as the Co-Chairman at The Financial Conduct Authority (Financial Services Authority) from 2003 to 2008. He joined FSA in September 2003. Sir. McCarthy has been an Independent Director of IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. since October 1, 2009. He has been an Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Indonesia) Co. Ltd. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Macau) Limited. since December 2009. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited since December 2009. He serves as a Trustee of Said Business School. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board at Her Majesty’s Treasury. He serves as a Trustee of International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. He serves as Member of Supervisory Board at Dutch MBS XVI B.V. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board of HM Treasury. He serves as Non-Executive Director at OneSavings Bank Plc. He served as Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank Of China, London Ltd. since December 2009. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Bank N.V. from January 25, 2011 to September 1, 2012. He served as a Director at Financial Services Authority. until September 19, 2008. Sir. McCarthy served as a Director of Bank of England from September 20, 2003 to September 19, 2008. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Holding N.V from January 14, 2011 to September 01, 2012. He is an Honorary Fellow of Merton College, an Honorary Doctorate of the University of Stirling, and a Freeman of the City of London. He has an MA in History at Merton College of Oxford University, PhD in Economics of Stirling University, and MS in Business at Graduate School of Business of Stanford University.

Malcolm Christopher McCarthy

He is the ONLY non Chinese member of the board of the Industrial Commercial Bank of China. Why?

 

Well it’s obvious. Here is precisely what is happening to us:

Our elite want access to China’s 1.5 billion people as a market. China’s elite say “Why do we want to give you that?”. Our elite say “Hey it’s simple Chin Chong! You give us access to your market and we’ll give you access to ours. You’re a bit behind with technology and know how so we’ll invest in your corporations and bring you up to speed. To enable that however, we need you to amend the way you interpret law. We need something called the legal person so that we are both talking the same language so to speak and so that we can “integrate”. Then while you get access to the west as a market, we can benefit from offshoring our jobs to you – you, therefore employing more of your people, increasing your GDP and making a packet. We, on the other hand, benefit from the lower wage costs and make UBER profits and dividends from our multinationals. we’ll ensure there is less competition for your goods and our chinese manufactured goods by destroying our own indigenous small and medium sized businesses and we’ll do that through our taxation system. YOU win, WE win, our people’s don’t win but hey! THAT is “globalism”. You want to maintain your power and so do we. Now, about Malaysia, We’ve both got a problem there because YOU will benefit greatly from being a powerhouse within a Trans-pacific partnership and so will we BUT these little Malaysian bastards are not playing ball! Capice? Now if we rattle them and destabilise their government, we might just get one which sees things our way. Now I know Malaysia has a “look est” policy but you could say we’re helping them to focus on their look east policy in a way because you, as their major trading partner, want the TPPA and better access to the South East Asian markets just as we do. There’s another good half a billion people at least in that area you know? So what if you, China, got very upset with your Asian neighbour over something? Oh, I don’t know, a plane disappearance perhaps with the majority of those onboard being chinese?”

Get the picture?

Freescale patent: Please stop the ignorant reporting!

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law by earthlinggb on March 29, 2014

Ok, enough’s enough.

Stop with this “Rothschild owns the freescale patent” crap! You’re showing you ignorance or simply your wilful ignorance because you despise the Rothschilds as much as I do. But AGAIN, you are doing the attempt of exposing real stuff a total disservice by promulgating this crap about MH370 being attacked because of Freescale and Rothschild ending up with a patent!

It’s just very poor investigative power and understanding of fact. It’s an embarrassment quite frankly!

Further, it is clear from this, that people such as David Icke and Jeff Rense etc do not do much (if any) due diligence on what they decide to throw up on their websites as “journalism”. It seems that, as long as an article meets a certain narrative then, just like the mainstream, these “alternative media sites” will post it.

I know what Rothschild “jewish” zionism is just as much as any of you and I am clearly opposed to it – to such an extent it has got me in a spot of bother with the “authorities” previously. But I will NOT push a story that is SHIT! No matter if it implicates them or not!

I said on a previous blog about this, that a company would never give its IPR (property right) away to the employees who were salaried to do a job by the Corporate legal person they work for. Do you think Corporations are stupid? Do you think the people that own and control them got here to where they are by being thick? If you do you’re proving how thick YOU are!

I’m sorry if you’re one of my readers and you believe this story and so get offended when I’m calling you thick but that’s just how things are. I owe you nothing and you owe me nothing so take your readership elsewhere if you’re so offended and unwilling to drop your ignorance and LISTEN! I lose nothing but a reader. I only want readers who are discerning in their thought anyhow! Those who aren’t are going to have no positive effect on this world either way!

AND I find it fucking irritating ok?

Here’s the fricking patent ok? READ what it says. It says: “ASSIGNEE: FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INC.” Do you know what “Assignee” means? It means the patented technology has been invented by these 4 chinese guys BUT they had already (under the agreement of an employment contract) ASSIGNED the PROPERTY of the PATENT to FREESCALE!

Do you know what that means? It means EVEN IF THEY HAD LIVED AND MH370 HAD NEVER HAPPENED, FREESCALE WOULD STILL OWN THE FUCKING PATENT! GET IT? Now SHUT THE FUCK UP about people getting murdered over a patent which was never theirs to begin with.

The Constitution of the United States provides in Article 1, Section 8, that: the “Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

US law, unlike foreign law, requires a patent application to be in the name of the inventor. A company cannot be the inventive entity.

The definition for inventorship can be simply explained: The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived of the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention. An inventor has to contribute something to the conception of the invention, not merely be the supervisor of the inventor or someone that acted under the direction and supervision of the inventor.

The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.

The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once properly stated, does not change. The patent office allows for correction of inventorship if the error occurred without deceptive intent.

– See more at: http://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/patents/11623111.html#sthash.N3kyxQdH.dpuf

 

Meanwhile, it’s just a patent for a new design of semiconductor wafer. WHOOPEEDFUCKINGDOO!

Get a grip with your “CONSPIRACY THEORIES” or bugger off because this sort of shit is of no use to anyone but your “Famous Five find a wafer” or “Scooby Doo invents a new hotdog” mentality.