Earthlinggb's Blog

Open letter to Charlie Gard’s parents…..

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 27, 2017

I realise that, perhaps, there will be many people who may read this who have never visited my website before and, on further reading of blogs within it, will be outraged at some of the writings in it. I’d simply say: Do not judge until you were to understand or appreciate the research, study AND personal experiences which have gone into writing this blog. I am unrepentant for writing about substantial facts and my own opinions having extrapolated from those facts. However, if Charlie Gard’s parents or others who read, are “good, conservative, law abiding citizens”, are too busy with their lives and really just think “Oh god! Another ‘conspiracy theorist’ with a website who loves to think he knows the secret of the universe and nobody else does – just him”; and, therefore, can’t be bothered to read, consider very carefully and understand, then so be it. Also, if ANYONE chooses to form the opinion that I am “ANTI SEMITIC”, then first do me the courtesy of defining what it is to be “SEMITIC”. Once you do that, I shall honestly answer whether, in fact, I AM “anti semitic”. If you say something as inane as “it means you hate jews” then, no, I refute that allegation. I DISTRUST jews, yes, but I cannot state that I hate (or even distrust) ALL jews because I have never met ALL jews. My distrust stems from years of both, direct experience of them (although it is not only jews I distrust) and from my study of history and extrapolating facts related to such history that we were never taught – nor were many elements of history which were “flavoured” significantly by jewish manipulation. When you then study the nature and creation of the State (particularly the British State), it becomes clear as to why such elements were never discussed and taught in or out of schools.

I have been ranting on this “legal person” issue for years and yet, in comparison to articles about David Bloody Icke and friends (I should really delete those articles because I get sick of seeing how many people read them rather than read the serious articles which impact them FAR more significantly) it gets very little attention YET it fundamentally affects each and everyone of us in such a “biblically” negative fashion – IF people took the time…… ah but there I go again thinking there is the possibility that the majority of people may actually apply themselves to understanding why their lives are such a misery!


The following “Guardian” article is as clear as day. It is pointing directly at what many people, who have an understanding of this dreadful fraud of the “legal person”, have been trying, desperately, to get the world to understand for years now. But it would appear the world simply doesn’t wish to know – ignorance is bliss and all that. But HOW “blissful” is your life? If ignorance is bliss, why do you complain? Why do you vote? What are you voting for if ignorance is bliss? You must be ignorant of what the government is doing to you surely? You’re not? Ah! Then that would suggest that you don’t like to be ignorant and you see what you don’t like so wish to change it and, therefore vote! But what if voting didn’t change anything? After centuries of having a vote, where are we? We’re here, in a world which is in a spiralling decline – a decline of living standards for many while a very small fraction of the world’s population grows ever increasingly more affluent (and that percentage of the population itself, forever decreases); a decline of morality and an increase in depravity; increasing divisions between people; “law” that simply does not work (for the common man); I could go on but….

I’d like you to consider something: What is far more important to the State? A single child’s life OR State authority? Keep bearing this in mind as you read this entire blog article.

The author of this Guardian article – whether he appreciates it or not – “plays” with the reader in a sense. He (“he”, assuming that is his gender preference – you can’t be too careful these days can you?) provides an example of the State (in New Zealand), in another instance, making a child, whose parents had decided they wanted care for their child to be withdrawn (turn off the ventilator), a “ward of the state” and the state decided to allow the child to live. So he’s suggesting “you can’t have it both ways” and that the State is the arbiter of all that is good. He adds “This process depends of course on acceptance of the SUPREMACY of reasoned argument over passion and the acceptance of the INDEPENDENCE AND AUTHORITY of the courts”. But while he points to these two separate judgements – thereby suggesting “each case is judged on the court’s dispassionate merits – what he omits is a “judgement” which is even more profound than a court’s arbitrary decision. That is: IS LIFE SACRED? He doesn’t touch on this because that would then make his argument re the “authority of the courts” redundant. Do you see this?

However, let’s concentrate on the first issue: The court decides to let a child die and the court decides to let a child live. Considering the rights of the child is being heralded by the author, Mr Kennedy, in support of the courts and the State, one must remember that the “Rights of the Child” are adopted from the “highest court” in the world; that is to say the Articles of Declaration of HUMAN Rights (and let us ignore, for the moment, the deception of such an article which I have previously blogged about and will refer to later):

Right to life

1Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

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

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

The above is taken from the United Kingdom’s adoption of the Human Rights Act of the United Nations. There is a lot which can be discussed in this one article and I have, previously done so. However, for now, look carefully and THINK carefully: Does it state, anywhere, that a living, breathing child (or adult) may have his or her life extinguished merely because they are disabled in any way? No, it does not. Does it state or even suggest that a child whose chances of life are small, should be allowed to just die in accordance with the dictate of a court (or anyone for that matter)? No, it does not. By disallowing a human being to fight for his/her own life, the court is effectively murdering that human being. There is NO argument here – and remember, this is in accordance with their OWN “law”.

However, the court will never accept this allegation of murder by them and there is a “lawful” reason as to why which might just surprise (or shock) you. Did the court DIRECTLY murder Charlie Gard? No. However, it has purposefully, but INDIRECTLY murdered him. The child is going to die without medical intervention. Would he die WITH medical intervention? We don’t know. Noone does for sure but the Court dictates that the child is given no chance. Life, therefore, is not sacred to this court.

What does the jewish Talmud say?:

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, ‘one must not lift one’s hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice (i.e. it is acceptable to cause death by indirect means).., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly’. He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile’s death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews. A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.

I have done my research and I can assure you that “British Law” is composed of huge swathes of Talmudic Law.

Do you think this is just more “anti semitism” on my part? Well, perhaps it is. If “semitism” is equated with judaical teaching from their Talmud then it certainly is. Consider the following (originally from “semiticcontrversies.blogspot”:

Jewish and Zionist Influence at the UK Supreme Court
The UK Supreme Court that was created in 2009 has been in the news lately, because it is to make a decision as to whether the British government can proceed with negotiating Brexit without consulting parliament on each and every element of the terms of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

This however is just the latest in a series of major decisions that the UK Supreme Court has been asked to make. Indeed it has already been criticised for acting less like a court, but rather like a powerful unacknowledged and unelected legislative body. (1)

Since the UK Supreme Court is therefore rather powerful – or at least perceived to be so – then it is of interest to examine the extent of jewish and Zionist influence therein.

In the first instance it is important to note that as early as 2010 it was disclosed that being a member of pro-Israel lobbying groups is not regarded as bias (and therefore a conflict of interest) by the court. (2) This obviously does not bode well since it necessarily suggests that the members of UK Supreme Court have special reason (i.e. they are jewish and/or pro-Israel themselves) not to regard pro-Israel lobbying as a form of bias when it clearly is.

When we examine the eleven current members of the UK Supreme Court; (3) we find that only one is in fact jewish.

This is its current president: David Neuberger. (4) Who is the brother of the prominent liberal Zionist rabbi Julia Neuberger. (5) Who also happens to be the spiritual leader of Terence Etherton’s, the current Master of the Rolls and one of the judges who rejected the government’s Brexit case, synagogue. (6)

Neuberger has also previously admitted that he only ‘skims the files’ of the cases that he is sent. (7)
Despite the fact that only one of the eleven members of the Supreme Court is jewish. Three of the current members hold pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist views or strong connections to those who do.

These individuals are follows.

Brenda Hale, Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court, who was the leader of the British-Israeli Legal Exchange in 2010. (8) In the same year she spoke of her admiration for Israel. In addition to stating that Germany should always feel guilty for the ‘Holocaust’ (and similarly South Africa is eternally guilty for the crime of Apartheid), while Israel should continue using it as a weapon to drum up more funds and support for its policies. (9)

Oh and did I mention that she also wants women to be given preferential treatment over better qualified men in order to enforce ‘diversity’ when the current UK Supreme Court members step down? (10)

Clearly Hale doesn’t have any kind of political agenda at all… does she?

Next we have Jonathan Mance whose current judicial assistant is one Jacob Turner.

In the UK Supreme Court blog Turner describes his previous work history as follows:

‘Prior to becoming Judicial Assistant, Jacob was a solicitor-advocate in the London office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, where he specialised in international litigation and arbitration with a focus on sovereign clients. He previously worked as a law tutor at Oxford and King’s College London and at the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations in New York, as a consultant legal advisor and speechwriter to the Ambassador. He studied at Oxford and Harvard Universities. Outside of the law, he enjoys playing sport and writing.’ (11)

Right… so why on earth is a former ‘consultant legal advisor and speechwriter’ for Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations the judicial assistant of a member of the UK’s Supreme Court?

How on earth is that not a direct conflict of interest or suggestive of the fact that Turner’s loyalty is to Israel not to the United Kingdom?

Then we have Nicholas Wilson who, in a case he himself cites as proof of his ideological and ethical convictions, decided that a young quarter-jewish girl had to be raised a family of purely jewish descent, because otherwise her jewishness would be lost. (12)

Wilson is also a major proponent of forcing the British people to accept ‘gay marriage’ and was part of the 2014 legal ruling which allowed homosexuals to ‘fully marry’ and not just have a form of ‘weakened marriage’ (aka a civil union). (13)

Adding Hale’s love of Israel, Mance’s Israeli Judicial Assistant and Wilson’s extreme philo-Semitism to Neuberger’s influence as President of the Supreme Court makes the overt pro-Israel/pro-jewish bloc four out of the eleven members.

The only real foe of this bloc looks to be Jonathan Sumption who is a vocal opponent of both enforced diversity in the legal profession (14) and of the concept of ‘collective guilt’ practised by the jews against both the Germans and Palestinians. (15)

In addition to this; two individuals have been tipped to be the next appointments to the UK Supreme Court when there are vacancies. These prospective appointees are Victoria Sharp and Heather Hallett. (16)

Victoria Sharp is jewish, (17) while Heather Hallett is, like Brenda Hale, an advocate of enforced ‘diversity’ in the legal profession. (18)

Thus we have another jew who is likely to sit on the Supreme Court as soon as one of the existing judges retires, which – given the ages of those concerned – is not likely to be one of the pro-Israel/pro-jewish bloc. Therefore in all probability making five out of eleven members of the court being jewish and/or pro-Israel.

This scale of jewish influence on the UK Supreme Court is nothing new. Since in 2010, one year after its creation, four out of the eleven members were jewish. (19)

These individuals were:

Lawrence Collins; (20) who believes, among other things, that there is no time or numerical limit on what Germany should pay Israel and the jewish people in ‘Holocaust Reparations’ and is an influential advocate of continued (and eternal) financial reparations from non-jews to jews for alleged atrocities. (21)

Nicholas Phillips; (22) who was, before his retirement from the post, the President of Supreme Court from 2009 to 2012 (i.e. the post has been consecutively occupied by two jews Phillips and Neuberger) and wanted to introduce Sharia into the UK as a parallel legal system. (23)
Simon Brown (24)

John Dyson; (25) who then became the Master of Rolls between 2012 and 2016 (26) when the post was taken over by his fellow jew Terence Etherton. (27)

So in other words four out of the nine former members of the UK Supreme Court have been jews.

This then gives us the figure that out of the twenty individuals that have been on the UK Supreme Court five have been jewish, while another three of the non-jews have been pro-Israel and a likely future appointee to the court is jewish.

Considering that they are half a percent of the UK population: (28) why have a quarter of all the members of the UK Supreme Court been jewish?

Think about it.


(17) Frederick Wright, 2015, ‘Solicitor v. the Establishment’, 3rd Edition, Self-Published: London, p. 145
(20) Ibid.
(21) Cf. Lawrence Collins, 2008, ‘Reflections on Holocaust Claims in International Law’, Israel Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 402-442; also
(24) ;

Now consider this Guardian Article:

“The dominant, indeed almost universal, approach to date in the UK has been to pay no heed whatsoever to the religious and/or cultural background of those who are appointed to the Bench, albeit that the Jewish Chronicle reports in brief that the appointment of Sir John Dyson to the UK Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by Lord Neuberger’s appointment as Master of the Rolls maintains the number of Jewish justices on the court at four.”

Now, think VERY carefully about what is happening here. Do NOT make the mistake of believing that these judges’ PERSONal philosophies and religions do not influence their decisions! While, also do not overlook this: The make up of a court is of PERSONS. PERSONS are “equal before the law” we are given to believe in (haha – this is the biggest joke going) yet THESE PERSONS philosophies of life are being given more importance than YOURS! These PERSONS judge YOUR PERSON! This is where the “Supremacy of law” and Ian Kennedy’s “We must acknowledge the authority of our courts” comes in. They desperately must have you believe in that authority! Yet, as is obvious, the JEWISH CHRONICLE likes (very much) that jews occupy significant seats of power within not only our judiciary but in every nook and cranny of British (and American) life. IF their philosophy and religion is NOT of importance (which our media and judiciary would like us all to believe) then WHY is it so important to jews and the jewish chronicle? Answer: Because it IS important!

If you refuse to acknowledge that which is clear, then what can I do but simply roll my eyes in despair!

Returning to the Declaration of human rights:

Now, compare the above British version of “Right to life” with the UN Article from whence it came:

Article 3.

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

A noticeable difference don’t you think? Where is the U.N.’s version of paragraph 2 regarding “Deprivation of life”? Nowhere to be seen! Make no mistake: Such a difference is immense!

But here is another thing: That word “PERSON”. Here is another article in the U.N.’s Declaration:

Article 6.

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

It does not state “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere before the law” which, if one reads it, is entirely understandable as stated. It does not need anything added to it for anyone to appreciate fully what it means. So then WHY does it not simply say that instead of “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”?



HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083

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

Now, whether we in the UK (or the US or any other State) wish to consider ourselves “Subjects” or “Citizens” matters not: As “legal persons” we are all subject to the whims of the State. The State NEVER will relinquish its power. NEVER! It ensures such by, ironically, the very Articles of “Human Rights” it deceptively allows you to think protect YOU! How does it do this? By Paragraph 2 (c) of the article “Right of Life” which then justifies deprivation of life (i.e. MURDER). Read it again:

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

What is an “insurrection”?

“an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.”

Who decides what constitutes such an act?

The State!

The fact is, this entire blog of mine – if the State so wished and considered it to be a threat to its existence – could consider (and would) the blog to be an act of revolt, rebellion or resistance against it. In fact, it is not outwith the bounds of reason that that day will come! IF the State starts to lose control to any extent it feels it cannot recover from without taking such action.

Another irony. The preamble to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights states as follows:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

The irony being that each and every STATE, which has adopted the UN articles, have included paragraph 2 (c) to allow them to use those very barbarous acts against each and every “person” who may threaten them and, by so doing, they have protected their right – as a “person”, because a State is ALSO a “person”, to protect itself from you! Do you recognise the convoluted brilliance in this? It is almost magical in its brilliance! I really have to tip my hat to them – it’s astoundingly brilliant!

Now, I recognise, with the above, I have, on the face of it, wandered off course but, in reality (and if you can decipher all of this) you will recognise that, in fact, I haven’t but have just expanded on the same issue which impacts Charlie Gard and his parents. Charlie Gard’s parents are legal persons and, therefore, subject to the State. Charlie Gard’s parents’ marriage is a legal contract whose main beneficiary is – you’ve go it – the State.

But back to Charlie specifically:

We’ve looked at the UN’s articles of Human Rights and seen that there is nowhere (either in the UNs version OR the British State’s version) which justifies the State (or the parents for that matter IF they had wished to) being allowed to stop a human being from attempting to hold on to life. Further, however, we must ask an even more critical question which Ian Kennedy of the Guardian does not consider in his “one court allowed life, another disallowed life” based on some “supremacy of  the dispassionate, reasoned argument and independence and authority of the courts” – the man is certainly not an anarchist! 🙂

That question is this: IS LIFE SACRED?

In answer to this, from the political, legal and current sociological world, you will get conflicting answers. Not only from separate players within it but from each individual player. For example, let’s ask the question of George Bernard Shaw:

Two things:

  1. The reference to Naziism and the holocaust: Ignore, It is not the point. Furthermore, so much of that is in dispute, whether you agree or not. The point is Shaw’s words.
  2. You may consider this just some old “twat” of a man’s viewpoint which has no bearing on today. You could not be more wrong.

A third thing may be to consider and appreciate that “The State” is not only your politicians and those who you consider to be your representatives in government. “The State” is not even that abominable monarch we call the Queen and all her little “rats” that keep churning out lifeforms who, simply by their existence, have rights you could only dream of. “The State” consists of, not only those but, perhaps even moreso, the powers that form the opinion and legislation that you see the people you THINK are “The State” implementing. These people include people like Bill Gates today, Christiana Figueres (UN), religious leaders, bankers (the $billion club) etc etc.

You might say “But the world IS overpopulated!”

But you’re wrong. What IS overpopulated is certain landmasses and, particularly, cities. And it is by design. However, once more, we wander off subject (while, again, it is entirely related). I could literally take you a journey from one global issue to another – sociological, legal, military, global economics and money; almost whatever subject you care to discuss – and relate it back to the legal person. It is very difficult not to stray when you have, in your head, a multitude of connections which build the “jigsaw” to the point of seeing the “big picture” which confronts the human race.

“Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.” – J Edgar Hoover. In its correct context, taken from “The Elks Magazine” (August 1956), he is speaking of communism, however, when one reflects on the fact that communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin (if you have done any significant research, you will appreciate this. If not, I can’t help you other than suggest you educate yourself), one appreciates that the conspiracy transcends political ideology fed to us to make us believe in choice and, as such, is even more monstrous than Hoover suggests.

So, with that, I would point any and all readers of this – IF you have the interest and capacity to consider carefully what the following articles are laying out as plainly as I possibly can AND if you have more than a 10 second concentration span and are happy to read and not just let youtube videos wash over you – to earnestly give their time and attention to the following. There are many more related articles in this blog if you wish to look for them but these two are among the most important:

If you thought that one was long, try this one:

However, with the state of education today, too many people think they can have others explain things to them in a Facebook post! Sorry, but when something is as deeply rooted and “protected” and hidden as this, I’m afraid an 8 second soundbite just doesn’t cover it. If you’re too lazy (or too stupid) to apply yourself to understanding then get the hell off this blog! It’s NOT for you!

And don’t forget the girl who didn’t exist ok? Jade Jacobs Brooks. There’s been a few others around the world (and there are tons more in 3rd world countries and the like of Palestine – probably why Israel gets away with murdering so many – “they don’t exist”. Why? Well, they have no birth certificates and, thereby, are non legal persons and thereby, again, have no “human rights” – oh yes this “rabbit hole” is deep!


Your life is your own but your legal existence belongs to the Crown! Remember that!

You cannot participate in “The Game of life” (or “Monopoly”) without your board piece. That “piece” being your Birth certificate and the “board” belongs to the Crown just as you do!

The immense irony: Charlie, you are going to die because you exist!


Is Caitlyn Jenner a murderer?

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



Did this “woman” murder this man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, what about this:


Insurance fraud

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

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

But back to the legal issue:

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

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

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

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

Kris Jenner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knock yourselves out girls! 😉

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


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

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

The War on Dads

Posted in Uncategorized by earthlinggb on January 11, 2015

A war which is no acknowledged but which is very real – not only in the UK but throughout the world. Where courts from Scotland to Singapore will entirely support a woman (even when they are proven perjurers within that court!) to kick the living shit out of their husbands both, financially and emotionally. Where absolute truth doesn’t even get a look in and when it is presented to the court, it is recognised but then swept under the carpet. It’s an embarrassment to a court when their agenda is to destroy the father (why? Do your homework, I’m sick of giving lessons) that the father may then present undeniable perjury and deception of the “mother” (in commas because what mother in her right mind destroys the love of her children toward their father? Using deception and lies, that is, in itself, child abuse because the child then goes through life believing their father was something he wasn’t and believe he didn’t love them enough. The fact is, the “mother” didn’t love her children more than she despised their father and she only despised their father because she couldn’t get the better of him and her lies and deception were transparent to him). Trouble is, when you get to the point of presenting 100% evidence which is accepted as fact by a court and they then proceed to ignore it; When you are then faced with the court demanding you do as they say and you can’t because you’re non plussed by their ignorance of what you have just provided to them, you tend to be thrown in jail – not for any crime whatsoever but for the sheer fact that you boldly stated “No” to their corrupt demand. That is “CONTEMPT OF COURT” (another name for “Shit! You won’t bend to our force. Well this might break you!”

Meanwhile, the kids get told “Daddy’s a criminal and that’s why he’s in jail”. Do you think they ever forget this? Meanwhile, they literally have no idea of the real reasoning behind it and they’ve been sufficiently brainwashed to consider the truth daddy tells them is lies and “Mummy loves us. She’d never lie. She’d never have an affair and then go on the attack toward daddy because she wanted out and the freedom to pursue that affair. The kids never understand why daddy was screaming at mum in the last few months of a 20 year relationship when, for the first decade or so of the kids’ lives they never experienced anything like it. “He’s just a friend who buys all your toys and phones and gives mummy money because your dad isn’t” without explaining why dad can’t because the same guy is bankrolling mummy and mummy’s taking him to mummy and daddy’s house (worth half a million) stating “Don’t worry honey, once this is over, this house will be yours and mine – I’ll pay you back!”

And then you have a Singaporean family court and Supreme court judge pressuring daddy to “negotiate” with a woman (mummy) who knows that, in the court’s eyes, she can do no wrong no matter how wrong she is! So daddy is told “I don’t have to negotiate, you do and the price is the house, the bank accounts and the pension” – basically everything. You’d think it was Dad who had the affair!! lol

Anyhow, in this case, too bad it didn’t work out for you mummy but that incensed you didn’t it? And since it did, you continued the attack on Dad and his entire family to ensure the girls never fully understand the real story. The real sad thing is, our kids have grown up despising a father who loved and loves them dearly. They are seriously affected by that even though they shall never acknowledge it and YOU certainly won’t! You’re a sick little puppy – I feel sorry for you (meant 100%). You were once (I think) the most beautiful of women.


To: mapxxx

I suggest you put the amounts you owe into my account
ASAP before your next visit to Queenstown ..You
continue to break the law, you think you are above it
AS always . Obviously 24 hrs in there was not enough
to make you see responsibility… You have ZERO
integrity! You cannot even repay the person who loans
out cheques for YOUR children . You are the lowest of

No balls .

Queenstown prison – you enjoyed having that “power” didn’t you?

Break the law? – Nope. Ignoring the law seriously is an ass for the moment, the “24 hours” in Queenstown (and you have no idea what that was like) was for contempt due to me producing the bank accounts honey which proved your perjury. And you know this but propaganda is a great tool over a 10 and 12 year old isn’t it? You should be jewish!

He “loaned out cheques” for my children did he? Well that was his way of paying for you and them. Take another man’s family, it’s gonna cost you. You see, I don’t subscribe to a law which ignores its own laws (such as perjury) – I subscribe to natural law. You want the wife and kids, then you pay for them. Meanwhile, he was coming after my assets (and thought he’d get them – sorry bud, shit always gets revealed) so I was to roll over and give him and you them? Give him my family AND pay for him and you to ENJOY my children?

Nah. Ain’t gonna happen you hypocritical, abusive, deceptive, lying, perjuring little creep! 🙂

“Mr Barrister, you said Mr and Mrs X are domiciled in England yes?” “Yes indeed!”. Then they’re not domiciled in Singapore Mr Barrister, which means that Singapore court order has no lawful basis which means that, while you say an English court will uphold a Singaporean court order, it won’t if it is found that Singapore had no basis for jurisdiction over this case from the outset! Meanwhile, let me show you the contradictions and deceptions across three years of hell in Singapore Mr Barrister. What do you think?”

“Mr X, what do you want?”


The COURT SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. The LEGAL PERSON BASIC JURISPRUDENCE IS CORRUPT. The BARRISTERS, LAWYERS AND JUDGES CORRUPT. Understand this and realise that, until you do, you will NEVER receive justice (as you understand it) in a court of law because the law is not FOR you, it is for THEM! And you cannot argue and win (unless they wish you to for whatever reason) using THEIR law. It is absolutely necessary to expose their law for what it is and this is easily done. I have done it both, in blogs AND in court!

Their jurisprudence must be challenged and you can ONLY win (rightly) through the application of logic to expose their “law” for the utter shit it is. It is not a contempt of court, it is sheer and utter contempt for you!




If these deaths had occurred on a British road there would be an outcry, an inquiry and steps taken to make that road safer. So why does nobody care about Britain’s fathers?

When I met Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, a few years ago, he told me the issue of fathers and family breakdown was a “political taboo”. He was right.

For too long the Government has demonised fathers, labelling them “deadbeats” and “feckless” for cheap political capital, while denying them and their children the most basic of human rights: the right to family life.

To add insult to injury the Conservative Party betrayed fathers after breaking a 2010 election pledge to introduce shared parenting.

Politicians can’t even bring themselves to mention the f-word, “father”, either in political discourse or in legislation, where the role of fathers has been abolished legally in the 1989 Children Act, biologically in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and emotionally in our secret family courts.

Fathers are even called “non-resident” parents by the state in a euphemism cynically designed to mask the anti-father discrimination inherent in the system.

Over the past 20 years, the cancer of family breakdown has eaten away at the role of men and fathers in society.

Millions of children are growing up without the love and support of a father. One in four children live in a fatherless home. Family breakdown costs £44billion a year; more than our entire defence budget.

The destructive outcomes that flow from the exclusion of men from families are hiding in plain sight yet politicians refuse to address them.

Worse still, men have been ruthlessly pursued by agencies such as the Child Support Agency, whose Orwellian powers demonise and criminalise them as it pursues a broken child-maintenance model.

At Fathers4Justice we witness on a daily basis the suffering inflicted on men by the state.

The removal of children from a father is one of the most punitive sanctions the state can take against an individual yet, over the past 20 years, this has become the norm and has created a new “gender apartheid” which has reduced fathers to the status of McDads, sperm banks and cashpoints.

The outcomes are catastrophic. Men have been exiled from their children, excluded from their homes, pushed into extreme poverty and left depressed and suicidal.

It is no coincidence that the biggest killer of men under 45 is suicide.

I know because in 2001 I had lost my children and home after a difficult divorce. I can only describe the experience of being torn from my children as a “living bereavement”.

Unable to find help, I plunged into a dark pit of despair and at one point, with just £15 left in my pocket, had given up.

The pain of living had become intolerable. It was only a small picture of my two young boys in my wallet that saved me.

I managed to pick myself up and start Fathers4Justice but thousands of other men are not so lucky.

The spectre of depression and suicide is a silent, serial killer of men yet few people acknowledge the role family breakdown has in these deaths.

That’s why I am calling for a Minister for Men, to champion the rights of men and fathers, and give us a voice in government.

We can only begin to address the crisis through open debate and by taking meaningful steps to ensure fathers are recognised in law and enjoy shared parenting and child support rights.

WE ALSO need a safety net to support men and a major public health initiative to address what author Warren Farrell told me is the “glass cellar” (where men are at the top but also at the bottom); we die younger, are more likely to be homeless, be victims of violence, be murdered and incarcerated.

In particular we must address issues such as fatherlessness, divorce, depression, male suicide, prostate cancer, male infertility and the worrying trend in low testosterone, which affects one in four men.

These common-sense initiatives can only lead to better outcomes for our children, our families and our country, and significantly reduce the costs of family breakdown and men’s health issues to the taxpayer.

In the meantime, thousands of families in Fathers4Justice will write to Mr Duncan Smith calling for a full inquiry into the shocking death rates among separated fathers and remind him of the words of civil rights activist Frederick Douglass who said: “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”


Loves his daughter. Wishes to give her a hug on christmas day. Gets jailed for 86 days. Does it say he was accosting her or her mother? Does it say he did ANYTHING wrong other than hug his own daughter ON CHRISTMAS DAY?!

But your lack of outrage is allowing this and ONE DAY, ONE DAY (because I never dreamed it would happen to me either) something is going to happen to you with the “authorities” because you shut up and said nothing. Don’t go looking for sympathy from me when it happens.

My own daughter at the age of 13 threatened me with calling the Police in Singapore because I happened to see her on the street with her friends and asked to speak with her. A child who absolutely loved me one day and was turned into a child who hated me because she believed the lies of her mother.



Posted in Uncategorized by earthlinggb on May 14, 2014

What we have here is ANOTHER “WOMAN” supporting the legal rights of PAEDOPHILES!

If YOU are a woman with ANY morality whatsoever, you will vigorously attack this woman, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt as well as any other woman who is following this SICKENING “PROTOCOLS”- based attack on the family, parents and promoting the homosexual/paedophile agenda!

Now, I’ve blogged until I’m blue in the face (and language) regarding the LEGAL PERSON. You had BETTER start understanding that it is this “legal person” which allows for the state – and the PROTOCOLS-based, Trotsky/Marxist/Zionist/Jewish agenda – to absolutely control YOUR child, YOU and your family.

The “law” is a minefield of contradictions and political agendas. What I find hilarious is that, when you approach an MP to point out serious anomalies or issues with law, they suggest you take it up with a lawyer and court since they can have “no influence” over the courts. However, the reality is that the UK House of Commons (even though the House of Lords can delay a bill) is the LEGISLATIVE house who are responsible for our laws (they have the equivalent of “parental responsibility” in effect without accepting the accountability – see video for a discussion of this re parents by Reece). Law EMANATES from politics! However, my point regarding the “minefield” is that, for example, while Reece speaks of Parental Responsibility rather than what was Parental Rights, what is unsaid here – even though the argument sounds balanced and we wish to ensure children are protected and safe – is that, by changing the emphasis in 1989, what we have seen since and ongoing, is a “grab” by the government of our children. YOU brought them into the world and, while I agree they are not our possessions per se, I strongly advocate that, as a minor, a parent should have (“should have?” it’s obvious!) full control over their child(ren) as opposed to the State, UNLESS it is proven (by a JURY of peers, which we no longer have either!) that the child has been harmed in some significant way. I say “some significant way” because the reality is, we are ALL harmed to some degree or another as children by our parents (and, I may add by society). The government harms children by having them born with a debt over their heads! Nobody says a word about that though! I could go on for a long time on this and expand but the blogpost would become a book.

Edwina Currie, as you will hear in my blog related to Sonia Poulton just yesterday, makes a comment – rather out of the blue since the organisation had not even been mentioned in the discussion – regarding the “conspiracy” being equated with the LSE (London School of Economics). You have to simply ask yourself why she even considered raising the LSE in that context in her condescending fashion. Well, it’s because she is more than aware that the LSE is fundamental to the subversion in this country. However, to understand how real that is, you would have to research the LSE, the number of connections it has had with global politics, terrorism and how substantial funding was given to it and the University of London, by the Rockefellers.


Someone asked me yesterday whether I was aware of the “Responsible person” being introduced in Scotland for each and every child born in the country. At first I said no I had not heard of it but, when explained, I realised I had but just had not connected with the phrase since, at first, it wasn’t mentioned as being connected to children when the person mentioned it.


Helen Reece is a middle-class Sexual Bolshevist and radical feminist agitator in the United Kingdom. She is a barrister and a reader in law at the London School of Economics. Her specialised field is attempting to undermine the family and subvert law in regards to the “regulation of the family”. In her earlier period, she was known for agitating to have innocent children placed with sodomites as part of adoption. This has naturally developed into her agitating to have children handed over to convicted pedophiles and rapists.[2]

She is involved with the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent, a critical theory style, cultural Marxist association, founded by Frank Furedi and Ellie Lee. The former a Trotskyist Jew,[3] red professor and pro-pedophile activist, who previous founded and led the Revolutionary Communist Party. The latter a sociology ideologue and apologist for the Abortion Holocaust with the Pro-Choice Forum.

Reece drew the attention of anti-child abuse groups in 2010, when she began to openly agitate to hand children over for adoption to pedophiles.[2] At the time of her agitation laws are in place to stop pedophiles and sex offenders from getting their hands on children. In an article in the Child and Family Law Quarterly, she called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to lift laws automatically banning sex offenders from getting their hands on children, invoking the human rights hoax and so-called “discrimination”.[2] She claimed that under article 14 of the so-called European Convention of Human Rights, governments who are not pro-pedophile enough may be challenged legally.[6]


Frank Furedi:



Update: Since writing this blog in 2014, it has just come to my attention that Helen Reece died of cancer last year at the age of 48. I wish to say that, while I attacked the woman, her connections and her politics – which all disgusted me and I will continue to attack anyone with the same mindset and agenda or who do work which, knowingly or unknowingly, promulgates the overall agenda – I get no satisfaction out of the death of anyone (except for, perhaps, Rothschilds and Rockefellers, Kissingers, Clintons, Bush’s, Blairs etc etc). Ok, I’m not perfect – wouldn’t want to be in this case!



“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

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

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

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

First homosexuality

then bisexuality

then omnisexuality (anything goes)


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

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

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

David Icke: Is TPV breaking the law?

Posted in Media by earthlinggb on December 6, 2013

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


Mr Baker said that interns should know their rights.

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

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

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

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

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

How STUPID are you?

Destroying the mindgame!

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on November 28, 2013

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

Debate or shut up!

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

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

So let’s start with the INSTITUTIONS:

The European Union

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

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

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

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

Now, how did the EU gain its legal existence?

Well, like any other Corporation and Nation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ain’t that the truth!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Juristic Person.I

Author(s): George F. Deiser

Reviewed work(s):

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

Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George F. Deiser. 3313312.pdf

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

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

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

See Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_Kingdom

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

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


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.


The Human Rights of dolphins

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 27, 2013

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

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

Don’t believe me? Try this:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dolphin persons

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Answer: You don’t have one!

Why? Because YOU are a LEGAL PERSON SLAVE!

Meanwhile……. in Canada.

Canadian Queen oath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you think you are not captive? 🙂




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

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

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

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



HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

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

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

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

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



HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65


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

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


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


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

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




Posted in Law by earthlinggb on May 13, 2013

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

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

Good evening to you all!









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:







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:



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?


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.


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?


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.




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.


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.


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



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


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:



A violent uprising against an authority or government: “opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection”.
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!


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.


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!


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?


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!

The Girl who could not commit a crime!

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on April 3, 2012



27 March 2012 Last updated at 12:52

Jade Jacobs-Brooks’ 20-year birth certificate battle

Jade Jacobs-BrooksJade Jacobs-Brooks was 20 before she got a birth certificate

Getting a birth certificate is something most people take for granted.

For Jade Jacobs-Brooks and her parents, it was a mammoth task that resulted in a relentless battle spanning two decades.

Miss Jacobs-Brooks, 20, from Harlow, Essex, was born in Alicante, in Spain, in September 1991.

But she had no paperwork to prove it because of a bureaucratic mix-up between British and Spanish authorities.

It meant she was unable to get a passport, vote or move out of the family home.

Even nights out with her friends were difficult because she had no identification to prove her age.

“It’s been incredibly frustrating,” she said.

“When I turned 18, everyone was going to bars and clubs but I couldn’t go because I didn’t have any identification.

“For me, it was more upsetting than anything.”

The saga began following Miss Jacobs-Brooks’ birth when her parents, Linda Jacobs and Victor Brooks, contacted officials in Spain.

“Start Quote




Andrew DennySolicitor

Everything appeared to have been signed off correctly and the couple received a temporary passport for their daughter.

They were told the birth could then be registered in the UK.

But after returning home, British officials said the documents were invalid.

The family contacted the Veya Baja Hospital, near Alicante, to ask for the official birth certificate.

But they were told there were no records relating to Jade.

“It turned into a complete nightmare,” said Mr Brooks, 55, who works as a porter.

“We contacted the hospital and they couldn’t help us. The British officials couldn’t help.

“We had nowhere to turn.”

‘Wits’ end’Every avenue taken by Mr Brooks and Ms Jacobs resulted in a dead end.

Numerous letters were sent out appealing for help, with the government, MPs and even the Queen contacted.

Mr Brooks flew back to Alicante in attempt to resolve the issue when his daughter was a toddler.

“We tried everything but were at our wits’ end,” said Mr Brooks.

“People said they might be able to help but no-one ever got back to us. It got to the point where I thought this would never be resolved.”

In 2008, the situation came to a head when Miss Jacobs-Brooks was 16. She got a job at a supermarket but was told she would not be able to start work unless she could prove her identity. “PROVE YOU EXIST!” What about “I’m standing right in front of you therefore I exist”?

The document Jade's parents were given in SpainThe birth document issued in Spain was invalid

Her story was published in a local newspaper and it was then that Allen and Overy, a major law firm, got involved.

Solicitor Andrew Denny, a partner at the firm, started to investigate the case.

“I just couldn’t understand why the British Government didn’t step in and work with the Spanish Government,” he said.

“She was left to sort out a case that no private individual would have had a chance of doing. I don’t think I’d have been able to solve without the help of our Madrid office.

“It’s not just a case of speaking the language, it’s working out the Spanish system.”

Miss Jacobs-Brooks had been placed in an almost impossible situation, Mr Denny said.

‘Human rights affected’Her life was on hold until she could get a birth certificate. NO “HUMAN RIGHTS”. ARE YOU SAYING A BABY JUST BORN HAS NO RIGHTS? THINK HARD ABOUT THIS! “HUMAN RIGHTS” is a misnomer! THEY ARE TALKING “LEGAL PERSON’S RIGHTS”. This is obvious now because until she is recognised as existing as a person then they are saying she has no rights!!

“Everything we take for granted, Jade was not able to do,” said Mr Denny.

“The right to be able to work, to move freely and travel – she was being denied all that. It was impacting on her human rights.

“If she had been a prisoner in a Spanish jail she would have probably got more help.”


Following the intervention of lawyers, the hospital in Spain was finally able to locate a document relating to Miss Jacobs-Brooks’ birth.

Jade Jacobs-Brooks as a babyJade Jacobs-Brooks was flown back to the UK days after being born in Spain

After three years’ of investigation, the lawyers had found enough information to process an application for a birth certificate.

“I’m not 100% sure what went wrong at the Spanish end,” said Mr Denny.

“We may never know.”

For Miss Jacobs-Brooks and her family, the news was a huge relief. A RELIEF BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF HOW THIS IS A CONTROL GRID MECHANISM!

“We would never have been able to afford pay the legal fees to get this resolved,” Mr Brooks said.


“But we shouldn’t have been put in that position in the first place.”

Now in possession of the birth certificate, a whole host of new opportunities have opened up for Miss Jacobs-Brooks.

She has ambitions to work in the City of London having completed a course in business administration.




By WHOSE authority? Elizabetto Mussolini’s!

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on January 2, 2012

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because the system is set up corruptly to have them think that?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because you are presumed a “subject” of Her Majesty simply because you were born in this country (itself a legal fiction) and your parents were coerced (and were ignorant of the contractual terms they were signing up to) into registering your birth AS a subject of Her Majesty?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON that, contrary to all LAW, should have no more right over your person than you do over theirs?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who has bought a debt from another party (a commercial transaction), refers to itself and its BUSINESS as a Commercial enterprise and has been given the title “Sheriff Officer” by the government to suggest its legitimacy in coercing you into paying up?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON because the LEGAL PERSON (Council in this case) from whom they bought the debt, could/would not answer your questions nor take notice of the issues you had but simply stated you MUST pay and if you have any issues, to contact an ombudsman – an ombudsman who is part of, and paid for by, the same corrupt system which is coercing you? Do you think it would go your way under ANY circumstances? If it did, it would be the end of the road for the entire con and they can’t have that!

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who states they are acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in collecting such local government taxes? I guess they are because it is Her Majesty the Queen who, by Royal Prerogative, makes the decision to fight illegal wars and while a massive portion of the country’s debt is used to fight these wars, Her Majesty wants it paid back.

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who, if it came to it, would have Kenny McCaskill and Alex Salmond and then possibly even Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, support their corner to keep the con going while Clarke himself, is a criminal of the highest order against the Constitution (highest law of their making) and if Her Majesty doesn’t know this then Her Majesty is a twat!

If you are, then read the following:

First of all, definitions. These definitions, as you can tell if you read the link, are from a respected legal source so please, under no circumstances, suggest “theory”. It is getting old and worn out.

About In Brief

What is In Brief

In Brief is a growing legal resource providing information on the laws of England and Wales.  It contains articles on a variety of legal issues, written in layman’s terms by ourteam of writers. They have extensive legal knowledge and experience in their particular area of the law and provide high quality information on the topics we cover.

In Brief aims to be the largest source of legal material of its kind anywhere on the Internet.  A site devoted to informing the public about laws relevant to them and providing people with an encyclopaedia of articles onEnglish law.


Legal Personality

Only legal ‘persons’ can become liable or pursue an action under the law.

Types of legal person

  • A natural person i.e. a human being
  • An artificial person i.e. a corporation


Need I say more on the fact that a NATURAL PERSON is a legal term under the umbrella definition of a LEGAL PERSON?

No, I thought not. Thank you!

Ok, now we have that out of the way, let’s consider a Judge or Magistrate’s position and WHO HE/SHE WORKS FOR!

Magistrates’ Court

Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, are unpaid trained members of their local community.

Virtually all criminal court cases start in a magistrates’ court, and more than 90 per cent will be completed there.

The more serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in a magistrates’ court, or for full trial with a judge and jury.

Magistrates deal with three kinds of cases:

  • Summary offences. These are less serious cases, such as motoring offences and minor assaults, where the defendant is not usually entitled to trial by jury. They are generally disposed of in magistrates’ courts.
  • Either-way offences. As the name implies, these can be dealt with either by magistrates or before a judge and jury at the Crown Court. Such offences include theft and handling stolen goods. A defendant can insist on their right to trial in the Crown Court. Magistrates can also decide that a case is so serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown Court – which can impose tougher sentences if the defendant is found guilty.
  • Indictable-only offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. These must be heard at a Crown Court.

If the case is indictable-only, the magistrates’ court will generally decide whether to grant bail, consider other legal issues such as reporting restrictions, and then pass the case on to the Crown Court.

If the case is to be dealt within a magistrates’ court, the defendant(s) are asked to enter a plea. If they plead guilty or are later found to be guilty, the magistrates can impose a sentence, generally of up to six months’ imprisonment for a single offence (12 months in total), or a fine, generally of up to £5,000. If found not guilty (‘acquitted’), defendants are judged innocent in the eyes of the law and will be free to go – provided there are no other cases against them outstanding.

Cases are either heard by two or three magistrates or by one district judge.

Who are magistrates?

Justices of the Peace, as they are also known, are local people who volunteer their services. They do not require formal legal qualifications, but will have undertaken a training programme, including court and prison visits, to develop the necessary skills. They are given legal and procedural advice by qualified clerks.

District judges are legally qualified, paid, full-time professionals and are usually based in the larger cities. They normally hear the more complex or sensitive cases.

There are approximately 30,000 magistrates, 140 district judges and 170 deputy district judges operating in the roughly 330 magistrates’ courts throughout England and Wales.

Justices’ Clerks

Because magistrates do not need to have legal qualifications, they are advised in court on matters of law, practice and procedure. This advice is provided by Justices’ Clerks and Assistant Justices’ Clerks.

Magistrates in the criminal court

Over 95 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ court.

Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases including motoring offences, commit to higher courts serious cases such as rape and murder, consider bail applications, deal with fine enforcement and grant search warrant and right of entry applications. They may also consider cases where people have not paid their council tax, their vehicle excise licence or TV licences.

All magistrates sit in adult criminal courts as panels of three, mixed in gender, age, ethnicity etc whenever possible to bring a broad experience of life to the bench. All three have equal decision-making powers but only one, the chairman will speak in court and preside over the proceedings. The two magistrates sitting either side are referred to as wingers.

Most of the cases are brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but there are other prosecution agencies such as RSPCA, Environment Agency, Department of Work and Pensions, English Nature etc.

Where a defendant pleads not guilty a trial will be held where the magistrates listen to, and sometimes see, evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence, decide on agreed facts and facts in dispute and consider whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Having found someone guilty or when someone has pleaded, the magistrates proceed to sentence using a structured decision making process and sentencing guidelines which set out the expected penalty for typical offences. They will also take note of case law and any practice directions from the higher courts and are advised in court by a legally qualified adviser.

For a single criminal offence committed by an adult, a magistrate’s sentencing powers include the imposition of fines, Community Payback orders, probation orders or a period of not more than six months in custody (a total of 12 months for multiple offences). Magistrates may also sit in the Crown Court with a judge to hear appeals from magistrates’ courts against conviction or sentence and proceedings on committal to the Crown Court for sentence.

So, let’s just face the indisputable fact that, while the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) brings a case before the court – and, in the case of a non payment of Council Tax in Scotland, it will be a Sheriff Officer who states they are authorised by Her Majesty – the Magistrate (or Judge) WORKS for the SAME CROWN! Meanwhile the prosecuting lawyer is a member of the Bar and if ANY lawyer or solicitor does NOT operate within the rules and procedures dictated by the Crown THEY WILL BE DISBARRED!

So, you have an “unholy trinity” facing you which, under no circumstances, will allow natural law (or even their OWN law) to interfere with their judgement upon you. You start to attack the fundamental basis of law and even their own stated law and they will simply refuse to listen and, worse, may imprison you for having the audacity (and intelligence) to destroy their mind game. You will be held in “Contempt of court” which simply means you are QUESTIONING them!

The Judge and the Crown state that one cannot be offered a fair hearing or trial if there is any other party in the proceedings who has a conflict of interest! Do you see a conflict of interest here? The entire set up is a conflict of interest!

Now, if you do not recognise a coercive mafia and dictatorship before you then you are simply past help!

Ok, let’s move on:

Here we have a “Charge for payment of Money”

Let’s go through this stage by stage:

1. Applicant: City of Edinburgh Council.

What do they want? Well, for over 2 years they have wanted my payment of Council Tax. Simple.

Why do they want it? Because that’s the “law” and “everyone has to pay the local government for services rendered – Police (joke), Roads (joke), Libraries, schools, Fire services, Rubbish collection, Trams (BIG joke!), Climate change initiatives (MASSIVE joke!), payment of Council workers PENSIONS, etc etc…..

2. Against: Me! Why? Because I made it clear that I refused to pay a tax to any UK government body because:

a) the UK government have broken their own laws and are committing treason in taking this country into the EU (fact – look up the Bill of rights which they continue to use when it is advantageous to them to do so). It states “No foreign STATES”. What is Brussels? So Her Majestic one (whether by a gun to her head or not) has sold this country out. She is not “ruling” (and neither is her government) by the law of her realm (unless she now sees the EU as her realm?). She has broken the Monarch’s oath and her Ministers have allowed her to do so.

b) If I assume the part of “subject” then the above kicks in. If I do not (and I don’t because I am subject to no-one and if the UK government wish to use force by way of their Domestic terrorist unit, aka Police, then let them show their hand to the entire country in an open court of law with a jury who happen to have logical intelligence) then I do not assume the capacity of a “legal person” whose “benefits” were COERCIVELY conferred upon me at birth when I had neither capacity nor capability to make my own decision as to whether I would accept such a role.

c) The British government have committed warcrimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and have been found, on numerous occasions, to have lied to the British people. This is fact and it is proven. Meanwhile, the overall national debt (which is entirely unnecessary to have at all) is used, in great part, to fund such illegal wars.

d) The local governments are nothing more nor nothing less than coercive tax collectors. Meanwhile each individual taxpayer pays income tax, road tax, VAT and the list goes on. ALL of it misused and abused from kickbacks to Councillors and their favourite European or British corporation who then charge extortionate amounts for a tram system that screws up the entire city of Edinburgh, to a complete and utter con called “Climate change” pushed by the United Nations “Agenda 21” and the Club of Rome whose agenda is to push people into cities, allow the buying up of the countryside by corporations and why? For their own kickbacks.

e) Ken Clarke – Lord Chancellor. Working for Bilderberg and the very same crew who control the UN, Club of Rome and the system of banking who paid off Tony Blair handsomely because he did exactly as he was told. He worked for the bankers and not the people. Ken Clarke and the crew are all on the inside track and write legislation for the banking crew while they also benefit from it because they are then privy to the future impact analysis of that legislation and are even told what to invest in. You CANNOT get any more corrupt than that. It is legalised insider trading!

3. Summary warrant: Simply means that I get no hearing (neither do you). They are not interested in one “legal person’s” defence nor reasoning against the actions of another “legal person”. What happened to “All PERSONS are equal before the law”? They don’t want and can’t have or allow you to speak before a court and jury to state your case because then they would collapse. One must remember that the court, as well as the Council and the BUSINESS (corporation) known as “Scott & Co” are ALL “legal persons” as are you. BUT, these legal persons work together whereas we, as 60+ million “legal persons” do not. This tight knit little “mafia” want their money because the system, set up by the legislative of the UK tells them it is all necessary while that same legislative in either Holyrood or Westminster (it matters not) are ALL on the take from the banking community (or the City of London and the Crown). Bear in mind that the Crown is ALSO a legal person (legal fiction) yet it is one legal person dictating to another legal person (you). Now HOW does that work? Anyhow, a summary warrant is just that  – the disallowance by the state (who say they are there for your protection – haha) of allowing you to expose them for what they are. Criminals and their own legalised mafia.

4. Local Government Finance Act 1992: A statute (not a law) applied to you because the vast vast majority of the population are entirely ignorant and just go along with it all. Democracy is a wonderful thing for the authoritarian government. Use the majority’s ignorance to keep the minority in line. And the majority equate democracy with freedom! Effectively, then, they build their own prison. “I’m not interested in politics” says Joe, “it’s boring”. “Oh good”, says Cameron and his ilk, “we can turn the screws ever more tighter then”.

And that is precisely what they’re doing! The bankers will reward them the more they screw you. It’s that simple! You stay ignorant and enjoy it however!

5. Walter McGill (Capacity: Sheriff Officer) – Poor Walter (can I call you Wally?). Just doing his job because that’s what he’s paid to do. He doesn’t have a clue about any of this and doesn’t want to. He just wants to get his job done and fcuk anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told by these legal persons who seem to be more important legal persons (even though they are artificial legal constructs) than the natural person. The artificial legal person is given precedence in law over the living, breathing natural person. Wally’s just a robot. Perhaps he’s good at making tea too!

And ALL in her majesty’s name! A woman of flesh and blood who has been crowned as the office holder (only a CEO in effect) of Monarch. A TOTAL legal fiction

But wait….. How very strange! Read the following:

Disqualification of sheriffs principal and sheriffs.

(1)A sheriff principal to whom this subsection applies, or a sheriff, shall not, so long as he holds office as such—

(a)engage, whether directly or indirectly, in any private practice or business, or be in partnership with or employed by, or act as agent for, any person so engaged; . . . F6

3)The sheriff principal of any sheriffdom, not being either a sheriff principal who is restricted by the terms of his appointment from engaging in private practice or a sheriff principal to whom subsection (1) above applies, shall not, so long as he holds office as such, advise, or act as an advocate in any court, in any cause civil or criminal arising within or coming from that sheriffdom.

Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971

Now let’s just take another look at “Scott & Co” shall we? The name says it all of course but just for further clarification:


Scott & Company is a professional partnership with a strong reputation for service delivery and excellent performance. This reputation has been built on the back of an unrivalled blend of centralised and decentralised services and a total commitment to quality management.

Our services are provided UK wide and are managed totally in-house. We enjoy a particularly dominant position in the enforcement, recovery and investigations marketplace in Scotland.

Our business continues to expand through service excellence, reputation management and key acquisitions.

David McLaughlin
Managing Partner

Scott & Co

How nice David. Do you get paid well for being as coercive as you possibly can? How much do you buy the debt for? Or alternatively, how much commission do you get paid for squeezing that money out of people? Your “business”? Ah so you even admit it is a business. Well that’s good and honest of you David but tell me? Two things:

1. If you didn’t provide such good service and delivery (in terms of coercion) then your business wouldn’t make much of a profit would it? When are you going to be provided with firearms David? Anytime soon? Or do you expect to just keep using the Domestic terrorist unit (aka Police) to ensure you apply that pressure to people?

2. What does it say above David re the disqualification of Sheriffs? Read slowly David: Part (a) David. Yes read again David. Now read your intro David: “Partners in collection” and your company is a private practice/business YET you actually state that you are Sheriffs? HOW does that work David?

And yet, it will be totally ignored David won’t it? You break the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act just by existing in the form you do and you work on more coercion means more profit yet you get away with it. If I were to walk into court and show this to a judge, your little mafia would kick into gear and the freemason judge would have me banged up for contempt. Nice little club you have going there David! 😉

Debt Recovery

The Scott & Co Group provides consumer and commercial debt recovery services to a range of public sector and prominent private sector organisations operating in the retail, utility, financial services and other sectors.

We provide a fully comprehensive service encompassing pre-litigation recoveries utilising our sophisticated contact management processes and field resources, litigation and enforcement, and door collection services.

We manage the litigation and enforcement requirements of our clients in-house.

Our services are provided throughout the UK from our network of 14 offices. Although we engage sophisticated volume debt management processes, we strive to provide a personalised service to our clients and their customers.

We are members of the Credit Services Association, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, the Institute of Directors and the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers.

Ah! The “Society” of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers while providing a personalised service to to your CLIENTS and their CUSTOMERS. It’s a nice business David when you have a corrupt government behind you isn’t it? So the Crown makes the rules, the Crown wants payment, the Crown uses you (while you profit) to enforce that payment. When you can’t because people like me ignore “you” as a legal person (Scott & Co) it pisses you off. You run off to the Sheriff Court (oh but wait, you ARE the Sheriff!) and get a summary warrant which you then state is “In her majestic one’s name and authority” (another legal person and fiction) and boy she wants paid doesn’t she? So she has created, by way of her government, a quasi government/corporate state to ensure the Crown gets what it wants (that’s called FASCISM David! Are you a fascist David? Looks like it from where I’m standing). I guess wee Alec is entirely in tune with it all to right? After all, he loves Her Majesty and also he loves the Windpower off the coast all based upon that con called “Climate Change” which will end up imposing further Carbon tax Europe wide and wee Alex is a Europhile because, by getting out of the political union with England and Wales gives him the title of PM of Scotland – an EU Fiefdom!

But you don’t mind being a PERSON David do you? You don’t mind the PERSON in the form of the artificial company of whatever type, having precedence in law over you! You don’t mind the Climate con ramping up costs of living/fuel and the tax applied to petrol and the price going through the roof while the old woman starves or freezes to death in her poorly maintained home in the centre of 21st century Glasgow or Dundee or Edinburgh? Nah David, you don’t give a FUCK because it isn’t going to affect you is it? Why? Because you have the “law” behind you while you make ever increasing profits out of others misery and you personally make a rather decent salary out of it all which, itself, will increase exponentially as this police state ramps up! Were you a leech in a previous life David?

Meanwhile David, you will presume of me that I am some sort of benefit sucking hippy right? 🙂

Let me make this clear David. I am speaking to the LEGAL PERSON (an artificial construct) by the name of Scott & Co here: YOU ARE A FUCKING CORRUPT CRIMINAL!

So then back to the “Law” for a moment:

The “law “IS an ass but let’s just consider what even it says shall we?

A basic principle: It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest.  Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

And BOY do you have an interest!

While, as we can see with all of these Corporate persons given precedence over the natural person, we do not live under natural law any longer and have not for a very long time. So just as we have artificial persons calling the shots (in league with the legal person known as the Crown – and we don’t even know who or what the Crown is while it prosecutes us), we have UNNATURAL JUSTICE (which isn’t justice at all in any form or fashion) jailing people for non crimes! ALL good for business though when the jails (thanks again to Kennyboy Clarke) are all being privatised! Funny that isn’t it? Can you imagine a private business running a jail with no inmates? Not very profitable now is it?

[No, we do NOT know who the Crown is:

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.

While, as you will readily see from this statement by Tony Blair (just before he became the lying scum Tony Bliar), something smells with the National Grid:

HC Deb 14 February 1995 vol 254 cc792-6 …

Mr. Blair   Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?

§The Prime Minister   I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.

And do you know why there is such a monopoly while you believe you actually have a choice in suppliers? Because those “suppliers” are licensed to BILL you while the natural resources of the UK are exported and our needs imported to a great extent. And why? Because globalisation is the game and it is far more profitable to the Crown when the Crown owns and controls every last aspect of fuel and minerals and the seabed from whence they came. They then licence out the seabed (for example £64,000 per year in perpetuity for a single fibre optic cable lying on the seabed. For nothing. ZERO. NADA. Now think about the offshore wind farms, the turbines themselves and the cables laid from each turbine to the national grid which, when once laid, the investment is sunk – literally in this case. Yet the Crown charges £thousands per cable and per turbine just for sitting there in perpetuity. Add to this new knowledge you may have that Petroleum is vested in Her Majesty and that each and every Oil company who had and has wanted to be licensed has paid approximately 12.5% of the value of ALL oil pumped to the Crown because the Crown owns the mineral rights! THEN wonder at the cost of your petrol! Look it up, it’s all found in this blog.]

Now here’s an interesting story from Canada where the Crown is also enforcing its “law”. The problem is that the couple got it wrong while, even if they got it right, the Crown would STILL screw them!

“The couple maintains that, with proper interpretation of the law and proper arrangement of your business affairs, you can legally receive income as a “natural person” rather than a taxpayer, and thereby avoid income taxes.”


So where did they fundamentally go wrong? They stated they were “natural persons”. By doing so they applied a legal term to themselves and, as such, accepted the idea that they were legal persons and, as we all know, legal persons are subject to legality. They accepted the designation “natural person” thereby accepting the designation “legal person” which is imposed upon a human being by a state through the registration of birth process where one accepts (although one is too young to possibly do so AND, further, the full disclosure by the state of what it means – an abridging of your entire natural body of rights to that which the state says you have plus a legal enforcement of duties upon you – was never provided to you or your parents) that one is subject to another legal person’s rules.

I have already painstakingly, demonstrated in other blogposts the fact that YOU are a legal person and the State is a legal person as well as the Crown, the UK and the EU. The ONLY non artificial legal person with a will of its own is YOU. This is what the artificial legal person DOES NOT wish you to understand because, if you do, it is the end of the road for these corrupt bastards. In THEIR OWN LAW, ALL “persons” are equal before it!

However, to all of you Monarchists out there (such as Mr Albert Burgess) you accept the immunity from such law by a Queen and her lackeys because of some form of mental delusion which makes you bow at another’s feet! You’re PATHETIC in that regard.

But, after all this above guess what? I’m going to pay you! You know why? Because you’d get away with daylight robbery anyhow while sequestrating me (declaring me bankrupt which me, as a human living being would not be but my “legal person” would be). And that’s how you do it you bunch of fuckers. That bankruptcy would allow me no loans, no credit, I wouldn’t be able to buy a house even though I have a huge deposit for one. I would probably never get a job. So what you do is you make life fucking difficult for those you “conferred the benefits” of citizenship (or subjection) to. And I don’t intend to be a martyr when I recognise the ignorance and idiocy of the majority of the country who would just bay for my blood! You win you corrupt bastards!



You have a choice “ma’am”: It’s either in your name and you’re a fascist OR it’s not in your name and you’re a waste of space? Which is it?

U.N. inadvertently confirms “Freeman” concept

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

“Domicile” and why that Barrister shit himself: set15

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

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

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

So, back to the issue:

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

The U.N. states:

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

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


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

Again, directly from the U.N.

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

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

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

“The value of birth registration continues to be overlooked, according
to the report. It says that registration is a critical measure to
secure the recognition of every person before the law, to safeguard
the protection of his or her individual rights, and to ensure that
any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.” msg00069.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

So what is the solution? Have no birth certificate?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM 8th Nov 2011:

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

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

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

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

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

Colonel Edward Mandell-House:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM 30th November 2011:

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

Origin of terms ‘Negro’ and Afrika

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


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

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

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

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