Earthlinggb's Blog

David Icke: The “explanation” and ONE question David. Just one!

Posted in Finance, Media by earthlinggb on January 9, 2014

On today’s “show” with Richie Allen explaining the transparency situation (or total lack thereof, while you are then going to have a TPV employee provide the “evidence” of the ins and outs – while there is no legal requirement for her to do that so, even if bullshit, there’s no legal implications because it is not what TPV are producing for the authorities – but let’s ignore all that) you mentioned David, that you have nothing to do with TPV and are not a Director. But why did you start off as one and then remove yourself when it got “hot” with OFCOM? ;-) However, again that is an aside – there are SO many issues David and your little faked display of emotion and being attacked from the outside by people who don’t want the info out there (What info? I’ll give Sonia this – but not much – she was the hardest hitting person in there and while she has an ego and while she is a bit on the bolshy and feminist side (as I read her), she was, of all you, the most outspoken and ready to take anyone on – she has 100x more “balls than you do Icke, I’ll give her that) was just that, a “show”. You’re damned lucky you have an audience who can’t read fake a mile off. But then when they believe in reptilians what does one expect? Seriously!

But here’s the question David: You’re no longer a Director, the little “slag, fish and christian cunts and f*** off bitch” Sean is (incredible how so called people believing in love, light and infinite consciousness can totally ignore this little sleaze bag’s language just because he’s your bum chum. I mean people are actually throwing money at a guy who is blatantly coming out with this stuff)


You see David? You WERE a Director but in your explanation today, you weren’t forthcoming with that information and, therefore, did not explain why you were and are not now? While you dropped the Directorship precisely on 23rd October 2012 when you applied for the OFCOM licence. Every piece of info you have provided your audience, every shred of “transparency” has not come without it being dragged and ripped out of you. Just like the £20K. You don’t offer info, you begrudgingly give it when the shouts get too loud. Even then, you don’t give the full story. You leave little bits out (which really are not little at all). People can read you like a book Icke. Not your core cult of course, but everyone else. I never laughed at you at Wogan because I hadn’t even heard of you until around 2008/2009. I laugh at the gullibility of your audience but I don’t laugh at you (well perhaps a little I have to admit) I recognise you for what you are and one doesn’t laugh at conmen.

People's Voice 6

Now what about that question that you really do keep avoiding David about the shareholding:

TPV share capital

Now please let’s not play games and silly buggers David. I realise there are many people out there who wouldn’t know the first thing about how shareholding works but I’m not one of them. The business has share capital. The business must have people who own that share capital. They are called “shareholders”. And please don’t go down the route of saying “Ok, yes they hold £10 of share capital, big deal” because you know it’s a big deal David. The PEOPLE would like to know simply who owns that £10 (whatever it is) worth of share capital. Why is this so difficult for you David? Isn’t this precisely the hidden tactics the very people who control the world’s corporations use? Yes, I do believe it is. But you’re not one of them are you David? You’re MISTER TRANSPARENCY!

Is it, perchance, the same shareholder of David Icke Books Ltd (of which you are neither a Director any longer – so then it’s obvious one does not need to be a Director to be in control and making the money – precisely the issue which arises when people say the Rothschilds are not directors of this that or the other Corporation or Bank then isn’t it?). David, tell me, do you think all the people who know of you or have read some of your stuff are that dumb man? Could it be that a conversation I had personally with Sean in the early days and the competence shown in the very short time I could stand your bullshit and your team’s bullshit, was just not the kind of competence you were looking for and you thought ‘maybe just a little too switched on for our liking’? Go for it son if you want to – take every swipe you want Davey.

Just tell the people. Show them the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Incorporation of the Private Limited Company by shares and show them who owns those shares (par value £10? maybe?) Just show them who owns them!

I KNOW you don’t need to make any income from the company David. How long has Sean worked for you now while only now, as you say, he is working elsewhere too to make ends meet. What about the years before that while working for you? You’re telling your audience that you paid him for work on the David Icke website and the moderation job (and “Guardian of all that is Icke” – what is he? Your illegitimate son? Your bum chum? He’s not that bright David so tell me, what is he? What’s he got on you?) but you’re not paying him now? He’s spent years with you now Davey. What has he lived on? Yet you’re telling the world that, while he is the star of it all and worked his little ass off (mein kampf? No yours babes) on TPV, it is only now he can’t afford to feed himself and yet he is the sole director of the entire company?

There’s a saying by the Scots David (while I am an earthling and only an earthling. I thought you’d understand that of all people?): “I wasn’t brought up the Clyde on a scooter!”

So by all means, you show the “ins and outs” all well massaged Davey (why don’t you have Ernst & Young do them for you? lol) but give your cult ONE more fundamental piece of information: WHO IS/ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS OF TPV PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY?

Now, for anyone who is interested:

The People’s Voice has no subsidiary companies (it is not a “parent” company of other companies which would then report their financials to the parent company) BUT – and this is ONLY a conjecture, I freely admit that – what IF TPV Limited IS a subsidiary company itself?

If that turned out to be the case then WHO is the parent company? The Parent company need not even be listed in the sense it could be an offshore “shelf company”. But do you believe that David Icke has handed entire control, directorship and shareholding to a little jerk like Sean ADL Tabatabai? Do you? Really? If you do Terry, I have a nice seafront bungalow you might like in Birmingham!

Look at the audit thresholds. TPV would be exempt. Far less than 50 employees (they want volunteers don’t they?) and gross assets £3.26M? With £20K spent on all that outdated Teddington equipment? Gross assets, once depreciation is taken into account will be pretty damned negligible). No “turnover” as such but your donations are actually considered income as would sponsorship and advertising money but it’s looking doubtful they would have a turnover of £6.5M a year and they only have to meet two out of the three criteria anyhow. IF it is a subsidiary that is…..

The Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit Exemptions and Change of Accounting Framework) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2301) amends the Companies Act 2006 so that it aligns mandatory audit thresholds with accounting thresholds, exempts certain subsidiary companies from mandatory audit and dormant subsidiaries from preparing and filing accounts.

It also makes it easier for companies who currently use IFRS voluntarily to switch from IFRS to UK GAAP when preparing their accounts.

Date published: 6 September 2012

Effective date: accounting periods ending on or after 1 October 2012

Access the legislation The Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships(Accounts and Audit Exemptions and Change of Accounting Framework) Regulations 2012.

Audit thresholds

Audit thresholds for small companies have been aligned with accounting thresholds for small companies. Small companies will therefore be entitled to an exemption from mandatory audit if they meet two out of the three mandatory criteria:

  • No more than 50 employees;
  • No more than gross assets of £3.26 million;
  • Less than £6.5 million in turnover.

Audit exemptions for subsidiaries

Subsidiaries will be exempted from mandatory audit if it fulfils all of the following conditions:

(a) its parent undertaking is established under the law of an EEA state;
(b) the company’s shareholders must unanimously agree to dispense with an audit in the financial year in question;
(c) the parent must give a statutory guarantee of all the outstanding liabilities to which the subsidiary is subject at the end of the financial year;
(d) the company must be included in the consolidated accounts drawn up by the parent undertaking, which must be prepared in accordance with Directive 83/349/EEC (the Seventh Company Law Directive);
(e) the use of the exemption by the subsidiary must be disclosed in the notes on the consolidated accounts drawn up by the parent;
(f) the following documents must be filed by the directors of the subsidiary at Companies House on or before the date that they file the subsidiary’s accounts:
i. written notice of the agreement in (b);
ii. a statement by the parent that it guarantees the subsidiary company under the particular section of the Act;
iii. a copy of the consolidated report and accounts referred to in (d) and the auditor’s report on those accounts;
(g) the company is not quoted within s385(2) of the Companies Act (“the Act”;
(h) it is not an authorised insurance company, a banking company, an e-Money issuer, a MiFID investment firm or a UCITS management company, or carries on insurance market activity; and
(i) it is not a trade union or an employer’s association.

A further 67,000 dormant subsidiary companies will be exempted from the requirement to prepare and file accounts if they fulfil these conditions. An annual return will still be required to be filed at Companies House.

Dormant subsidiaries

Dormant subsidiary companies will be exempted from the requirement to prepare and file accounts if they fulfil these conditions above. An annual return will still be required to be filed at Companies House.

But lastly, to repeat: £20K for the equipment. David in his “explanation” video says he put his own money into buying equipment. What was it David? £20K for the equipment we know about? Or £150 for an IPOD?

Not only does David Icke Books Limited have £104,000 cash at bank – I’ll repeat that: CASH AT BANK! but we also have a little known company which David is the sole director of, called “Lion’s Epoch” which has £83K CASH AT BANK!

Now, going back to school for a moment, that makes £187K CASH IN BANK for the companies David Icke owns/controls outwit TPV. IF he had spent £20K of that cash for the equipment needed (as he told you all it was really expensive stuff and he needed £100K then £300K when, strangely, he had £187K of his own money in the bank – and we’re not even looking at his own PERSONAL bank balances and investments), he would have been left with £167K CASH AT BANK! Still a handsome sum of cash don’t you think? If I had that sort of money and I truly believed in what I was doing and KNEW what I was doing, I would have sank my own £20K for the equipment – I’ve made far worse investments than that with £20K I can assure you but at least I learned from them. But he came to YOU saying how desperately they needed the £300K for, substantially, the equipment and boy did they keep driving the “tremendous cost” of equipment and the quality of it when – and please do not fall for this “we did not know there was £20K of equipment at Teddington until later” because, if you do, you’re simply an idiot and deserve being fleeced, sorry – he could have went to either of the company’s banks and withdrew it without sniffing (well that might be hard in David’s case I suppose).

Lion's epoch

“Adult and other education”???? I thought his books were meant to be educational? lol

So what could this be?

Ah! I know. It could be collaboration with Daryl Hall & John Oates…..

The New Economics will be mathematics.

Posted in Finance by earthlinggb on January 3, 2014

During the early 1990s, I was working as a European Sales & Marketing Manager for Racal. It was the early years of marriage and babies and I wanted to add a Business angle to my existing Physics background so I decided to embark upon a BA (Hons) in Business Studies at Napier University in Edinburgh where I had also done my Physics degree about a decade earlier.

Yes, I was solidly in the “matrix”. I was ambitious and wanted to ensure that next rung upon the corporate ladder. And I achieved it (in some respects, to my detriment).

I would like to share with you something which everyone of us – including me – on that course failed to recognise. We just didn’t question. That’s not what you are there to do. You are there to listen, to read, to write, to be able to repeat everything just as you are taught by the great guru in front of you who has previously been in your position and listened, read, written and repeated so well he gets to stand up before the next generation and feed them the same thing.

The course included significant study of Economics and cost accounting etc. The following book was our “bible” – I don’t know if this book is still used or an updated version still in print but this was the “bible” at the time…..

Xcel revenue 4Xcel revenue 5

Great minds write these books! Men who graduate from esteemed colleges such as The London School of Economics! (Yes, THAT school once again!)

BUT we, as students, never really question things when our minds are on trying to achieve, trying to pass the exams, trying to make sure we say and do all the right things so to prove to our peers (who are all doing the same thing) that we are worthy of sharing a classroom with them. We certainly don’t have the time or the inclination to say “Wait a minute! There’s something not quite right here”. After all, you’re the new one to the information and the lecturer knows his stuff inside out now doesn’t he? HE isn’t going to just tell you or regurgitate erroneous facts, figures, processes etc is he?

But let’s skip a couple of decades more and arrive at 2013. Those couple of decades have been one hell of a ride! You’ve climbed that corporate ladder, you’ve made the six figure salary, you’ve lived and worked in the most exotic of locations and hell! You’ve been a Director and Country Manager for International companies! What a STAR you’ve been!

But let me tell you – it’s all total nonsense! In 2013, you look back on your “stellar career” and you dismiss it all. Yes it brought you material goods, worldwide travel, exotic holidays, privately educated kids, but it was all achieved while the very system which allowed you to do it was rigged and while you ate and paraded around with your cars and your money and opulent homes, you had maids and drivers who hardly had a pot to piss in (no matter you tried to alleviate that a little) and just around the corner from your homes, in Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, there were whole families living in corrugated shacks by the railroad. There were women who would approach you not only to sell their bodies but, sometimes to sell their BABIES! Meanwhile, thousands died of starvation and disease all over the world everyday while you dined at the classiest of restaurants and stayed in the most luxurious hotels across the planet.

THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG! But you didn’t know what it was and so many still don’t (and many of them don’t even wish to).

Then something happened. Something BIG happened to you! Big yes, good no. And it all just stemmed from a 20 year love which ended abruptly. You never saw it coming. It was like the proverbial steam train hitting you. But it was worse than just the ending of a marriage. It was the sheer scale of lies and deception and willingness of the other to do whatever it took to get the money! But it was so much more than that too. It was realising a court (Yes a supreme court in Singapore) was corrupt to the core. It was finding yourself jailed (with no record) because you had the audacity to tell them they were corrupt when you found out exactly what had been going on (Courts AND governments DO NOT LIKE IT when the small man shouts “Just wait a second here!”). It was looking over to “her” in court, after she was exposed as a perjurer, but YOU being thrown in jail because you would not play ball when the court ignored the perjury and she walked out of court with a smile as she saw you handcuffed and led down to cells before being thrown in Queenstown prison. Anyhow, that’s a whole other story.

But it was all of that that set you out to study – not another academic course written by those who wish to condition your thinking – but study law for the purposes of protecting yourself and defending against this onslaught you were faced with. You became “forensic” in following every single element of your case, the affidavits, the proofs of the claims, the attachments of expense claims, the whole deal. Your lawyer was hopeless. He was just playing the game with the other lawyers and the court so that, when you brought it to his attention that you had found out the court had never had jurisdiction from step one – the shit hit the fan and you had to get out of Singapore. Otherwise, you were in jail once more.

I told you they don’t like getting found out!

So what has all that got to do with this book and economics and the subject of this blog? Well it’s to give all those of you who may be commencing on your studies and/or your careers a heads up: You have no idea where life shall lead you and while you don’t and while you are in the growth mode of life, you will just accept that everything is just how it is and that there is nothing wrong and nothing obscured from you. Everything your lecturers relate to you is absolutely sound. However, I can assure you – it isn’t. Looking behind that curtain, lifting that veil and recognising it – or being willing to and open minded enough to – is difficult. Unfortunately, it is only when you are faced with something so blatantly monstrous and corrupt in your own life that you tend to want to find the explanation.

So, with that, back to the book:

Here are a couple of pages taken from it (from Chapter 33 entitled “Money and Prices”).

Xcel revenue 6Xcel revenue 2

Point 1: “Goldsmiths used to accept deposits of gold coins and precious objects for safekeeping, in return for which a receipt would be issued which was, in effect, a PROMISSORY NOTE. As time went by, these notes began to be passed around in settlement of debts ACTING AS BANKNOTES DO TODAY”.


WIKIPEDIA: A promissory note is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms. If the promissory note is unconditional and readily salable, it is called a negotiable instrument.

British law

§ 83. BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882. Part IV.[3]Promissory note defined(1)A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.(2)An instrument in the form of a note payable to maker’s order is not a note within the meaning of this section unless and until it is indorsed by the maker.(3)A note is not invalid by reason only that it contains also a pledge of collateral security with authority to sell or dispose thereof.(4)A note which is, or on the face of it purports to be, both made and payable within the British Islands is an inland note. Any other note is a foreign note.

Examples of Promissory Notes:


Let me now point you to British Case law:

Case Law:

A Lord Denning judgement that says a bill of exchange once tendered has to be treated as cash… The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash, and not as merely given a right of action for the creditor to litigate a counterclaim (see Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 T.L.R. 92). “We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary”

(see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)

I trust that the above is clear and unambiguous enough for you?

“A promissory note is to be treated as cash”. No dispute, just fact. The reason? Because promissory notes ARE cash. That is why the banks accept your signing of them which, in turn, allows them to MERELY RE-PUBLISH your promissory note as a banknote or bank cheque or electronic fund transfer. The entire point is, however, it is NOT necessary for the banks (the entire system which exists) to hold this power of “transmutation” of your own commercial value. This is where the entire fraud/deception of the banks lies.

Meanwhile, please listen to this banker:

There are a few points he makes which you would then think “Yes he has a point” such as that about paying for the bus with stamps. However, it does not hold up in today’s electronic, card-based society does it? Yes, with the New Economy solution, everything would be electronic/cards. A cashless society in fact. “Just what the state and the bankers want!” I hear you say. Yes it is what they want BUT the immense difference is, they want it for your control and to pay them taxes and interest which are entirely unnecessary. “How..”, you ask, “..would MPE be any different?” Very simply: Along with MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) comes ACR (Absolute Consensual Representation) and a mandate which keeps a dramatically reduced government in check. A government which, by the way, due to MPE and no interest, cannot find itself fattened up by corrupt practices and feeding off the bankers’ handouts from the defrauding you of your money.

Meanwhile, do not consider that every transaction (for chocolate bars and newspapers or even furniture and electronics etc) would need a written, signed Promissory note”. It wouldn’t. Your “credit balance” would be held within the CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure) which is purely and simply a database of people’s assets, liabilities and transactions (including government and corporations).

Now, the first column of page 474 then simply explains the idea of fractional reserve banking which most of us know about. It, itself, is quite a monumental con since the entire basis of it is lending money which the banks simply do not have (while they charge interest on it). When I first started to study this whole monetary issue, I considered that to be where the entire con lay. However, as I proceeded, I realised there was something more while I could not quite put my finger on it and articulate it.

There is a group/organisation by the name of POSITIVE MONEY which is gaining significant interest and support by people and even MPs while they are finding themselves being funded by various sources (Quakers being one – I attended a Positive Money conference in Edinburgh during which Ben Dyson stated this in answer to a question raised “Who is funding you?”). During that conference, which I attended on the basis, initially, of being very supportive of the goals of Positive Money, I found myself asking questions particularly relating to the question of basic money issuance and the words of Captain Henry Kerby in a Early Day Motion during the 60s in Parliament where he said that money should be issued by the Crown free of any interest. I found myself being somewhat ignored by the Positive Money team once I began to question some issues I had with their ideas.

A fundamental flaw by Positive Money is this: They are promoting the idea of having a two tiered monetary system whereby, in everyday high street banking, there would be no fractional reserve whereas, in the higher levels of investment banking etc, fractional reserves could still apply! The PROBLEM here is quite obvious when one considers the outcome of it. It would mean that, while the existing corruption and the corrupt individuals who play it, would be allowed to continue at the upper echelons of the economy – and through which all significant investment in business and infrastructure within the world’s economy is financed – we, the people who work within the real economy, are “starved” of this thing which they, the banks, purport to be money. We would be “starved” of it because of the very fact that there would be FAR less of it due to the eradication of the fractional reserve. Yes, we KNOW (as I have just explained) that the fractional reserve is a con BUT, within the current system, if you allow it to continue for the elite while discontinuing it for the rest of us, then you have, effectively, created an iron fence between the haves and have nots. The haves have already consolidated much of their wealth (corruptly by the use of the fractional reserve) and Positive Money’s idea is to effectively, allow them to steal it as they have, and lock the barn door after the horse has bolted. Our capability, then, to leverage off such a system (within the existing corrupt system as it is), is removed. I hope the reader recognises this?

However, the fractional reserve issue obscures the REAL, fundamental deception which has had the world locked into servitude where it need not be at all.

Let’s proceed to the “Credit creation” section on page 474 of the textbook…

A single bank system:

Think about the liabilities, assets, deposits and cash. What is staring you right in the face here? (and it is the same for ANY and ALL banks of the world).


The deposits are from depositors (you and I). The cash, on the assets side of the ledger are the deposits from you and I!


But it is OH SO MUCH WORSE THAN THAT! The text goes on to say that the banks then, by way of the fractional reserve con, LEND this “non existent” money to borrowers, from which, the banks gain interest on money which was never theirs and did not exist! BUT, there is an IMMENSE deception here also and this goes to the root of all:

While the bank is ALLOWED to use fractional reserve procedure when “lending” money to people, it DOES NOT MEAN that they necessarily will. What MUST happen first?

The bank MUST find borrowers who are “GOOD” for the issuance of this “non existent” money. PLEASE NOTE HERE THAT I USE “non existent” IN QUOTES BECAUSE, AS YOU WILL SEE, THE MONEY IS NON EXISTENT TO THE BANK BUT IT IS NOT NON EXISTENT WHEN YOU CREATE IT FOR THEM! Yes, YOU work “magic”. It is YOU who transmutate that “potential energy” of the fractional reserve into “kinetic energy” of real value.

How does this happen?

Well the bank cannot lend “money” which, as yet, does not exist and which is simply an arbitrary possibility which exists in the system which says “A bank can retain a its depositors’ deposits and lend a multiple of this figure”. If it could just issue money like this on a whim and keep doing so with NOTHING to back it, then why does it not? Starvation and scarcity could be ended overnight if that were the case.

The bank can ONLY make that fractional reserve manifest itself as REAL MONEY when YOU or I apply our signature to a loan agreement. Now guess what ALL (without exception) of those loan agreements signed by us are?


Please re-read the definition of Promissory notes. They are a promise to pay. Period! We promise to pay back the bank the original “loan” plus the interest they attach to it.


Just allow yourself to remove the blinkers which these people have supplied to you through endless years, decades and centuries of life. To you, your parents, your parents’ parents etc.


The banks, as you know, will not issue money (loans) to anyone without that someone being “GOOD” for the loan. What does “GOOD FOR IT” mean? Well, of course, it means that you have the wherewithal to pay back that loan and the interest. You have an income and/or other assets that act as that guarantee. IT IS YOUR VALUE THAT CREATES THE VALUE OF THE MONEY PAID OUT TO YOU AS A LOAN. IT IS, THEREFORE AS I SAID, YOU WHO CREATES THE “MAGIC” – THE TRANSMUTATION OF WHAT IS ONLY “POTENTIAL MONEY” INTO “KINETIC (REAL) MONEY”. YOU CREATE THE MONEY! 

The bank has a process doesn’t it? It does not issue you any money or loan until you can satisfy financial criteria. YOU see that as being absolutely natural and necessary (and it is) but you see it that the bank is then providing you something that they own – the money. You (and the legal/financial/government system which has you BELIEVE in this monetary system – remember it is ALL about “confidence in the banking system”. CONFIDENCE. Why? Because it is a CONFIDENCE TRICK!) have been led to assume that money (in whatever form) emanates from the banks (high street banks, central banks etc) but it doesn’t. When you sign that loan – that PROMISSORY NOTE – it is YOU and YOUR VALUE which backs the issuance of that currency and all the banks do is enter YOUR VALUE as a figure that YOU “PROMISE TO PAY” into their computers.

THE FRACTIONAL RESERVE (or the proportion of it which you are signing a guarantee to) then kicks in and the bank smiles because you have allowed them to manifest a potential value into real value. They need your income/asset statement to “report” validity of issuing that money.

Now, here is the thing: If everyone, tomorrow, stopped borrowing from banks and the original depositors removed their deposits, then the bank would have no deposits to use as a basis for fraudulent multiplication of those deposits by way of fractional reserve. They would, therefore have no cash assets because the cash assets they have are precisely the deposits which have been removed.

So WHERE is all that money that the banks create? NOWHERE. The banks DO NOT “create money”. YOU DO! 

So when you read or watch all of those documents and videos telling you that the deception is that Banks can create money “out of nothing”, it is simply not true and is another level of deception which is actually in the banks’ favour for you to believe because then, they maintain the “cloak” over what really happens.

Point 2:

Look at Page 475 of the textbook. You will see the following: “You can also see that each horizontal line in table 33.1 balances assets against liabilities and, therefore, at no stage are accounting principles infringed. The bank’s balance sheet at the end of the process would appear as:

LIABILITIES (£)                                          ASSETS (£)

Initial deposits 10,000                               Cash 10,000

Created deposits 90,000                           Loans & Advances 90,000

TOTAL: 100,000                                       TOTAL: 100,000

Again, please remember that not one cent of the money (deposits, cash, “created” deposits, Loans and advances) is money, IN ANY WAY, which has EVER belonged to or been produced by the bank. The bank does not PRODUCE value of any nature within the REAL ECONOMY.

But what else is wrong with the table? There is something missing although the bank/monetary system and economists will never bring to your attention. The table DOES NOT present the true picture and, where it is said, there are no accounting principles infringed and that the system is “in balance” – IT IS NOT!


It’s all in the “loans & advances”. Come on. Think. What’s missing? It’s the “elephant in the room” by its absence.


Loans and advances have interest attached don’t they? Ah! But THAT would put the whole picture out of balance so we can’t show that! But that INTEREST is real. It is added to the loan and advance so the actual figure of 90,000 is, in reality, multiplied by the interest percentage. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE BANKING SYSTEM CAN MAKE A PROFIT BECAUSE ALL OTHER MONEY IS ACTUALLY OUR MONEY!

[Note to our Muslim friends who believe their system has no interest: Sorry to disappoint your religious beliefs but, while it is not applied with the word “interest” attached to it, every loan you get has “fees” added while you simply receive the principal. Those “fees” ARE interest and those fees would be applied to the “loans and advances” given in the table. There’s no such thing as a “free lunch” for you muslims either. You’re deceived by your own corrupt leaders too]

So what do we have here? We have banks, with NO money of their own, issuing us with entirely our own created money and charging us interest on it. While the money we create for them allows them to multiply it further and issue more to us when WE create it for them (with even MORE interest). The PROBLEM is this: The entire economy (the REAL PRODUCTIVE economy which you and I exist in) has ONLY principal.

If only OUR created principal exists in the economy then HOW do we, as a whole, pay back the INTEREST added? IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL ECONOMY. Not ONE PERSON has ANY portion of that interest to pay back. What does this mean?

It means that you and I have to compete (dog eat dog in fact) to see who can “win” the interest game and for EVERY “winner” there is a loser. However, the REAL winners are the banks because not only do they get paid some of the interest money by the “winners” but the losers relinquish their assets to the banks (your home/mortgage for example). Now take that up to government level (and ALL governments are borrowers). The governments compete (their competition result in wars and the deaths of millions for “supremacy” and resources and our soldiers are the pawns who ignorantly play this real game of death for them on this “Grand Chessboard”) and there are also winners and losers.

Why would our esteemed politicians play this game? Well it’s simple. Look at them. Look at their relative lifestyles and wealth. What happens when you legislate in favour of the banks’ goals and you are privy to the impacts that legislation will have? While, not only can you invest with that knowledge but also, you are retained by the Corporations and banks before, during and after your tenure in office (see Tony Blair, Ken Clarke, John Major just for three excellent British examples of this). The corruption, however, is throughout the system of government and public service because the system, to maintain itself, requires the military, the Police and the judiciary all to keep doing what they do. Meanwhile these people either do not see, or don’t care, that the very corruption they maintain to keep the system in place, will effect them in one way or another. They have families, friends, cousins, etc who may not be in a position of power and that system will negatively impact their lives at some stage.

Now, why do I enclose the word “winners” in quotes? Well how many people out there who thought they were “winners” in this game have recently (since 2008) found themselves losers? Millions of you! Me included.

While remember this: While the world’s economy has crashed, in these last few years there have been additional billionaires (and millionaires) added to the previous list. How can that be when the world’s financial system has crashed so badly and there is “no money” to be had?

Simple: The corrupt “mafia” who control this system have called in their loans – the loans that aren’t loans in reality but are our value disguised. They have stolen your labour and value by way of obfuscation (obscuring the real ownership of money by us).

Ok, before continuing with a closer look at how this obfuscation works (while I hope the foregoing makes it quite clear already), let’s consider some real world examples which impacts us all every single day:


From Houses of Parliament 1984: Dartford Tunnel House of Lords

The first Dartford Tunnel Act was passed in 1930, but the first tunnel did not open until 1963. That tunnel was so successful that Parliament, in the Dartford Tunnel Act 1967, authorised the construction of a second tunnel. That Act also provided for the whole of the cost of the second tunnel to be defrayed out of toll income. The tolls in 1963 were set at 2s 6d. They are now 60p which is considerably less than they would be if the ordinary rules of indexing for inflation had been allowed to operate. If those rules had operated, the toll would now be 79p or 80p.

There was evidence given in another place to suggest that we could reach that position even earlier. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) might laugh, because it sounds like a long time ahead. However, in the context of general Government finance, a period of about 16 years during which time a debt of £68 million is expected to be extinguished is not a long time. In the context of financing such an operation, it is a reasonable period that justifies the philosophy of charging tolls and allowing the user of such an exceptionally expensive crossing to bear the cost of doing so.

The next alternative is that the Government should take over the £68 million debt and that it should be borne by the general taxpayer who bears the major burden of road construction. The cost of building an ordinary motorway is perhaps £2 million a mile. We are talking about a tunnel of a little under a mile to be built at £40 million a mile. We are entitled to say that that is an exceptional cost, that a large proportion of the benefit is obtained by the local users and that some other way should be found of financing that proposition. I do not believe that we are justified in placing the cost on the general taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom.

From h2g2:

The first tunnel was completed in 1963 at a cost of £13 million; construction had taken five years due to difficult tunnelling conditions through the chalk. Traffic flowed in both directions between the A2 in Kent and the A13 in Essex.

By 1972 traffic had more than doubled, and construction of a second tunnel began to the west of the first. Again it was hampered by the difficult conditions, cost £45 million, and took eight years to complete.

The Queen Elizabeth II river crossing at Dartford (commonly called the Dartford Bridge) was the largest cable-supported bridge in Europe when it was built. Work began in August 1988, and took three years to build at a cost of £86 million – it was completed on time and within budget.

The following is from a Freedom of Information Act response: 

From: Smith, Kevin
Highways Agency

20 August 2009

Dear Mr Mark-William:Baker

I refer to your enquiry dated 10 August regarding the charges collected at the Dartford Crossing and provide the following information.

From 31 July 1988 until 31 March 2003 the Crossing was managed by the Dartford River Crossing Co Ltd. The QEII Bridge was not actually opened to traffic until 1991, the construction of this bridge started in 1988. 

For the period from 31 July 1988 to 31 March 2002 Dartford River Crossing Co. Ltd. were required to produce annual accounts and these may be requested from Companies House. 

They can be contacted at:
Telephone: Companies House Contact Centre – 0303 1234 500
E-mail: [email address
Address: Companies House 
Main Office 
Crown Way
CF14 3UZ 

This was an early Private Finance Initiative (PFI) concession, enacted by the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, which transferred the existing debt from the tunnels to the private sector who would retain toll revenue to pay off the existing debt and the debt incurred by building the new bridge. Tolls were set by the Department of Transport (and its forerunners) in conjunction with the Concessionaire. The concession was for a period of 20 years from 31 July 1988, but could be ended as soon as the debt was repaid. The Secretary of State determined that all financial commitments had been met by 31 March 2002.

However, the Dartford-Thurrock Act 1988, Schedule 6, Section 16, (4) (1) contained the provision for a Toll Extension Period for the collection of tolls to provide a fund for future maintenance of the crossing. An Extension Agreement between the Concessionaire and the Secretary of State was in place from 4 March 1999 and allowed the Toll Extension Period to run from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003. All Toll Revenue during this period was passed over gross to the Department for Transport. 

For the period of the Extension Agreement – between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003, the Highways Agency records show the sum of £68,363,698.02 received into their bank.

The current charging scheme at the Dartford Crossing came into force on 1 April 2003 under the powers of the Transport Act 2000. Since that date an annual account has been completed and these for the periods between 2003/2004 to 2007/2008 can be found on the Highways Agency website below, under “Reports” 


Copies of the accounts can also be obtained from TSO. (The Stationery Office) who can be contacted at;
Address: TSO
PO Box 29
Telephone: Telephone Orders/General Enquiries 0870 600 5522

The account for 2008/2009 is currently being prepared and should be available on our website in early 2010.

For your information there has been a charge in place to use the Dartford Crossing since 1963, when the first tunnel was opened.

From that time until the 30th July 1988, it was the responsibility of the Essex and Kent County Council Joint Consultation Committee. We do not have audited accounts of this period, but you may wish to approach either of these councils directly to obtain data on toll revenues for this period. Their contact addresses are; 

Address: Essex County Council Kent County Council 
County Hall County 
Market Road Maidstone 
Chelmsford Kent 
CM1 1QH ME14 1XQ 
Telephone: 0845 743 0430 Telephone: 08458 247 247 
Web: Web:

I hope this is helpful. 

Yours faithfully

Kevin Smith, Business Manager
Highways Agency | Federated House | London Road | Dorking | RH4 1SZ
Tel: +44 (0) 1306 878181 | Fax: +44 (0) 1306 878494
GTN: 3904 8181

From Wikipedia:

From April 2010 to March 2011, 50,939,941 vehicles used the crossing, at a daily average of 139,545 vehicles.[6] This represented a fall back to pre-2002 levels, from averages approaching 150,000 since the turn of the millennium.[6] The highest recorded daily usage was 181,990 vehicles on 23 July 2004.

So we have the following facts:

1. The entire crossing, composed of two tunnels and a bridge, cost £13M + £45M + £86M = £144M. Yes you may say that the £13M, £45M and £86M, at today’s prices, would be higher (but that is all part and parcel of the interest con we are under). But nevertheless, the relative costs WERE PAID FOR at the time. The material, the labour ALL bought and paid for. The supplier of materials and the workers, designers, engineers, everyone would be paid. As stated, for example, the bridge came in ON BUDGET. Therefore, it was paid!

2. In ONE year, 51 million vehicles used the crossing. Now, during that one year, the cost of only a car (not trucks, buses etc) was £1.50. Taking just that figure, the crossing made £76.5M. The cost of a car is now £2. The revenue generated over the 20 year concession (maintaining the £1.50 price for the purpose of demonstration): £1,530M

Let me repeat that: 1 BILLION 530 MILLION POUNDS STERLING!

And yet, even in their own words, they state “The concession was for a period of 20 years from 31 July 1988, but could be ended as soon as the debt was repaid. The Secretary of State determined that all financial commitments had been met by 31 March 2002.”

So what’s going on here? Well, it’s very simple. Privatisation and that privatisation is based upon national debt and the reality that we cannot pay that debt off (under this existing usurious monetary system). The costs we are shouldering for this example, and for a never ending list like it, are to pay the national debt interest (for which we also pay taxes – income and property+ others).


Yes it is true that our government/leadership do not have the intent to pay off our national debt. They simply wish to SERVICE THE DEBT. As shown here:

Captain Henry Kerby 2 Captain Henry Kerby 1

Ask yourself the very simplest of questions: Who would not wish to ever pay off their debt? And why?

Now, here is another example of a bridge about to be built:

Surrey Bridge

NOTE: “Cost will be shared between the government… and Surrey County Council”.

Where has both, the government and Surrey County Council got the money to build this? Yes, you guessed it – YOU! And that is the ONLY place they can get it from. So, now they will pay back that money to who? Yes you! In salaries for your labour in constructing it. Once its construction is complete and paid for, there should be no further costs involved (with the exception of annual maintenance which, strangely, we, the people, carry out – albeit through corporations which need to make a profit. However that KIND of profit is unnecessary because it exists to pay interest debt).

But let’s assume another way they can find that money: Taking loans! Loans, as we know, are Promissory agreements/obligations. How do the government and Council pay back those loans? Do they add anything of value by way of labour to the economy so as to take on these “loans” and be “good for it”? 

No. It is, again, YOU the taxpayer who pays the “loans” back!

But while this (vicious) circle continues, the debt is fraudulently multiplied by the addition of interest (which does not exist in the real economy which has principal only remember?).


To understand the solution, we must first understand the deception. How do you otherwise find a solution for a problem you do not see or understand as existing? You can’t. It’s like punching an enemy you cannot see.

So, I will attempt to explain this as clearly as I can.

1. The banks have no money.

2.The banks DO NOT “create money” they ISSUE it!

3. These issuances of currency/money are simply representations of your and my own promissory notes.

4. The underlying value of ALL money in existence is NOT gold and silver etc and never was and never shall be. Gold and silver, NO MATTER that they have been around as “money” for millennia, are nothing more than any other commodity – precious metals yes. Have an inherent value of sorts yes (but so does platinum, copper, seeds, in fact any commodity whatsoever) but they STILL represent the value you create within the existing monetary system as demonstrated by the fact they are exchanged for your promissory notes/banknotes (remember banknotes ARE promissory notes – see page 474 once more) – and, as such, they have the inherent fault of being inflationary and deflationary. [Note: Bitcoin also has this flaw and is, in no way, a solution to the world’s monetary system. Bitcoin is no more valuable than any other investment such as shares. They act in precisely the same way and, as has been shown, do nothing to prevent wild swings and do nothing, therefore, to prevent inflation and deflation]

5. Inasmuch as the banks are simply representing OUR value, all they are doing is RE-PUBLISHING our promissory notes to one another.

6. You see a house you wish to buy at £100K. You sign a promissory note (“loan”) which is a guarantee to pay  – with your labour and/or assets – but, instead of being free to issue that promissory note direct to the house owner/asset holder you wish to purchase from, you are forced to issue it to the banking system.

7. What does the banking system do? It “transmutates” that promissory note having inherent value (YOURS) into it’s own printed promissory notes/banknotes. It then passes those banknotes (electronically credits the house owner’s bank balance) to the owner of the asset/house. Insodoing, the bank then turns to you “the borrower” (who has created that otherwise non existent money for the bank by way of your signature of the original promissory note) and demands you pay them the £100K PLUS interest.

8. That £100K becomes a deposit and a cash asset within the bank and adds to all the millions of other people’s promissory note creations of money to the bank’s “assets” (not their assets at all as we have seen).

9. The banks then use the fractional reserve system to multiply those deposits even further and lends out more of this “money” they say they have. All the while charging interest to each and every “borrower”.

10. This system has been in operation for centuries while we now have approximately 7 billion people on the planet. These 7 billion people (and all those generations before) have, as a whole, never had the interest money issued into the economy to pay the interest so the very most we could ever do is pay what IS issued into the world’s economy and that is PRINCIPAL ONLY. The REAL ECONOMY cannot pay back money which never physically existed because the principal issued is the ONLY amount which reflects the entire value of our labour.

DO YOU SEE IT NOW? DO YOU SEE WHY THE GLOBAL DEBT (that means everyone on planet earth bar none) is what it is?

So if it includes everyone then why would they do it? Because they (the world’s financial oligarchy) will always be able to pay their interest/debt off because they control the system (not that they actually do pay but that’s another story). IT IS LIKE A CASINO. THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS. The interest is sucked out and up to the global banking elite who then use that wealth to have our governments further legislate to pay off the debt by privatising infrastructure and land/resources. In the end, the elite do not want money. Money is simply the vehicle with which they indebt the rest of us (including governments) to the point where we have to hand over control of all resources, land and infrastructure to them. Once they have achieved that, then the legal system has them in full ownership and, if you own everything, you don’t NEED money!

11. The banks OBFUSCATE the issuance of money. They fraudulently take ownership of YOUR promissory obligation and, as we have seen, this IS “money”. When you sign that obligation (“loan”) they then add it to their assets. What they then can do (and do do) is SELL that note – because it is REAL value – and the market will pay for it. An example of them selling these notes are the Credit Default Swaps and CDO’s which we heard so much of during the mortgage crisis (which still exists). They package the debts (promissory obligations) up and sell them! How can they sell them if they are not REAL MONEY? What gives them their value particularly when, as you understand it, you still have not paid off the “loan”?


Additionally, according to “law” a debt paid off is a debt no more. If the market buys your debt they have paid it off! Does the buyer come after you to pay off the debt? No. Yet they are the owner of it now. So why does the bank demand you pay an extinguished debt?

12. The obfuscation of the banks then is this: You create the money. They RE-PUBLISH that money as theirs and issue it to the owner. That is ALL the banks do! They then charge you interest on your own created money. In any other circumstance, it would be YOU who charged THEM interest for lending them money! They make HUGE profits out of your signature creating that money for them. They multiply it and lend it out again and again!

So back to the solution:

1. That £100K house we spoke of. What if you did not issue a promissory note to the banks but simply issued it direct to the owner of the house? (this can be applied to any and all scenarios – private or public or corporate).

2. You would issue a promissory note for £100K to the house owner and the house owner’s account would be credited with the £100K directly and instantly.

3. Your account would show a debit/debt which must be paid down (and out of circulation entirely) over a period of time fitting with the type of asset purchased. In this case a house. The paydown period, in this case, could be 100 years. £100,000 paid down over 100 years is £83 per month. NO INTEREST BECAUSE THERE IS NO MIDDLEMAN WHO SIMPLY RE-PUBLISHES YOUR DEBT – i.e. The bank.

4. The accounting of that transaction (and all transactions nationwide or globally) would be handled by what is called a CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure). A simple database of all obligations and the recording of all individuals and corporations accounts.

5. There would be no such thing as a bank or a central bank. There would be no such thing as “money” from the perspective of today’s understanding of what money is (which is wrong anyhow). There would be NO INTEREST applied to ANY principal within the economy

Do you remember the Liabilities and Assets table of the bank? The £10,000 of deposits and the £10,000 of cash? It was suggested it was balanced (but had not accounted for the interest). Well, in the case of what is MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY, that balance would be truly kept.



Can you see/envision all the multiple impacts that the implementation of such a system would have?

Perhaps I will get around to writing a follow up to discuss these. For now, I hope you enjoyed the introduction and that it has achieved what it set out to do: Remove the curtain and exposed “The Wizard” in all his glory!

I am sure there will be many people who may read this and have questions of all sorts – a myriad of them I’m sure. There will also be those who read and will wish to dismiss it all – your prerogative – but you will find, if you apply yourself to learning all about Mathematically Perfected Economy, that there are no “catches”. When you can define the problem – and we have – you are then in possession of VERY powerful “tools” to arrive at the solution.

There are many resources on the web relating to MPE (PfMPE). Coupled with MPE is ACR (Absolute Consensual Representation). ACR fixes the present political/legal problems and, although I have already written many blogposts on the fundamental issue with the legal system, it can always be repeated and written in a revised way to make it even more clear. I intend to do that at some point in the near future also.





To further prove that these people who are imposing this austerity on us while our promissory notes have been stolen from us by banks who have then sold the notes on (and therefore the debt is extinguished) as securitizations (You remember the Credit Default Swaps etc from the mortgage crash don’t you?). Here is the reality of Promissory notes being sold as REAL value (cash) by the corrupt:

Regardless of whether you signed a mortgage or a deed of trust, you also signed a promissory note — a promise to pay back a specified amount over a set period of time. The note goes directly to the lender and is held on its books as an asset for the amount of the promised repayment.

Here is where foreclosure defense can begin to chip away at a bank’s claim on your property. In order for a mortgage, deed of trust or promissory note to be valid, it must have what is known as “perfection” of the chain of title. In other words, there must be a clear, unambiguous record of ownership from the time you signed your papers at closing, to the present moment. Any lapse in the chain of title causes a “defect” in the instrument, making it invalid.
Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Some courts may also challenge MERS’ ability to transfer the promissory note, since it likely has been sold to a different entity, or in most cases, securitized (pooled with other loans) and sold to an unknown number of entities. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Carpenter v. Longan, it was ruled that where a promissory note goes, a deed of trust must follow. In other words, the deed and the note cannot be separated.

If your note has been securitized, it now belongs to someone other than the holder of your mortgage. This is known as bifurcation — the deed of trust points to one party, while the promissory note points to another. Thus, a foreclosure defense claims that since the relationship between the deed and the note has become defective, it renders the deed of trust unenforceable.

Your promissory note must also have a clear chain of title, according to the nation’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the body of regulations that governs these types of financial instruments. But over and over again, borrowers have been able to demonstrate that subsequent assignments of promissory notes have gone unendorsed.

In fact, it has been standard practice for banks to leave the assignment blank when loans are sold and/or securitized and, customarily, the courts have allowed blank assignment to be an acceptable form of proof of ownership. However, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in U.S. Bank v. Ibenez ruled that blank assignment is not sufficient to claim perfection, it provided another way in which a foreclosure can be challenged.

Another foreclosure defense argument explores the notion of whether the bank is a real party of interest. If it’s not, it doesn’t have the right to foreclose. For example, if your loan has been securitized, your original lender has already been paid. At that point, the debt was written off and the debt should be considered settled. In order to prove that your original lender has profited from the securitization of your mortgage, it is advised that you obtain a securitization audit. The audit is completed by a third-party researcher who tracks down your loan, and then provides you with a court-admissible document showing that your loan has been securitized.

A foreclosure defense can also argue that once a loan has been securitized, or converted to stock, it is no longer a loan and cannot be converted back into a loan. That means that your promissory note no longer exists, as such. And if that is true, then your mortgage or deed of trust is no longer securing anything. Instead of the bank insisting that you have breached the contract specified in the promissory note, foreclosure defense argues that the bank has actually destroyed that agreement itself. And if the agreement doesn’t exist, how can it be enforced? A corollary to this argument states that your loan is no longer enforceable because it is now owned by many shareholders and a promissory note is only enforceable in its whole entirety. How can thousands of people foreclose on your house?

Got that?
In their very own words (yet STILL not admitted outright but, in fact it is here) the ONLY real value of “money” is represented by YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE.

Question: Do we have any recourse even in THEIR own “law” to remedy this and put them away for life?

Answer: Yes (but only if the population get behind it).

It’s called the Theft Act – or Theft and deception Act 1968/1978.

Theft Act 1978

Now, please understand this: The State adopts ITS interpretation of law because we allow it to. We allow it to by taking NO action. Yet ALL of their Acts, their “Laws” can be turned and used against them and we can change how things operate and run in this (and all) countries. NOT by violence, rioting, insurrection etc (where the Human Rights Act allows them to quell such activity and kill you!), but by mass knowledge and intelligence. A true intellectual revolution.

I would like to say “If you wish to part of that, then put your name in a comment box below” but, somehow, and unfortunately, I have this feeling that very few of you would. There seems to be a thirst for knowledge but not such a hunger for solutions and action for change. THAT needs to change otherwise this misery and corruption is just going to continue.

Destroying the mindgame!

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on November 28, 2013

An open letter to any and all Lawyers, Barristers, Judges who dare reply and debate this issue which destroys the mindgame you have played a part in over centuries.

Debate or shut up!

Please, be my guest and attempt to make an argument against the following. I look forward to it.

The following totally destroys the Judge, the politician, the Law enforcer, the magistrate, the establishment figure, the media whore who laughs at the subject and the man or woman who simply refuses to believe what is the fact: The fact is that the State and the United Nations, the European Union – in fact ANY and ALL “nations” and constructed legal personality (legal fiction) can have absolutely no authority over a natural person under any circumstances UNLESS that “legal person” is acting as dictator and effectively destroys the widely held belief that we are all equal before the law. The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.

So let’s start with the INSTITUTIONS:

The European Union

The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union takes the view that while it is bound by the European Convention it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. As seen in Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union is bound to respect fundamental rights principles. This means that the institutions of the European Union must not violate human rights, as defined by European Union law, and also that the Member States of the European Union must not violate European Union human rights principles when they implement Union legislation or act pursuant to Union law. This obligation is in addition to the Member States’ pre-existing obligations to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in everything they do. In practice, this means that the Court of Justice weaves the Convention principles throughout its reasoning. For example, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights’ did not have jurisdiction to rule on case brought against the EU. However, the EcHR has been prepared to hold EU member states liable for human rights’ violations committed within their jurisdictions, even when they were just complying with a mandatory provision of EU law.

Please recognise what this is, in fact stating: While the EU creates and demands that its laws are implemented in the member states (for example the UK), the EU, itself, is not bound by the ECHR – it is immune! So the EU may create laws which fundamentally violate Human Rights. While they create the law and the member states MUST implement them, if the member states then are found in violation of one’s human rights, it is the member states who are attacked for doing so. Yet, the member states are put in a position by the immune EU to implement the law! Make NO mistake, this is like a mafia boss telling one of his minions to murder someone because that is his ruling (and the minion does not question the Don now does he?) – that is the “law”. So the minion goes ahead and murders and the legal profession come along and prosecute the minion while leaving the Don immune for making the order. Similarly, it is precisely the issue which was deliberated upon during the Nuremburg Trials. The question was: Were those who carried out the orders of their government (Hitler), guilty of warcrimes? However……

Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.

Now remember this: The EU has attained a legal personality. It is recognised by law as existing and, as such, can enter treaties (which are simply contracts). The EU is now a LEGAL PERSON. A Judge can now “see” the EU because it now exists as a legal person whereas, before, a Judge could not “see” the EU because it did not legally exist!

Now, how did the EU gain its legal existence?

Well, like any other Corporation and Nation:

On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular it changed the legal structure of the European Union, merging the EU three pillars system into a single legal entity provisioned with legal personality. The EU is based on a series of treaties. These first established the European Community and the EU, and then made amendments to those founding treaties.These are power-giving treaties which set broad policy goals and establish institutions with the necessary legal powers to implement those goals. These legal powers include the ability to enact legislation which can directly affect all member states and their inhabitants. The EU has legal personality, with the right to sign agreements and international treaties. Under the principle of supremacy, national courts are required to enforce the treaties that their member states have ratified, and thus the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore conflicting national law, and (within limits) even constitutional provisions The European Council uses its leadership role to sort out disputes between member states and the institutions, and to resolve political crises and disagreements over controversial issues and policies. It acts externally as a “collective Head of State” and ratifies important documents (for example, international agreements and treaties). On 19 November 2009, Herman Van Rompuy was chosen as the first permanent President of the European Council. On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and he assumed office. Ensuring the external representation of the EU, driving consensus and settling divergences among members are tasks for the President.

Sovereign states are legal persons. A sovereign state, or simply, state, is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. The word “country” is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region. Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The UN Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.

In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign:

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.

Note “ying and yang”: They could not be part of the International community. The corollary of which was that recognised nations could break the law in their dealings with them! Incredible isn’t it? While, if that unrecognised country were to break international law (as was its “right” because it was not recognised as existing and the international community could break the law toward it) you can be sure that the international community would demonise it as a “rogue state” all simply due to the fact that the international community would not recognise its sovereignty! I think it’s called the international community taking advantage of a vicious circle!

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:

…International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.

By contrast, the “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states, but doesn’t have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them).

People may sometimes refer to “the will of the international community” to strengthen their own point of view or the opposite expression “the international community is divided” to explain a consensus has not yet been reached. In diplomacy and debate a case that includes this statement could be a sentiment of majoritarianism and a description of options to take action for the benefit of all countries. It is occasionally asserted that powerful countries and groups of countries use the term to describe organisations in which they play a predominant role, that might be interpreted as indifference toward other nations. The enactment of conflict or war may be claimed as an action of the “international community” by a superpower or coalition that could represent under half or less of the world’s population.

Ain’t that the truth!

An example of the term used by some western leaders is when denouncing Iran, for its nuclear ambitions of suspected nuclear proliferation, by stating that “Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment“. The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, has endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.

Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract argued, “the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government,” with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being of wonder” (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law” (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, “there is no law without a sovereign.

The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.

De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty. It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition. Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority?

Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). So, an interesting point here to raise in the case of legitimacy in the UK, for example: From where does the UK government and Monarch derive their legitimacy? Do they DARE state they derive it from the “Divine Right of Kings”? Do they DARE? I don’t think so do you?

External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdomuses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;

“Sovereignty.” A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state.
— (The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another’s territory permissible? According to existing International law, as preached (but not practiced) by the International community through the U.N., the answer to this question is NEVER. Every last war “declared” by the west, therefore, is in breach of International law. Period!

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that “those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it,” should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation’s State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations. In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order). Corporations are by definition legal persons. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, such as The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.

Now, please fully appreciate that the above has just stated absolutely clearly and factually that these institutions AND the Crown itself are no more nor less than Legal Persons in their own right. As such, they are, by definition within this legal “matrix” we are all subject to, EQUAL to each and every “Natural Person” (i.e. you and I) on this earth. Again, any judge or any state prosecutor could NOT argue differently. This is simply legal (LEGAL) fact – legal fact that these institutions are LEGAL FICTIONS! 

The Juristic Person.I

Author(s): George F. Deiser

Reviewed work(s):

Source: University of Pennsylvania LawReview and American Law Register, Vol. 57, No. 3,Volume 48 New Series (Dec., 1908), pp. 131-142

Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review

The law has been playing with such a fiction for centuries, in the course of which, the fiction, instead of disappearing, as it so conveniently does for the mathematician, has increased in girth and height, and has maintained its ghostly existence, in the face of the anathema of the philosopher and the fiat of the judicial decree. In an evil day the law, like the hospitable Arab, who permitted his camel to shelter his head within the domestic tent, gave shelter to an imaginary person-the persona ficta,-then an infant, seemingly of little promise and of precarious tenure of life. The most uninformed mind has an idea of capacities, and can even follow the ramifications by which a man by marrying his first cousin, loses some of his second cousins, or becomes second cousin to his own children, but the separation of individual wills from collective wills is a task which even the academic mind has but unsatisfactorily accomplished. Person, collective property-persona ficta-the name is very nearly matter of indifference so long as we understand by it an existence distinct from the members that compose it; for, be it understood, one may be a member of this corporate body and yet deal with it-may sell to it-buy from it,-in fact, maintain business relations with it, precisely as he does with any other natural person. The matter begins with dogma; men, in law and in philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply that there are also persons of another sort. And that is a fact.

Men/Women are “Natural persons” in law because a “Natural person” is, and only is, a LEGAL DEFINITION used to differentiate from a “legal person” (or “Corporate person”)

It was said by an eminent authority that when a body of twenty, or two thousand, or two hundred thousand men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body, which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted. Now the state is a body of this kind, and beginning with the state and coming down by successive gradations, we encounter by the way, the subordinate state, which, if autonomous, is the next body of this sort, the self governing county, district, or department; finally the municipal corporations such as cities, boroughs or townships. We have very little difficulty in recognizing that when the state acts, it is a different matter from the action of any member or citizen of the state. If the state owe money, it is not owing by the citizens; nor if half the citizens emigrated would anyone think of following them to collect from each, his proportion of the debt. It is not a conception that the rationalistic mind finds easy.

No? Then WHY ON EARTH has the world’s population “rationalised” the idea of bailing out Privately held banks on the demand of the State? I would like to ask each and every individual who have just shrugged their shoulders and considered it ok exactly what the hell they are thinking of? Anyhow, that is an aside on the subject of this blog.

The conception of the persona ficta is an inheritance from the Roman Law, developed and expanded by the ecclesiastical lawyers of the Middle Ages, and bestowed on modem legal thought by Savigny. Real men are united to form a fictitious being; a fiction which holds property. It has necessarily, no natural rights. The theory hence, has no regard for members; nor can the persona ficta exist except by virtue of some creative act of the state. The Juristic Person.-A right is inconceivable without corresponding relations between some individual and the community to which he is subject. If we find a right, such as that of ownership, in existence, we must discover a subject for that right. If the right attaches to a human being, he is the subject; if it attaches to a name used to designate the collective will of a group of men, the name or collective will is the subject. By advanced abstractions, by reasoning a priori, jurists have reached the conclusion, that in relation to the quality of being a subject of law, the individual, and the group of individuals as such, occupy a like position. Personality is considered therefore, an attribute not only of men, but of groups of men, acting as a unit for the attainment of a common end. The term juristic person is simply the legal expression for this fact, that above the individual or specific human existence there stands generic human existence. In other words, when we encounter the problem of defining, interpreting, explaining, the actions of human beings in groups, as such, as contrasted with the action of any members of the group as individuals, the group stands for genus, and the individual stands for species. The collective will of a group of men so acting and holding property, when recognized as a subject of law, or as having legal subjectivity, or more plainly, when recognized as capable of holding definite legal rights, is no more a fiction than is the personality of any human being. This juristic person, or collective will of the group, is not a creation of the law; the law does not create its personality, but finding a group engaged in some common pursuit, endows it with a definite legal capacity. It is capable of exercising rights, capable of committing wrongs; the former, it may vindicate; the latter it must atone for. It may seem a far cry from the question of the legality of a fine imposed upon a corporation in an amount greater than that of its capital stock, to the apparently academic discussion of its personality or non-personality, yet they are in fact so intimately related that our legal system cannot ignore the relation without affecting its stability. If men as individuals can do acts that require intent, and men acting in groups cannot, the community must restrict the activity of men in groups. For the actions of groups of men, collective actions, there is no reason, no justification, no authority but that of might. Beginning with the state, and proceeding downward to private corporations, control proceeds from the power of the strong over the weak.

“Human groups,” says Duguit, in his dramatic way is  

based upon community of needs, upon diversity of individual aptitudes, upon the reciprocity of services rendered; in these human groups, some individuals stronger than others, whether because they are better armed, or because we recognize in them some supernatural power; whether because they are richer, or because they are more numerous, and who, thanks to this superior power, can impose their will on others; these are the facts. Let us call the state a human group, settled upon a definite territory, where the stronger compel obedience of the weaker, and we are agreed. Call political sovereignty that power which the stronger exert over the weaker, there is no controversy. Proceed beyond this and we enter the realm of hypothesis. To say that this will of those who rule is only imposed upon individuals because it is the collective will, is a fiction conceived to justify the power of the strong-a fiction, ingenious enough, invented by the prophets of force to legitimate force, but for nothing else.” Returning for a moment to the state, which is everywhere recognized as a person, it has been observed truly, that the feeling that even the state is a very unreal person, may not readily be dispelled.14 But the difficulty is purely subjective; the existence of personality apart from a body is insufficiently concrete. Yet the notions of ownership, or of in-corporeal rights are equally esoteric. And if personality offer a solution, the difficulty of the conception ought not to stand in the way. If now, we attempt to define our problem we shall find the facts to be these. Corporations, under existing legal systems, for judicial or legislative purposes are regarded in two ways: I. The corporation is a fictitious person or entity (as in England and the United States). II. The corporation is a real person (as in Germany, France, Spain, and some other continental countries). The problems arising under both of these attitudes are these: A. Does the corporation as a group or unit possess rights and owe duties ? B. Has the corporation as a group or unit criminal or moral responsibility? C. What is the nature of the shareholders’ interest? If again, we examine the nature of corporate existence with reference to proffered solutions, we shall find again, that the corporation is a fictitious person, or a real person, or a form of co-ownership, or a form of agency or action by representation. It remains to consider these views with reference to the extent to which they resolve the problem.

George F. Deiser. 3313312.pdf

The following is from: 0njp9-concept-legal-personality-english-law.html

The idea that a husband could not rape a wife comes down through the ages from the ancient belief that a wife was her husband’s property. The legal principle that a woman was a separate being from her husband was not established until 1882 in England by the Married Women’s Property Act – see Married_Women\’s_Property_Act 

Where a party changes their gender, or wishes to change their gender, UK law has gone through a transformation. Once a gender change, although medically possible, did not alter the          realities of the gender at birth for a person. That changed, as the UK began to grant rights to transexuals (recognising them as PERSONS).

See Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_Kingdom

By providing transexuals these rights, the UK has granted them standing to be treated as persons whose rights must be respected and who have valid claims to make against those who refuse to respect their rights to life, liberty, property, and their names. Legal personality determines and establishes the patterns which help determine the rights, duties, and powers of persons. Minority groups, be they minorities due to age, gender, religion, or other classifications, are not able to control their own destinies until the law recognizes them as having the right to exist and make demands on others.

The above crystallises the facts: ONE IS NOT A “PERSON” until the legal world recognises them as such. The transexual, although in reality a living and breathing being, was not a “person” until the legal system said so! This is crystal clear and there is no way whatsoever that the legal system can argue that YOU exist and are recognised within the legal system by the sheer fact that you literally exist. The transexual literally exists but, only recently, did they exist from a legal standpoint as a PERSON.


What the constitution says: The EU will for the first time have a “legal personality” and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: “The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” What it means: This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails. By having a “legal personality”, the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.

Now, here, one must recognise that the ONLY reason the EU law has primacy over, for example, UK law is because when the member states agree to the treaties, the entire idea of the treaties is to give the EU that power. There is no other reason. Any and all member states were and are SOVEREIGN nations and have the right to enter treaties OR remove themselves.

2950276.stm It gives the EU a legal personality – like a country, not an international organisation. This argument seems to rest on the assumption that international organisations do not have a legal personality. But most do. It also glosses over the fact that the European Community – which still exists on paper as a legally separate entity from the EU – already has a legal personality. (Whether the EU already has a legal personality is a matter of dispute.) But could the EU, if it acquired a single legal personality, end up joining international organisations or signing international treaties instead ofmember states? This has not been the practice up to now. Both the European Community and the EU have been signing treaties for years, and the European Community is a member of the World Trade Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Hague Conference. This has not prevented member states from signing the same treaties and joining the same organisations. (This, as you can read in the link, is now old news but gives the reader a better understanding of things it is hoped).

A declaration to be added to the new treaty underlines that acquiring a legal personality will not authorise the EU to act “beyond the competences conferred on it by member states”. Declarations are a statement of political intent. They are not legally binding but the European Court of Justice does take them into account in its judgements. 6928737.stm

Now, let’s consider another element of “legal personality” and the ideology surrounding that of immunity of diplomats, heads of state and their “capacity” bestowed upon them by the “law”. The reader will, it is hoped, recognise how this entire legal system is corrupt from the very top to bottom to protect the interests of those who implement it.

The  reason the Pope cannot be arrested and prosecuted in the UK is because he is entitled to Head of State immunity.  Dawkins and Hitchens are not unaware of this problem.  Apparently they have enlisted Geoffrey Robertson QC to provide an opinion stating that the pope is not a head of State and therefore not entitled to head of State immunity. Robertson elaborates on this point in a recent article in the Guardian. Robertson argues that the Pope is not entitled head of State immunity as a matter of international law because the Vatican is not a State.  His arguments are simply incorrect. The Vatican has a tiny territory and a tiny population but it does fulfill the criteria for Statehood. As James Crawford puts it, in his authoritative work The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed, 2006), p. 225, after detailed analysis: “it is clear that the Vatican City is a State in international law, despite its size and special circumstances.” The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood.  What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935). The Vatican as a territorial entity does have a government: the Holy See which is headed by the Pope. As Crawford’s analysis makes clear, the Holy See has its own independent legal personality (about which more later on) and that personality predates the Statehood of the Vatican. However, the Holy See is also the government of the Vatican City State. More imporantly, the Vatican is independent of any other State. Its independence from Italy which is the State that could have had claims to control that territory is recognised in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. So, since the Vatican is a State then the head of that State, the Pope, is entitled to head of State immunity under international law. This immunity is recognised by Section 20 of the UK’s State Immunity Act which extends to “a sovereign or other head of State”, the same immunities accorded to diplomats. These immunities are absolute in the case of criminal proceedings. In other words there are no exceptions to the immunity. The International Court of Justice’s decision in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) 2002 confirms that this type of immunity continues to apply even when it is alleged that the head of State has committed international crimes. So an allegation that the Pope may be responsible for crimes against humanity will not suffice to defeat his immunity.


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

It should be noted that the immunity of a head of State from criminal prosecution in foreign States is there for very good reasons. In the first place, those State agents charged with the conduct of international relations are given immunity in order to allow international relations and international cooperation to continue to take place. (So understand this well: The Head of State can rape, murder and much anything else but, so as to allow continued International cooperation, they can commit these crimes and walk away. Do you accept that? If you do and if the International community does then how can the International community possibly argue that the Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were legally justified? The Head of State is allowed to commit genocide and atrocities! Or is that only if they are OUR” accepted Heads of state? This is no joke folks. I sincerely wish it was!) Secondly, the immunity of foreign heads of States assures that just as States may not engage in regime change by armed force they may not achieve this end by criminal prosecutions either. It respects the fundamental autonomy of each State to determine who it is governed by.

So, again, one has to ask: What on earth was it that didn’t provide that assurance to Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein etc?

Even assuming that the Vatican were not a State under international law that does not mean that the Pope will not be granted immunity from criminal process in the UK. First of all, the UK courts in determining the question of immunity will not be asked to determine whether the Vatican is a State under international law. Under Section 21 of the State Immunity Act, the question whether the Vatican is a State is to be resolved, conclusively, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So as long as the Foreign Office is of the view that the Vatican is a State, the Courts are bound to accept that. The State Immunity Act aside, deference to the executive on matters of Statehood is in line with longstanding case law of the English Courts. It is almost certain that the Foreign Office will certify that the Vatican is a State, as the US executive did in a case against the Vatican in the US. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with the Holy See and has an Ambassador with the Holy See. It may be argued that this is not quite the same as recognising the Vatican as a State – and it isn’t. The embassy is to the Holy See and not to the Vatican. Nonetheless, as far as I know Britain has not objected in the past to the Vatican’s claims to be a State nor has it, as far as I know, opposed the Vatican’s accession to treaties that are only open to States. A second reason that the Pope will be entitled to immunity from criminal process in the UK even if the Vatican were not a State is because there is general acceptance of the international legal personality and in particular of the “sovereign” status of the Holy See. The relationship between the Vatican and the Holy See are complex. Crawford’s book referred to above, deals with this question very well. What is clear is that the Holy See as the central authority of the Catholic Church is not just the government of the Vatican. In addition, it has a special status in international law and has international legal personality which precedes the creation of the Vatican in 1929. What is important here is the nature of that international legal personality. Like the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, the Holy See is deemed to have a sovereign status akin to Statehood. This includes possession of the immunities that States are entitled to.  It may be significant that Section 20 of the State Immunity Act provides immunity for “a sovereign or other head of State.” Does sovereign in that context allow for entities like the head of the Holy See, the Pope, even if he were not a head of State? It may be interpreted in this way and should be. It could be argued the word “other” in that provision, militates against this interpretation. However, even if S. 20 does not allow for the immunity of Head of the Holy See, that would not preclude the argument that customary international law does. can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal

The Crown in Contract and Administrative Law


An essential and neglected distinction between contract and administrative law is in how each conceives of the Crown as a juristic person. This article explores the extent of this distinction, and its implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers. It offers explanations—historical, jurisprudential and pragmatic—for why contract law conceives of the Crown as a corporation aggregate with the powers and liberties of a natural person, and why administrative law disaggregates the State  into named officials.


The international legal system is the foundation for the conduct of international relations. It is this system that regulates state actions under international law. The principal subjects of international law are states, rather than individuals as they are under municipal law. The International Court of Justice acknowledged in the Reparation for Injuries case that types of international legal personality other than statehood could exist and that the past half century has seen a significant expansion of the subjects of international law. Apart from states, international legal personality is also possessed by international organisations and, in some circumstance, human beings. In addition, non-governmental organisations and national liberation movements have also been said to possess international legal personality. Since 1945 the international legal system has been dominated by the United Nations and the structures that were established as part of that organisation. While the UN has been the object of significant criticism, it has nevertheless played a pivotal role both in the progressive development and codification of international law. An international organization (or organisation) is an organizationwith an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types:

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

Ok, now what is the entire point of the foregoing? Well I hope it is obvious once you read it.

The Crown itself is a LEGAL PERSON. The UN is a LEGAL PERSON. The EU is a LEGAL PERSON. The State (Nation) is a LEGAL PERSON. And YOU and every other human being (within the subject of “the law”) are LEGAL PERSONS. The only differentiation which is made is that of States and Corporations etc being given the title of “legal person” and you being given the title of “Natural person” purely to differentiate the rights, duties etc apportioned to each of these “legal personality” types. BUT THEY ARE ALL LEGAL FICTIONS.

So what does this all mean?

Well it is SO easy:

You: “Your honour, are all persons equal before the law?”

Judge: “Yes indeed they are”.

You: “Can you please assure this court and those in attendance that there is no legal person – such as a Corporate – which has any authority over a natural person?”

Judge: “Indeed I can. As I said, all persons – legal or natural – are equal before the law. One would even have to go so far as to suggest that the natural person is of a higher importance since the natural person is of flesh and blood and endowed with god given rights whereas the Corporation or man made legal person has not”

You: “Then your honour, would I be correct in stating that I, as a natural person, have every right, subrogated to no-one, to enter or decline from entering a contract with another legal person? Or, if, under any and all circumstances, I am forced to do so, or by way of lack of full disclosure, I inadvertently enter into contract with such an entity, that I shall have the legal right to withdraw from any and all such contracts?”

Judge: “Well yes but that would be dependent upon certain points of law and if, for instance, you were compelled by law to enter into such”

You: “Please would your honour give me an example of such a possible case?”

Judge: “Where statute law may enforce such a contract for example”

You: “Statute law Sir? May I ask who or what imposes such statute law?”

Judge: “The State does and it is enforced by the Crown”

You: “Haven’t we just established that both, the State and the Crown, are LEGAL PERSONS and, as such, they are, at best, equal to myself before the law?”

Judge: “Shut up smart ass! Case dismissed”

Now, they can go down the route of stating “Supremacy of law” but just as a member state (a “person) of the EU must agree by treaty the supremacy of EU law over its own, the natural person must contract with the state to agree to the subrogation of his/her god given, inalienable, unalienable natural rights.

The court and the Crown and the state may ask “do you possess a birth certificate or passport or National Insurance number or any such state conferred document BUT the state gives one no choice in the matter of requiring these documents since the state will disallow all which requires such. It is, then, the state which coercively and deceptively removes the human rights and replaces them with “person” rights.

I rest my case and ALL cases your dishonour for, before I was given a “legal personality” I was neither competent nor would I have had any legal standing (obviously since I had no legal person and could not be “seen” – recognised BY the legal system ) to state I did not wish to contract with the state and subrogate such rights.

The legal system, then, is entirely fraudulent.



Posted in Finance, Politics by earthlinggb on July 5, 2011

The SNP are the right way for Scotland.
The SNP think first and foremost of Scotland and the Scottish people.
The SNP are concerned for the people of Scotland’s well being and that of the old people who cannot afford their heating bills.
The SNP want to eradicate poverty in Scotland.
The SNP have multiple projects which they wish to work upon but find are finding the money difficult to come by and are anticipating cuts from Westminster.
The SNP want Scottish Independence.

The Scottish people have strongly voted for SNP and Alex Salmond, your leader, has promised he will improve Scotland for the Scottish people and that he will improve employment and social conditions etc.

All I am asking you SNP supporters then is this: Ask Mr Salmond to explain the following to you and to promise you he will introduce a Scottish sovereign currency. This means that the Scottish government would NEVER borrow money based upon a debt, thereby paying interest. A Sovereign currency means that there is no need for the Scottish government to have Scotland caught up in a spiral of National debt. There would BE no debt.

What is the bottom line? The bottom line is this: If there is no National debt, due to issuing sovereign Scottish currency, then there is no need for a tax (income tax and others) to service the interest on that debt. It would also mean that Scotland would NEVER have to sell/privatise any single piece of land or infrastructure to pay off such a debt (this is essentially bankruptcy of course).

Now, if YOU, as an SNP supporter who truly wants what is best for Scotland and you are not just supporting the SNP for your own gain but for the gain of the nation as a whole (and this gain would be enormous), then please demand that Mr Salmond and/or your local SNP MSP explain all of this to you. If they refuse or if they evade or dismiss it then please again demand they explain, in detail, what this is all about.

Ultimately, if they choose not to (and they will) then I am quite happy to explain this to any and all SNP supporters in a public forum with or without MSPs present. I will provide all factual evidence to support what I am telling you and you will, finally, understand the enormity and the positive effect upon Scotland that the implementation of such a currency would have upon the Nation.

If, however, you choose to ignore all of this, then that is unfortunate and you are doing this nation and the people within it a disservice in fact. If you then wish to proclaim yourself a Scottish nationalist then I am afraid your proclamation is empty. It holds no legitimacy and you are nothing more than a follower of the “cult” of the SNP.

I am a Scottish nationalist and I want what is best for each and every one of you and I understand how it can be achieved VERY simply. But you will never see me on TV shaking hands and smiling nor will you see me in the Scottish parliament making strong “nationalistic” sounding speeches.
I leave that to the Politicians.

I always find it strange however, that people, in general, distrust politicians and the working classes hold the upper classes in disdain and speak about they would trust their own before trusting the establishment YET, because you give the establishment some form of greater knowledge and ability (because they wouldn’t be where they are without it you convince yourselves), you will generally, not listen to someone who is not in that “circle”. So while you hold these people in disdain, you prop them up by offering them this.
You vote for the SNP candidates because you BELIEVE they are “your people” simply because they have the label of SNP and they speak like you – so that shows that you trust them well before you’d trust a British party and a David Cameron. You see? You DO like to listen to “your own”. BUT the problem is this: “Your own” are every bit as controlled a party, and individuals within the party, as are the David Camerons of this world.

So, once more, I ask you: Demand from the SNP and particularly the First Minister, to explain to you what I mean by a Scottish sovereign currency. Then watch how you are evaded or how the question is somehow dismissed.

Please do not let yourself and the question be dismissed. If you do, you are allowing yourself to be lied to and defrauded.

Scottish Independence? Yes

Scottish Independence without a sovereign currency? Impossible and a lie.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 341 other followers