Earthling

THE “HUMAN RIGHTS ACT” DECEPTION

Posted in Law by earthling on May 13, 2013

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

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

Good evening to you all!

ARE YOU HUMAN?

YES?

ARE YOU 100% SURE OF THAT?

YES?

WELL I HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL YOU, SHOW YOU AND PROVE TO YOU THAT REFUTES YOUR ASSUMPTION!

ACCORDING TO THE JUDICIARY. COURTS AND GOVERNMENT – AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ITSELF – YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY HUMAN AT ALL!

CRAZY SUGGESTION?

WELL LET’S JUST DETERMINE IF YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION SHALL WE?

But before we do, let me introduce you to a BARRISTER. A BARRISTER by the name of ALEX USTYCH. As you will see, Alex graduated from Law school at Durham University with a FIRST in Law! CLEVER LITTLE ALEX! As you will also notice, he is rather involved in Human Rights Law. One must, therefore, take it that Alex knows his stuff and you can’t pull the wool over on Alex.

So, it must be acknowledged by Alex that either:

1. He is fully aware of what I am about to tell you (and, therefore, our Alex plays the game of obscuring this fact from his clients and everyone else in this country of ours) or;

2, He really DOESN’T know his stuff and the wool HAS been pulled over his eyes all this time! Now, that would show just a tiny little fragment of incompetence don’t you think?

So, who’s going to go for number 1 as Alex’s answer and who would opt for number 2?

Alex 1

A bit of a conundrum for the poor guy don’t you think?

But, for the purposes of this blog, I am going to assume that Alex is not aware of what he props up in the name of “law” because I actually like the guy. I am sure he is really, at heart, a decent sort. EvEN THOUGH he doesn’t seem to have the cajonas to speak up for what he knows is right regarding a particular case.

So let’s begin shall we?

The Human Rights Act 1998. What a wonderful piece of legislation isn’t it? “Flawed” you say?….. You have no idea how “flawed” this piece of utter nonsense is!

HRA 1998

It looks so authoritative doesn’t it? So professional! So governmental. It’s all about protecting your “RIGHTS” as a citizen isn’t it? – meanwhile part of the deception is in that very last sentence!

So Alex, are you saying that such a thing as “Human Rights” exists?

I’ll answer what I think Alex would reply:

“Yes indeed. What a strange and very objectionable thing to ask!”

Is that so Mr Ustych? Then let us move on shall we? Mr Ustych, have you heard of a young lady by the name of Jade Jacobs Brooks?

“No, I do not believe that I have”

[Meanwhile the judge, in this assumed court, asks the relevance of this line of questioning of our esteemed Barrister to which I reply: “It has every relevance your Honour. Please allow me to continue”]

Mr Ustych, Ms Brooks was born in Alicante, Spain to British parents while on holiday. Her story was reported in the press last year (2012) by various newspapers and also, the BBC. Jade and her parents arrived home in Britain and Jade was brought up in the UK with British parents YET, at the age of 16, she found that she could not obtain a passport or ID; neither could she get a job and, in fact, NO benefits of any kind could be conferred upon her. Benefits which are accorded to any and all “Human Beings” one would imagine, if one takes the “Human Rights Act” as being just that – HUMAN rights!

Can you  offer the court any GOOD reason why she would find herself in such a predicament Mr Ustych? Considering your FIRST degree in law and your capability, I’m sure, within the field of Human Rights.

“Well….. um… no, I cannot make any suggestion without first understanding the full particulars of the case”

WHAT “CASE” Mr Ustych? It is clear cut. The girl had no “Human Rights”. I am asking you for suggestions of how and why this could be so? (meanwhile, as you will see, there could not possibly be a “case” which related to a non existent legal entity)

What if I were to add to the information just provided to you that Jade’s birth certificate, issued in Spain, was not recognised as valid within the UK? Would that help?

“Ah yes! If a person cannot be identified correctly, then it would not be possible to process the benefits which you say were not conferred upon her because, without registration, the person in question could not be given the specific benefits which would relate to her specific personhood”.

Ahh! I see! Thank you for that suggestion and explanation Mr Ustych. May I just take note of the fact that, nowhere in your answer did you use the words “Human” or “Human Being” but you have used the word “person” three times.

“Yes, using the word ‘person’ as is interchangeable with the word ‘human'”

Is that so Mr Ustych? Are the two words entirely interchangeable? Both having precisely the same meaning? Both perfect synonyms?

“Well, it is dependent upon the context within which one uses them and, in this context, I see no issue with using them interchangeably”

Ah! But I do Mr Ustych. You see, I would suggest to you that you have used the word ‘person’ rather than ‘human’ because, as you have clearly described, before one can be conferred benefits (purported to be “Human Rights”) one must be identified and registered. The United Nations documents in exhibits 1, 2 and 3  are clear on this:

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1

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

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

So it is clear and unambiguous is it not, that a LEGAL identity ( a LEGAL PERSONALITY) must first be “conferred” upon the human being before that human being is considered to even exist! Please take note of exhibit 4:

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 4

LEGALLY, she did not exist! As a Human Being, she obviously did. But you will, obviously, point out (correctly I may add) that how is one’s rights (and we will refer to them as “rights” for the moment) to be protected if one cannot be identified. A good and valid point Mr Ustych – no doubt and no argument. However, it does, for the moment, have oneself considering why any “rights” should be different from one human being to another doesn’t it? Let’s consider that for just a moment using the words from your very own mouth Alex!

But a discussion of that detail would take up an immense amount of the court’s time so let’s just stick with the principles of all of this.

Tell me Mr Ustych: If I reported my Volvo as having been set alight by an extraterrestrial who appeared on the scene on a skateboard, would our law enforcement and/or a court accept this story when I applied for an insurance payout and the insurer would not payout?

“Of course not! This is now moving into the realms of fantasy!…. Your honour?”

JUDGE: “Mr Earthling, your line of questioning is becoming rather absurd. Please make your point or move on!”

Yes your honour, I am about to make my point. Please, Mr Ustych, humour me for one moment. In a single sentence, please explain why a court would not accept this story?

“Oh for goodness sakes! Because ALIENS do not exist Sir!”

So, if they do not exist Mr Ustych, then would it be fair to say they would also have no legal personality?

“Of course”.

And, as we have seen, one must have a legal personality – initially produced by one’s birth registration document – for the court (any court) to recognise the existence of such an entity. Am I correct?

“Yes”

So, legally, if one does not exist – an entity which is not recognised as existing within the legal system – then it is impossible to confer benefits upon such an entity, whether that entity is literally standing in court before a judge or not because the legal system (and judge) cannot “see” them. Am I correct?

“Yes! They do not exist in law!”

Then it MUST follow, Mr Ustych, that IF, for example, Miss Jade Jacob Brooks one day decided to stand in court before a judge, point a gun and fire a bullet right between his eyes, she could NOT be prosecuted for such an action.

“That is outrageous! Of course she would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!”

But Mr Ustych, you have just said that, without registration and, therefore, without a legal personality or identity, that Miss Jacobs Brooks would not exist! Just as is the fact shown by her story above.

“Of course she exists! She would prove her existence by her actions… this is ridiculous!”

She would prove her existence by her actions? Yet she would STILL not have a legal personality Mr Ustych. She proves her existence by her very actions everyday. Her act of BREATHING Mr Ustych. YET, the court and government will not recognise her as existing and they make the excuse of her not having a valid birth certificate and, thereby, not being a LEGAL PERSON!

So, my point to you Mr Ustych, is that, while Jade is demonstrably, a human being, that does NOT entitle her to the “Human Rights” within the Human Rights Act! It is not until she becomes recognised as a PERSON (a LEGAL PERSON) that ANY state will confer upon her such “rights”. It is then CLEAR that the term “HUMAN Rights” is a misnomer and a VERY deceptive one for very deceptive purposes as we shall see. What we have, in fact, is not Human Rights at all but LEGAL PERSON’S PRIVILEGES!

Humans are among us

“So what’s the issue”? I hear many of you ask.

Well, for one thing, I sincerely hope it is clear that, from the above: IF THE LAW CANNOT “SEE” A HUMAN BEING SUCH AS JADE STANDING RIGHT BEFORE IT WITHOUT HAVING A PIECE OF PAPER TO PROVE SHE ACTUALLY EXISTS AND, THEREFORE, THE LAW CANNOT CONFER BENEFITS UPON A LEGALLY NON EXISTENT HUMAN BEING, THEN THE LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY TURN ROUND AND SAY IT THEN “SEES” HER IF SHE COMMITS A CRIME! IT IS RIDICULOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS TO SUGGEST THAT A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING CANNOT BE SEEN TO EXIST ON ONE HAND WHILE, ON THE OTHER, STATE SHE DOES EXIST! IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY!

But it is one which the legal profession will say and do absolutely anything to maintain!

So the girl can breathe, sing, dance (all actions of a living breathing human) and the law cannot “see” her! But if she picks up a gun, the law can “see” this?

UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SINGLE CONTRADICTION DRIVES A STAKE THROUGH THE HEART OF WHAT IS PURPORTED TO BE “HUMAN RIGHTS”.

But there is so much more to this.

1. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have statehood. Why? For if there was no statehood then we would be absolutely free human beings with TRUE rights to travel and live ANYWHERE in the world that we choose WITHOUT the need for passports and a nationality (which the legal world and the UN state is a “human right”). I challenge ANY ONE OF YOU to state to any one of your governments that you do not WISH to be subject to such a limitation on your freedom to travel. Such “rights” are not “rights” at all. They are not even privileges. They are LIMITATIONS ON YOUR FREEDOM!

2. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have an ID/Birth certificate/NI (UK) or SSN (USA) number to find and gain employment (purely for the purposes of taxation I may add). Again, a limitation on your freedom to contract. Seemingly, freedom to contract, then, is NOT a “human right”.

3. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we are taxed! That tax IS NOT for the purposes of paying down our debts and paying for infrastructure etc. It is purely for SERVICING (not paying off) a NATIONAL DEBT which need not, need never have but does, exist!

How/why? Read the following: The New Economy.

4. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us “contracted in” to abide by government policy which demands, by this “law”, that we shoulder the bail outs of corrupt Banking institutions globally. Such legislation, then, on behalf of the banking world, ensures that those who DO legislate for them are financially taken care of by a portion of that bailout/tax revenue which is paid to them in salaries, expenses, jobs with the boys etc.

5. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us pay ever increasing revenues for the supply of our water, gas, electricity, petrol, food, clothes – you name it – while we are also finding ourselves paying increasing taxes which, by the way, the tax laws are renewed every single year because they were first introduced on the basis that they were just to pay for a war and then would be dropped but the “Remembrancer” and the successive Chancellors of the Exchequer saw the benefit of such taxes. While the law has not been changed wrt the tax law having to be renewed every year, the bankers (Global central banks/IMF/BIS owners and controllers) WANT those taxes because they have our governments tied into the monetary system as it now exists. The present monetary system, however, is a con on such an enormous scale that every last politician, judge and banker who has promulgated the con, have perpetrated crimes on humanity of the most heinous sort.

But lastly, and oh so much more importantly, A CONTRACT (AND THE FREEDOM TO ENTER, OR NOT, INTO CONTRACT) IS BETWEEN TWO, OR MORE, “PERSONS” – under “Human Rights”, of course, this word “PERSONS” should be re-termed “HUMAN BEINGS” – AND EACH AND EVERY “PERSON”, WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM, IS FREE TO CONTRACT OR NOT TO CONTRACT.

EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE: THE FREEDOM TO CONTRACT WITH THE STATE! THERE, THEY DRAW THE LINE. IT IS THERE WHERE YOUR “HUMAN RIGHTS” AND THE WHOLE IDEA OF “HUMAN RIGHTS” COMPLETELY DISINTEGRATES INTO THE SHEER DECEPTION THAT IT IS.

THAT CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IS, IN FACT, YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHERE YOU REGISTER YOURSELF TO THE STATE. JUST AS YOU REGISTER YOUR CAR AND REGISTER MANY OTHER THINGS, YOU (OR YOUR PARENTS) HAVE REGISTERED YOU!

THIS IS WHY THE STATE OWNS YOU AND YOUR OFFSPRING. THIS IS WHY THE STATE CAN SEND IN THE POLICE AND THE DHSS TO REMOVE YOUR CHILDREN (sometimes this is a good thing for the child but there are many instances that it is not and may be done simply because you do not live, as a parent, the way the state demands you do).

Now, what would happen if you decided you wished to relinquish your statehood? And that you brought it to the state’s attention that the contract between you and they was void?

[For those of you reading this who suggest it is not a contract, please attempt to explain why? You see, there is one other issue: The state itself – please do part of the job to understand this by confirming what I am telling you here – is a “PERSON”. It is a LEGAL PERSON. If you wish to remain in willful ignorance of this and what it means, be my guest, however, what it means is this: The State as a “person” and you as a “person”, has us remember the basic premise of law. ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW!

Now IF that premise is to remain true, then you, as a free human being being free to contract, (I would hope the UN would agree but, of course, in this case they will not) or not to contract, with any and all other legal persons, have a god given right to accept or dismiss such a contract with the state OTHERWISE you are being coerced to contract with it.]

Now, the fact is we have all, inadvertently, contracted with the state. We did not understand or recognise the full implications of this contract. That being the case, we can categorically state that we were not given full disclosure of the terms of the contract.

IF A CONTRACT IS ENFORCED OR COERCED UPON YOU AND/OR IF THERE IS NO FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS OF ANY GIVEN CONTRACT, THE LAW STATES THAT SUCH A CONTRACT IS NULL AND VOID!

The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.

Now, some will argue that there is a legal premise which speaks of the “Supremacy” structure of the law where the law of nations is of more validity and power than the law which applies to citizens of that nation/any nation. I will simply ask you this: Did you, once more, agree in full knowledge, to abide by such? Also, who/what is it that has introduced such a premise? It wouldn’t be the very political class who are in government and agree these treaties and premises of law would it? Are all of these people not simply legal persons like you and I?

“Ah but there is something called ‘democracy’ where we vote these people into office (“power” as they call it) and that undermines the argument against this supremacy of the law of nations”. Well let’s attack this point for a moment:

The EU (an illegal institution under the Constitutional law of the United Kingdom I may add) now has, of all things, “legal personality” which means that it can CONTRACT as a single legal entity (on behalf of more than 500 million people while it is not even democratic in structure). The “contracts”, in this case, are called “TREATIES”. Now, the FACT is that, for the EU to have been given the powers it has by the nations within the EU, those powers had to be relinquished by each nation freely. If the signing of the treaties leading up to and including the Lisbon Treaty, were signed and agreed under any form of duress, then those treaties would be null and void!

Now, consider that in the context of us having given the power of entering such treaties to our government when, in fact, the UK’s population DID NOT WANT AN EU AND WERE NEVER MADE AWARE that, from 1972, all treaties signed were leading to the destruction of our own national sovereignty!

Further, and of great importance: For the state to have ANY control and influence on your life, you must contract with it and, just like the UK freely giving power and control upwards to the EU, that contract and that relinquishment of power and sovereignty by you MUST have been given freely and in full disclosure of the terms of the contract.

NEITHER OF THOSE TWO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT CRITERIA WERE FULFILLED IN THE CASE WHERE YOU AND I HAVE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE BY WAY OF REGISTERING OUR BIRTH!

If you wish to consider the above further, wrt to legal personhood of states, read the following blog: Destroying the mindgame

YOU ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE POLICED BY CONSENT?

 

However Dom, there is ONE important catch in this which undermines what you believe (and no the police you spoke to will not understand it like they understand very little as you know): The contract of the birth certificate has us all contracted to the state and the state gives us “free elections” to choose our government and, therefore, makes the argument (and shall enforce it!) that it is the “public” which, as a whole, gives the state and its police force our COMMUNAL consent. Thereby, you and I and anyone else simply standing up and saying “I do not consent” will not, in the state’s view, hold ANY water! I’m sorry Dom but that is how it is. The ONLY way of stripping them of these powers is for the nation, as a whole, to say “Just hold on one bloody second here!”.

One last point to focus on from the Human Rights Act 1998:

HRA 1998 1

“YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE UNLESS WE WISH TO TAKE IT!”

2 c) in action lawfully taken (it’s THEIR law remember) for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Question: WHO decides whether or not something is classed as an insurrection?

Well let’s look at what “insurrection” means:

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSHən/

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

So, let us assume that this country’s population (or a significant portion thereof) have finally had enough of these corrupt criminals which we know they are. We also know that each political party (even the BNP and UKIP) are in on the game because, although they are “tarnished” by the “Crown Tripod” as I call them (Libdem/Toy/Labour), both of these parties are allowed to exist. The Head of State and the Law as it exists, would never allow these parties to exist unless they played the game within the State rules. All of the parties exist to “guide” your wrath and gain support for various variations (yes that was on purpose) of the overall existing power base. They are all controlled opposition however because they will not (not one of them) discuss, debate or point you in the direction of the legal person and monetary system issues – which are the entire basis of your misery and control.

If people then set out of the controlled arena of political parties – sold to you as democratic and, if you have issues with how the country is run, “join or form a political party” – and rebel and have their say, en masse, out on the streets, then the state can call in the troops to “quell” what they shall term an “insurrection”. In “quelling” such, they have (through their Human Rights Act) given themselves the right to kill you!

There is one further interesting little point however. Note how the UK Human Rights Act Article 2 is based upon (but expands upon) the UN article 3 which simply states:

Article 3.

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

Big difference huh? The UK State obviously seen a few little problems with not allowing it reason to kill you.

And notice the term “Security of PERSON”.

Then look at Article 6 in the UN declaration:

Article 6.

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

Hahaha. They’re quite “brilliant” aren’t they? It does not state: “Everyone has the right to recognition before the law”. It states “Everyone has the right to recognition AS A PERSON before the law”.

Thank you your honour. I rest my case!

There is a saying: “You cannot fight fire with fire”. It applies to so many of life’s challenges while it also applies to this. You see, you cannot fight the law (or the legal establishment) with the law because it is they who say what the law is and is not. HOWEVER, you CAN totally destroy their PATHETIC presumptions by the use of LOGIC. Doing that, the entire house of cards comes crashing to the floor!

SO, WITH THAT, I HOPE THE POINT IS NOW FULLY PROVEN TO YOU THAT “HUMAN RIGHTS” IS NOTHING BUT HUMAN DECEPTION!

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM:

And yet, no matter what I attempt. Who I add and try to communicate with from Infowars, while they produce story after story about THIS, (below), they will NOT acknowledge what I am trying to give them as an explanation AND, therefore, an intellectual solution!

Quell

Now WHY do you think that may be? HOW MANY SOLUTIONS (and this IS a 100% solution by understanding the problem precisely) HAS INFOWARS EVER COME UP WITH?

ANSWER: NONE!

So, if you just happen to be an Infowars follower and you understand what I have just presented to you and understand, therefore, how it accounts for this Infowars report, then WONDER WHY Infowars will NOT speak about this or promote the info in this blog!

But then it’s no surprise to me because Paul Joseph Watson and others in the “team” have previously ignored the Economic?monetary solution to our problems also as explained in a recent blog called “The new economics is mathematics”.

That WORRIES me. It worries me a lot!

Share amongst the Nation

Posted in Politics by earthling on February 19, 2013

For some reason, I completely overlooked a response I got from Nigel Farage’s office in the EU Parliament approximately 2 years ago.

I think it is VERY important that this be shared. It is also important to notice the PERCEPTION of individuals and how one individual’s perception (without giving one an opportunity to correct that perception) can go a long way to demonise an individual in the eyes of others.

If one simply chooses to take one’s PERCEPTION as a fact and then use that perception against another without giving the other recourse to correct a misperception (either purposefully conceived or otherwise) then that can lead to bad feeling, jail or even war between countries.

It is a lack of communication and/or willingness to listen to other opinions which can cause all of these things so very easily. You will see what I mean when you read the following:

 

His office's words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don't, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right. So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

His office’s words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.
The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don’t, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right.
So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

Subject: RE: Results from form on website…
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:13:50 +0200
From: nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu
To: Removed@hotmail.com
CC: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com

Dear Mr (Earthlinggb)
Thank you for your very pertinent questions, to which, however, in your closing “opinion”, you seem to assume certain answers.
The UKIP is opposed to the global politico-commercial cartel, in which the Rothschilds are prominent, and which underpins a number of supra-national organisations, notably the UNO and the EU.  If that cartel has undue influence on some members of UKIP, then I can only say that UKIP has its moles, traitors and agents provocateurs, just as you would expect in an anti-establishment party.  They expose themselves fairly regularly and we expel them as regularly.
UKIP is not “aligned with Zionist policy”.  We are in favour of democratic, sovereign nation-states, however, and are opposed to multiculturalism, which we see as a form of apartheid.  How this will play out in the Levant, with a minimum of bloodshed and loss of democratic structures, is not clear.
The written constitution of the UK consists of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and numerous statutes, which are now being over-ridden by a treacherous EU-élite, which has no justification whatever for its actions, and which has made a mockery, among much else, of the Coronation Oath.
The CFR, whose “shop-window” and recruiting-office is the annual Bilderberg-Meeting, must be seen as the epicentre of the conspiracy, of which the UK’s treacherous EU-élite is a part.  Throwing off the EU is therefore a key objective in opposing the formation of global, totalitarian government; but this is not something the public will readily understand – and does not need, at this stage, to understand – as long as the objective of dissolving the EU can be attained.  Moreover, as a poorly-funded, anti-establishment party, UKIP’s capacity to reach the public is severely limited.  We simply cannot afford, financially or tactically, to depart from our simple anti-EU message, at this time.
The face-book forum is too time-consuming to permit much dialogue.  I apologise, for example, concerning the ability of our correspondence-team, to answer your questions systematically.  We do not have the resources to do this, and Mr Farage has no time at all to answer general enquiries.  You won’t find any national party-leader who does.
Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
www.ukip.org    www.ukipmeps.org

From: Fuller Annabelle [mailto:annabelle.fuller@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2011 15:42
To: FARAGE Nigel
Subject: Fwd: Results from form on website…

This guy has been causing real problems on Nigel’s facebook page, being anti semitic and offensive. Can you check that Nigel is okay with me saying that given his comments on the facebook page he does not wish to interact with this person?

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Office of Nigel Farage <admin@nigelfaragemep.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Results from form on website…
To: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com===[Contact Nigel]===Name: Earthlinggb

Address: None of your business.

E-mail: Removed for privacy

Your Query: Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?

7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?

8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?

9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?

10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?

11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?

12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.

My opinion of you Nigel is you\’re a fraud and a cheap one to boot. It\’s easy to stand up in the EU Parliament (a controlled venue) and make theatrical speeches which are then posted on Youtube which make you out to be \”Spartacus\” (My God!) but it\’s a lot harder to answer questions in public on your Facebook page isn\’t it?

As for your comment about not intentionally ignoring comments on your page, it doesn\’t quite hold water when then you resort to deleting them and then deleting the questioner entirely so he can no longer post questions YOU don\’t like.

Van Rumpoy may have the appearance of a damp rag but you have one of a Double Glazing salesman. You\’re just as transparent!

THE QUEEN, UKIP, NIGEL FARAGE, LORD PEARSON & THE EU

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on May 31, 2011

We have a corrupt Monarch who has now just released comments to the media that she believes she may be the last monarch of the United Kingdom. She cites concern regarding the potential for a Scottish referendum voting for total Scottish Independence – which, it must be added, is a joke and a lie on the Scottish people since there is NO independence while a nation is controlled by Private Banking interests through affiliation with the IMF and while, just as today all laws adopted in Scotland and the UK as a whole, are originating from our new Big Brother state, the EU, the same shall continue when Scotland simply becomes another small state like Ireland. The split up of the United Kingdom has been a long time coming and has been a necessity for the EU to take full control over this powerful, relatively rich and patriotic nation – but the Queen has known for decades this day was coming (since 1972 when we joined the EEC if not well before) ad the writing was firmly on the wall 20 years later in 1992 with the Maastricht treaty. The fact is that the Monarch has never been sovereign for decades. The even sadder fact is, she knows it and she has worked hand in hand with the agenda because it is precisely what she wishes for.

So now, your (and my) “Queen” is softening the UK public up to accept the reality of the EU. To all those Royalists and those who have scoffed at those of us who have said you no longer HAVE a real Queen or Monarchy while you waved your flags and bought your mugs and got all patriotic and teary eyed at the Royal Weddings, rather than BUY your mug don’t you FEEL like one?

She broke her Coronation Oath from the minute she stood up from the throne having been given her Crown!

 

 

182540.html

 

 

So you believe that the Royals are “concerned” about this beloved United Kingdom of theirs splitting up into nice easier swallowed chunks by the EU do you? You think Salmond’s rhetoric and the step by step approach to devolution over the years since, strangely, we joined the EEC in 1972, is al just “coincidence” do you? Are you SO blind to be unable to recognise you’ve been had and your blindness and unwillingness to listen to those who you believe are just “anti monarchists” and therefore, unpatriotic (when in fact is more precisely the opposite but we see what the Queen and Her Majesty’s Government have been doing these last few decades) STILL will have you remain in denial.

Yes Charlie, the Royals and Salmond clearly look as if they are serious foes! He’s been doing the job of suckering the Scots into the pathetic “Bannockburn” mentality for years and all for his and their benefit and the ultimate benefit of the EU. And Scots (and the entire UK as a whole) are seriously dumbed down enough to just not get it. Too proud perhaps to admit they’ve been screwed by people they trusted so they say nothing, do nothing and allow the screws to get tighter.

Imbeciles!

 

Alex-Salmond-and-the-Prince-of-Wales-are-old-chums.html

 

 

So then on to this group of people called UKIP and, particularly, their “Leaders” Farage and Pearson. Let’s look at political rhetoric and the “Pied Piper” effect it has on the blind followers who watch the antics of Farage on his Youtube EU Parliament rants as opposed to the actual facts of the matter and the LAW of the land which, if UKIP were serious in their intent to have the UK OUT of the EU, they would have attacked the core issue and the establishment powers with this a LONG time ago but refuse to do so.

You see, it’s not just Salmond who plays a Pied Piper for Scots but Farage and UKIP do a fairly decent job in a kind of reverse fashion on the English. Yet you are ALL being “had”.

 

 

The questions which would not only shake UKIP but shake the entire system. Question is: Do you wish to use and pursue them with power? Ask yourself “How much AM I really wanting to change this country and eradicate the lies and the corrupt?” Your call.

Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?
7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?
8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?
9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?
10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?
11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?
12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.