Earthling

The Reset, the Barrister and the Legal person

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Vaccinations by earthling on April 27, 2014

The following was originally published in 2014…. Nobody listened!!

NOW “The Great Reset” is trending on Twitter: Too little too late suckers!

There’s something called “Thereset.org” and people like Michael Meacher MP are offering their name in support.

In addition, there is also a Barrister (or ex Barrister) by the name of Polly Higgins who has written a book called “Eradicating Ecocide” and has proposed to the United Nations law(s) to be considered in battling such.

Polly Higgins - Barrister.

Polly Higgins – Barrister.

Proposing anything to the United Nations, in my view, is dangerous (as I’m sure many of you out there who have your finger n the pulse are aware of). We’re all very aware of who funded and still funds the UN. If not, here’s your answer:

But I’ve brought the above up in many previous blogs so that’s nothing new but is included for anyone new to the information anyhow.

Now, Rockefeller also created and funded the Club of Rome (“Limits to growth” and “The first global revolution”) which first promulgated the concept of Global Warming and they explain in the second book, why they did so. There for all to see.

Due to that, we now have “Sustainability”, the U.N.’s “Agenda 21”, 350 million people in China relocating from their homes in rural communities to cities (the largest movement of people in the history of the human race) where the building of entire cities and blocks of flats to house them is progressing at a devastating pace. We then also have issues in the USA ala Cliven Bundy and the BLM. Again, all part of Agenda 21. Meanwhile the human race – as it is getting shoved into smaller and smaller areas throughout the world like sardines – is complaining there are too many people on the planet. Well they would think that wouldn’t they? If they are being herded by the millions into cities while the governments are being paid off by the bankers and corporations to gather up more and more “protected land”. Protect it for whom? Tortoises?

No. To protect it for them. So they may spread themselves out across their vast tracts of land they buy up and then use for their own purposes – either their palatial, multiple hectare homes or for their corporate interests.

Meanwhile, Rockefeller (and globalist friends) give speeches about population control:

Listen to his first minute or two of speech and compare his concern re population growth based upon better health with Bill Gates (his “best buddy”) talking about population reduction based upon ….. better health! How bloody strange is that? Ah but it’s not. These people are psychopaths – not very bright but extremely wealthy. They can completely contradict themselves from one minute to the next and then simply deny it or explain it or completely ignore it. Because NO-ONE challenges them on it. They are surrounded by governmental, banking, corporate and media arse lickers.

While Bill Gates isn’t a climate scientist or any kind of scientist. He’s now a fully fledged politician and corrupt bastard. Bill has an agenda and it’s Agenda 21 just as Rockefeller’s is and just as Rockefeller’s U.N. and Club of Rome’s is.

But Bill says vaccinations and, therefore better healthcare (reproductive health services means abortions of course – Bill is another one who likes to murder non legal persons. Humans but they’re non legal – get the picture?). You can’t murder something which is deemed as not existing. A great little “legal fiction” they capitalise on and get away with genocide by using. Aren’t these philanthropists great? 😉

So what’s the “Reset”? Well, look it up if you don’t know. Basically, it’s another one of these ideas to bring the human race to “freedom” of the banking/government fascist corruption. Nice website and nice logos. The trouble is it seriously smells to me like another “grassroots movement” that is anything but.

The thing I have the issue with is you have two people: Polly Higgins, Barrister and Michael Meacher (Fabian socialist and MP) involved and already manoeuvring within it while throwing THEIR ideas at the United Nations (Rockefeller central and an institution which supports the legal person and the corruption of it).

Now, let’s take a closer look at a book that Polly Higgins wrote in 2010 on the subject of “Ecocide” – something close to her heart and also close to the globalists’ hearts for reasons I gave above. They want to “protect” the vast swathes of the planet which THEY buy up. 😉

Eradicating Ecocide Corp fiction 1 Corp fiction 2 Corp fiction 3 Corp fiction 4 Corp fiction 5

She speaks at “TED talks” and at the London School of Economics and she talks about “Earth Law” – a real little scottish, tree hugging barrister then.

“In service to something greater than myself” she says. Hmmm. Echoes of George Bush and his talk about 1000 points of light and serving something greater than ourselves.

Don’t dare to be great Polly because all you are doing is regurgitating the same propaganda of those you suggest you are rallying against. Sorry girl but you’re rather stupid. And you laugh a lot don’t you? Laughing at what you think is funny about what YOU say. But it isn’t funny at all. You’re telling people on that stage what YOU think of the world as if it is what everyone should think. You are VERY dangerous. Prima facie, you sound so “lovely” – all about “journeys” and from “independence to interdependency”. Oh and the soft voice which puts it all over. Like a female Tony Blair. You’re a “Friend of the Earth” – “bring these ideas forth”, “how do we do this from a place of peace than from anger”, “How do we co-create that world” – Oh how you “ask” each and every one of us to “dare to be great too”.

Transparent as hell Polly. But ever so “sweet”.

Oh you’ve learned SO WELL dear! Really, your projection and delivery is “lovely”, How could anyone question you?

Well sweetie, it’s easy! Pardon me but you’re filled with conditioned shit! But you love it don’t you? To be on that stage, To create your “name” on the global stage. Perhaps even to be invited, at some stage, to a Bilderberg conference. You’re perfect for it Polly! Pretty Polly! Pretty Polly! Squawk!

While in the above book, Ms Barrister, you discuss the legal fiction and the legal person. So you’ll be up for the debate then while most of you peers will ignore it all and laugh it all out of court any chance they get, YOU acknowledge it all. But you do so because, in this case – your “Earth law” – it is useful to raise the issue (applied, in this case only to the corporation of course). But let’s widen the perspective Ms Higgins shall we? Let’s analyse the “Natural person” also which, after all, I have already proven over and over in other blogs, is every bit as much a legal fiction as is the corporate person.

Or is it that you’re not interested in people Ms Higgins? Just the Earth? Does that “sweetness” fall apart when you are faced with someone wishing to debate the entire law of persons with you rather than just that tree hugging Earth law?

Do you wish to be one of the “meek” Polly? What part of the earth do you wish to inherit Mme Barrister?

You can’t fight the power Polly, you took an oath remember?

Anything you achieve will have been given the power’s blessings.

Is it you who’s naive or is it you think I am?

CID officer doesn’t know what a legal fiction is! My ass!

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on February 17, 2014

The epitome of what I despise: A well trained (monkey), softly spoken, wilfully ignorant excuse for a human being who knows precisely what the legal fiction is (for if she does not, then she should be sacked considering her level within that protection racket she calls the CID) but makes the condescending remark of “I don’t know what books you’re reading”. Listen to me honey, you need to READ more books! But then you don’t “practice” law do you so you would argue you don’t need to understand it, you just enforce it. While you wish him to let you finish talking (because you do have that arrogance to believe that whatever is spat out of your mouth is of the utmost importance) but you do not extend the same grace toward allowing him to finish. In fact you don’t even listen because the one thing you cannot afford to do is have a debate on the subject of the person and common law because then you would never get your prosecution. And that’s the rub with you sweetheart: You’re not trying to protect anyone (there is no victim) and neither are you, as you suggest, trying to “get things right” for him. You don’t even wish to understand him but you demand he understands you. All you want is your conviction and, for some reason – probably for the camera and to give the public the impression that you are measured, in control and ever so fair – you keep that voice of yours “sweet” and quietly calm. But listen honey, some of us can see right through that shit. You’re a piece of work and, in my view, you’re a liar if you are suggesting that you do not have a clue what a legal fiction is. As the public become more and more aware of exactly what the legal person/legal fiction is, they will recognise you for what you (and your colleagues) are.

Unfortunately, we have a society which simply sees “drugs” and assumes a criminal. Perhaps they also have their prejudices against certain accents and/or class and you will use that to your every advantage plus the fact that the vast majority of people are as ignorant of the legal fiction as you pretend to be otherwise, in a jury of his peers – under common law – they would find there is no actual law against what he has done and find him not guilty. Personally, I don’t take drugs and I would rather not plus I’d never consider growing the stuff but that is my personal choice and preference. He, therefore, does not cause me a harm or a loss – no tort whatsoever. therefore, you are not protecting me and I don’t need your protection. You will say, on the other hand, “ah but there are people who do need our protection” (whether they wish it or not) yet all you are doing is removing freewill and choice. Anyone who bought his product would be doing it of their own freewill. Again, therefore, no victim. It’s called responsibility for one’s own actions and one’s own life. But I’ll bet you this sweetheart, if YOU don’t smoke the odd joint, your colleagues do! You bunch of corrupt, hypocritical little shits!

I wonder how this video has been released to the public however and for what reason? Interesting eh?

Come on! Spar with me you impotent Barrister!

Posted in Law by earthling on August 10, 2013

This goes out to ALL of you little caped “crusading” creeps that sit in your “Inns”. You upholders of total shit! You corrupt goons of “law”. You wearers of red bras and g-strings under your cloaks (the male robe wearers) and your strap on dildos under yours (the women robe wearers).

You sickening pieces of human filth which prop up this crass, anti-human agenda by your dealing in “persons” and fiction. You “Honourable” bastards.

 

I challenge any fcuking one of you disdainful, arrogant, up your own arse, tossers to spar with me on this point about the “person”, human rights and whether, as a “right”, the right to be recognised as a person may be waived! Oh I KNOW “it can’t!” And that is PRECISELY why your human rights shit means shit! You bunch of incompetent, cloak and wig wearing, little arseholes!

But my guess is you “won’t stoop as low as to debate such a “guttersnipe” as I am I right? Great excuse you little bastards!

 

As for the legislators – the “government” – FUCK YOU! Policed by consent indeed. Well I do not consent to being forced to accept a “right”. It is a total logical fallacy and, as well you know, a scam which is genocidal in nature your bunch of fcuking tossers!

 

Apologies to all those of you who get ever so upset at language. But you obviously don’t understand how hard you’re getting fcuked up the ass by these people otherwise the use of the WORD “fcuked” would pale into insignificance in comparison with your recognition of how hard you’re actually being fcuked at the hands of these little fcukers!

 

Twats

 

To: Elizabeth Elbro, ustych@5essexcourt.co.uk

Elizabeth,

Does the “law” uphold its own Human Rights Act of 1998? Answer that question for yourself.
I’ll assume you say of course it does!
Ok, then check out Article 6.
The UK’s own version of the Human Rights Act (1998)
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.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”.

IF IT IS A “RIGHT” THEN EVERYONE (BAR NONE) HAS THE “RIGHT” TO WAIVE THAT “RIGHT”.

Now, Elizabeth, just answer the question for yourself very logically. Is it or is it not a “right”? Now, since it is a “right” (written in their very own document) then a “right” is all about being able to ENFORCE such a right AND, alternatively, being able to waive it. For if one cannot waive their “rights” then they are not “rights” at all but, once more, enforced demands.
So, if I have a “right” to be recognised before a court as a “PERSON”, I also have a “right” to waive that “right” and NOT be recognised before the law as a person. Now, that is PRECISELY what I wish to do: NOT be recognised as a PERSON before a court but simply as a human being! As a Human being (and I assume you have heard of the “human race”?) we are all one race and, as such and as the human rights act TRIES to portray – we are all subject to the law EQUALLY therefore, it should not matter if we are gay, straight, black, white, British, non-British, Asian, disabled, pregnant etc.
Therefore, WHY do you think, does the legal ombudsman send me a letter asking all of these questions? There should be ONE question. “Are you a human being”? Period!
Now, I realise why the “person” is used by the law and by government for legislation. It is to categorise “persons”. The legal personhood is, fundamentally categorised by nationality and then it is sub-divided into multiple other categories. This is the very nature, or genesis, of Alex Ustych’s points he made regarding my ability to win my case and the reason why he assessed I had less than 50% chance.
So, the legal ombudsman simply looks at the law as it is and makes its assessment of things based upon what that law is. It doesn’t question the law. It just maintains it.
My point though is this: By disallowing me to represent myself as a “non person” and waive my fundamental – so called – “right” to my personhood, the law, and Alex Ustych, the government, the courts and the legal ombudsman are ALL in breach of my “human rights”. Such being the case, I should take you ALL to court. The problem is that it is the court system itself breaching them. Further, if I represent myself as a human and not as a person then the court will not recognise me as existing and, therefore, I shall have no standing in court to file my complaint!
Now isn’t that just the most incredible conundrum Ms Elbro? 😉
And the thing is Ms Elbro, is that your government, your judiciary, your MP and all that rule your life (for you are nothing but a subject – a nice word for a tax slave) know this to be true.
You want it in their own words? Then have a read:

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………

Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

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

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

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

And our esteemed Mr Ustych knows all of this. If he doesn’t then he should not have that robe! But the thing is, he’s quite happy supporting it. After all, he makes a fortune out of it!
You see, they deal in fictions. You, Ms Elbro, are such – a LEGAL FICTION.
Alex Ustych looked at the “laws” which relate to legal fictions and they told him that homosexual, pregnant, female, ethnic minorities are more protected than the white, straight, male variety. Every one of them could have the same contract terms as I did but the “law” would protect some legal fiction’s “rights” over others. Ignore we are all humans Ms Elbro because there is no such thing as “human rights”, only “legal person’s” privileges!
Isn’t that right Alex? Come on son, answer me so I can quote you on it! 😉 But I guess not eh? More than your jobs worth! Just keep breaching my human rights by not allowing me to waive my rights and bring that into court and keep treating me as the person. The more I think about what you uphold Alex, the more it makes me sick lad!
As for you Elizabeth, I am sure the cognitive dissonance will kick in on reading this. It does with you all.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”  Upton Sinclair.
But sure, if either one of you have the integrity to sincerely wish to protect my human rights and uphold the law as it is written (and you cannot argue with the fact that it IS written) then you get me in front of a judge and you support my case!
If you lose your job, I assure you, there’s lots of others out there! Ever packed shelves?
Regards,
Earthling

 

 

 

To: Elizabeth Elbro

Elizabeth,

You could not help to resolve the complaint unless you were capable of taking what is on record – Mr Ustych’s claim that I do not have a greater than 50% chance of winning due to my not being a pregnant woman, a gay or an ethnic minority then noting what is also on record that my ex employer breached contract – and ensuring that Mr Ustych was made aware that all of this is HIS own words and also that such cannot possibly then suggest I have less than 50% chance of winning my case UNLESS the British judiciary system IS discriminatory. The unfortunate thing is, the judiciary system IS discriminatory and Mr Ustych is correct. So what would the legal ombudsman then do? Take on the British judicial system for the corrupt entity that it is? When the legal ombudsman comes under the entire judicial system as a government department? Is the legal ombudsman naive or does it just, by way of providing lip service to people like me, think we are incompetent?
You could do whatever you wish to help resolve my complaint but there is nothing you can do which would actually achieve anything!
If you have read what I have sent to you then you can see quite clearly that I have put my issues to both, the pro bono section, Mr Ustych and Mr Green. The issues are CLEAR! Do you see any concern and any response to me?
In those emails, I am directly talking to Mr Ustych. It may not be in the “form” you wish it to be but, to be frank, “form” has nothing to do with substance. These people know precisely what that substance is and if they have not responded to it then I can assure you, a “correctly formed” communication (and what is correctly formed? What the LEGAL system itself tells me is correctly formed? The entire legal system is corrupt for god’s sakes!) will be given lip service.
Pardon me for saying this Elizabeth, but I do not know your age but I assume you are quite young. With the very best intention, you have a LOT to learn.
Regards,

Earthling


From: Elizabeth.Elbro@Legalombudsman.org.uk
To: Earthling
Subject: RE: Your complaint about Mr Ustych
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:38:17 +0000

Dear Mr Earthling

 

Thank you for your email regarding your complaint about Mr Ustych.

 

I have noted all that you say and understand that you do still have concerns about the barrister that represented you in your employment matter.

 

I want to reiterate that I do not wish to sound unhelpful or awkward at all because I genuinely do want to help you and Mr Ustych to resolve your complaint.  However, in line with our Scheme Rules we have to give the barrister an opportunity to consider and respond to your complaint in the first instance before we will investigate your complaint.  This is why when you initially contacted us my colleague asked you whether you had already made a complaint to Mr Ustych directly and you told us that you had done so.  On this basis we agreed to look into your complaint and the complaint was passed to me to investigate.

 

The first thing I have to do as part of my investigation is to obtain evidence that a complaint has previously been made to the barrister and he has been given eight weeks in which to deal with your complaint.  This is the same with all complaints that we accept.  You kindly sent to me some emails and letters in relation to your complaint and contact made with your MP and the pro bono unit.  However, amongst these papers unfortunately I was unable to locate your complaint to Mr Ustych.

 

If you have already made a formal complaint to Mr Ustych then please let me have a copy by noon on Monday 5 August 2014.  I will then happily continue with my investigation.

 

However, if you have not yet made a formal complaint then this is not a problem and does not mean that we can’t look into your complaint.  All we would ask you to do is now make a formal complaint to the barrister and I would be happy to give you the contact details and more information about how to do this.  Once you have made a formal complaint to the barrister and given him eight weeks in which to respond then if you remain unhappy you can return to me and we can then commence an investigation into your complaint.

 

I hope that this is clear but if you have any questions please feel free to email me and I will respond as best as I can to help you.

 

In the event that I have not received any evidence from you of your formal complaint to the barrister by noon on Monday 5 August 2013 I am afraid that I will have to close my file down until you have made a formal complaint to the barrister.  I will write to you at this stage to confirm this.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Legal_Ombudsman_Single_line_Colour_Website_only.jpg

 

 

From: Earthling
Sent: 31 July 2013 11:54
To: Elizabeth Elbro
Subject: RE:
Importance: High

 

Dear Elizabeth,

 

I was simply calling to say I have no confidence in the entire system. It is corrupt from top to bottom and, as such, the Legal Ombudsman is too. “You” have no “teeth” and you’re not meant to have. You also fall for that phoney positive discrimination tactic yourselves as I saw with a letter coming through my door from you asking questions regarding my sex, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion etc. None of this being of ANY importance whatsoever if one is treated as a “person” like all others and, as such, is equal before the law. This, after all, is entirely what my complaint was about: That I am being positively discriminated against because of my colour, sex and sexual orientation. I find it incredible how difficult this is for people to recognise.

Our system of law is corrupt from its very basis Elizabeth and our courts and our government trample our Human Rights because, literally, such things do not exist.

 

I am sorry but I shall take up no more of your time (or mine). Your organisation is impotent to achieve anything of any real worth.

 

Please don’t take this personally.

 

Regards,

Earthling


From: Elizabeth.Elbro@Legalombudsman.org.uk
To: Earthling
Subject:
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:48:26 +0000

 

Dear Mr Earthling

 

Thank you for your voicemail this afternoon. I am sorry I  have been caught up with another complaint all afternoon and haven’t had chance to return your call.  However, I wanted to let you know that I have put you in diary and will give you call in the morning if that suits you.

 

Please feel free to give me a time when you will be available and I will do my best to call as near to that time as possible.

 

I shall look forward to speaking to you tomorrow.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

To: Earthling
Picture of Elizabeth Elbro

Dear Mr Earthling

 

I email in relation to your complaint about Mr Ustych.  I have today been looking through the emails and information that you have already provided to me in relation to your complaint which has been helpful.

 

I note that when you previously spoke to us you mentioned that you had made a formal complaint Mr Ustych on 10 May 2013 but I do not appear to have a copy of this.  Could you please let me have a copy?  If this is not the correct date upon which you made your formal complaint to the barrister then please send me a copy of your letter / email of formal complaint to him.  This should state that you wish to complain about Mr Ustych and set out the exact nature of your complaint so that the barrister or his chambers could respond.

 

I have seen your emails to the pro bono unit and Mr Ustych but these would not in themselves constitute a formal complaint.  As you may be aware before we are able to commence an investigation into a complaint we have to see evidence that the lawyer has received a formal complaint from the complainant and the lawyer has had a period of eight weeks in which to respond.  I am eager to commence my investigation and do not want to encounter any problems along the way by not ensuring that a formal complaint has already been made, so I would be grateful if you could please let me have a copy of your formal letter of complaint to Mr Ustych as soon as possible.

 

In the event that having looked through your papers you feel that you perhaps have not yet made a formal complaint to Mr Ustych then this is not a problem.  We can still investigate your complaint it just means that we would first ask you to make a formal complaint to the barrister and wait for his response in the first instance.  I can give you more information about how to do this if necessary and who to contact with your formal complaint.

 

I would be grateful if you can please respond to me at your earliest convenience with the information / evidence I have requested so that I can proceed with my investigation.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Legal_Ombudsman_Single_line_Colour_Website_only.jpg

To: Earthling
Picture of Elizabeth Elbro
To: elizabeth.elbro@legalombudsman.org.uk

Ms Elbro,

The reality is that there is a more fundamental problem with our courts and law system where they are literally being discriminatory by way of positive discrimination. This is what Mr Ustych was pointing out and he is correct. My complaint about Mr Ustych (and you as Ombudsman obviously recognise that the complaint has validity) stating as he does is actually abhorrent but, the fact is, it is true.
The legal ombudsman administers on the basis of the existing legal system. The existing legal system is absolutely corrupt in practice and, in fact, by positive discrimination as the barrister directly infers, the courts (a public organisation which is meant to serve the public without favour to any party) are contravening the Human Rights Act 1998.
Now, my case did not get to court so it cannot be said that the court directly contravened the act BUT my case did not get to court because my barrister advised that, by way of the court’s (law/judge’s) view of me, they WOULD contravene the Human Rights Act.
This issue is bigger than you thought Ms Elbro and I sincerely hope you consider it and treat it as such.
Regards,
Earthling

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Earthling

 

Thank you for your email in relation to your complaint about Mr Ustych.  I am sorry that I missed your call I am afraid I had popped out of the office for lunch and am now heading off to a meeting.

 

I am grateful for your responses to my questions as below which are really helpful for my investigation and your subsequent three emails attaching evidence in support of your complaint and further information.

 

I am expecting a response to arrive from Mr Ustych shortly and I will then be going through all of the evidence and information provided by you both before I make any decisions about the level of service provided.  At that stage I will of course be in contact with you again to share my views or ask further questions of you.

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Legal_Ombudsman_Single_line_Colour_Website_only.jpg

 

 

From: Earthling
Sent: 24 July 2013 13:13
To: Elizabeth Elbro
Subject: RE: Your complaint about your barrister
Importance: High

 

Dear Ms Elbro,

 

I have just picked up your email today as it was one which got caught by my spam filter and ended in junk mail. I apologise for the delay in response then.

I have tried calling you but there was no answer.

To answer your questions:

 

1. I did not approach the barrister in fact. I met with my MP, Damian Green, who I had sign a referral to the Bar pro bono unit. The unit then assessed my documents and decided they would offer assistance. It was Mr Ustych, then, who picked up on my case and I was advised to contact him to discuss. In doing so, Mr Ustych suggested a skype call rather than a face to face meeting the following week. This was due to me residing in Ashford, Kent and he, of course, in London.

 

2. Yes the barrister advised me of the prospects of my case. This was either during the first call we had on 15th March or the second call on 12th April.

 

3. The only written advice the barrister gave was in the form of a drafted “Letter before claim” which I then sent to my ex company’s solicitors. I have attached this and the “Without Prejudice” letter he also drafted.

 

4. Since the communications of my complaint(s) are in email format, it is best I send then as forwards to you. I shall do this directly after sending this email.

 

Regards,

Earthling


From: Elizabeth.Elbro@Legalombudsman.org.uk
To: Earthling
Subject: RE: Your complaint about your barrister
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:33:56 +0000

Dear Mr Earthling

 

I email in relation to your complaint about your barrister.

 

I am pleased to tell you that I am the investigator that will be looking into your complaint.  I have attached a letter which sets out your complaint and asks you to please let me have some information and evidence to help me with my investigation.

 

I hope to hear from you with the evidence and information I have requested by 24 July.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Elizabeth Elbro

Investigator

 

Legal Ombudsman

 

Telephone: 0121 245 3342

 

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

 

The Human Rights of dolphins

Posted in Law by earthling on July 27, 2013

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

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

Don’t believe me? Try this:

EVEN WITH AN OUTRIGHT ADMISSION OF GUILT IN BLACK AND WHITE, THE STRAIGHT, WHITE MALE IN THE UK CANNOT, IT SEEMS, EVEN FIND REPRESENTATION IN COURT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/12/the-terasem-movement-4th-colloquium-on-the-law-of-futuristic-persons/

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

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

Dolphin persons

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOU’RE A SLAVE THAT’S ALL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY AND YOUR PRIVATE CAPACITY?

Answer: You don’t have one!

Why? Because YOU are a LEGAL PERSON SLAVE!

Meanwhile……. in Canada.

Canadian Queen oath

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/canadian_citizenship_oath_to_queen_will_be_challenged_in_court.html

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

And you think you are not captive? 🙂

 

 

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

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

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

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

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

 

Constitution

HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

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

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

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

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

 

CROWN LANDS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65

MR. HENLEY

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

INCREDIBLE WE ARE STILL ACCEPTING THIS. BUT WE ARE!

THE “HUMAN RIGHTS ACT” DECEPTION

Posted in Law by earthling on May 13, 2013

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

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

Good evening to you all!

ARE YOU HUMAN?

YES?

ARE YOU 100% SURE OF THAT?

YES?

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

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

CRAZY SUGGESTION?

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

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

So, it must be acknowledged by Alex that either:

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

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

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

Alex 1

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

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

So let’s begin shall we?

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

HRA 1998

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

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

I’ll answer what I think Alex would reply:

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

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

“No, I do not believe that I have”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1

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

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

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

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Of course”.

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

“Yes”

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

“Yes! They do not exist in law!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humans are among us

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

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

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

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

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

But there is so much more to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

HRA 1998 1

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

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

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

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

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSHən/

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

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

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

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

Article 3.

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

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

And notice the term “Security of PERSON”.

Then look at Article 6 in the UN declaration:

Article 6.

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

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

Thank you your honour. I rest my case!

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM:

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

Quell

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

ANSWER: NONE!

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

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

That WORRIES me. It worries me a lot!

By WHOSE authority? Elizabetto Mussolini’s!

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthling 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.

english-law.htm

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

index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_804

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:

AN INTRODUCTION TO YOUR PARTNERS IN COLLECTION

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.”

story.html

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!

THE SAD PART BEING THAT THE IGNORANT MASS OF POPULATION OF THIS COUNTRY WILL SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR CORRUPTION BECAUSE THEY WILL SAY “IF I HAVE TO PAY IT YOU HAVE TO PAY IT” WHILE THEY DON’T RECOGNISE THE REALITY THAT IF THEY SUPPORTED OTHERS THEY WOULD BE SUPPORTING THEMSELVES.

DEMOCRACY IS GREAT ISN’T IT? IF I WERE A DICTATOR THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT. DEMOCRACY: MAJORITY RULE AND THE MAJORITY IGNORANT. PLAY THE “DIVISION GAME” AND YOU CAN FCUK THEM ALL UP THE ASS AS MUCH AS YOU WANT AND THEY WILL NEVER LET THE PENNY DROP!

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?

Science Fiction or Legal Fiction?

Posted in Law by earthling on December 12, 2011

Various uses of Legal fictions. What one must remember is that each and every human being, each separate capacity (father,mother, daughter, son, teacher, Policeman etc) and each and every NATION and PARLIAMENT is a legal fiction.

The UK itself, is a legal fiction. The Queen’s powers are legal fiction. The EU’s supremacy is a legal fiction. While, as you will see, they dismiss legal fictions when it suits them. If they do not like a bill or the way a law works, they will attack the legal fictionality of it. Why? Because, when they do, they know there is no logical argument for not doing so!

What makes you a citizen or a subject of a nation? A LEGAL FICTION. All here in black and white. While it is obvious to those who understand how this MATRIX works, it is worthwhile showing it to others who don’t understand and revealing it in THEIR own words!

So, it is my hope that, in reading the following, the reader will recognise that, if a country and nationality/citizenship is purely legal fiction (which it is) then one, as a PERSON, legally recognised as a “citizen” is also a legal fiction. There is no two ways about this.  That legal fiction, in law, is refered to as a “Natural person” simply to differentiate it from being a “legal person” (a Corporation). The differentiation is then just for the law to exact its policy and regulations on different types of legal fictions – You CANNOT have a law stating that a corporation is disallowed to smoke in a public space now can you? Corporations do not give birth – although that is debatable because Corporations create subsidiaries which may be considered birth since the Corporation is considered the Parent company!

Now, once more: YOU HAVE SUBROGATED YOUR INHERENT RIGHTS TO A LEGAL APPARATUS WHICH IS, ITSELF, A LEGAL FICTION. THAT LEGAL FICTION THEN ASSUMES AUTHORITY OVER THE LEGAL FICTION WHICH IS PRODUCED BY THE REGISTRATION OF YOUR BIRTH.

Debtors

HC Deb 19 November 1964 vol 702 cc603-4603

§10.Mr. Abse            asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many debtors were committed to prison by county courts for commercial debts in 1953, and in 1963; what was the estimated cost last year of maintaining in prison such debtors; and whether, in view of the growth of professional debt purchasing companies and the increase in the granting of credit, he will, in the interests of taxpayers, review the workings of Section 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, and Section 144(1) of the County Courts Act, 1959, which give powers of imprisonment for debt, with a view to amending them.
§Miss Bacon            928 persons committed by county courts were received into prison in 1953 and 7,047 in 1963. On the basis that prison costs worked out at about £500 a year for each inmate, the estimated annual cost of maintaining the daily average of 200 persons so imprisoned in 1963 was about £100,000, but the saving, had they not been sent to prison, would of course have been much less. The matter raised in the last part of the Question is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
§Mr. Abse            Will my hon. Friend agree that these mounting figures are most dis-            604            maying? Is she aware that there is a growing body of opinion which holds the view that it is wrong that the community should be subsidising the folly of those who may recklessly and of their own free will give credit? In particular, is she aware that there is a growing number of debt-collecting companies which are buying debts cheaply, trading on small commissions, and harassing people who are suffering from misfortune or their own fecklessness, and that people are beginning to believe that it is no part of the duty of the community to imprison people of this kind?
§Miss Bacon            I have a good deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend’s point of view, particularly in view of our overcrowded prisons at present, but I must emphasise that the reform of the civil law is a matter for the Lord Chancellor. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep in touch with the Lord Chancellor to see if anything can be done.
§Mr. Sydney Silverman            Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this may not be entirely a matter for the Lord Chancellor and may be a matter for the Administration as a whole? Does she not agree that imprisonment for debt in this part of the twentieth century is a massive anachronism that we ought to get rid of, and that the legal fiction whereby it is supposed that people are not in prison for debt but for some alleged contempt of court is itself contemptible and we ought to get rid of it?
§Miss Bacon            Yes, we will certainly look into the legal aspects of this matter. As I have said, I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL

HC Deb 27 January 1954 vol 522 cc1753-879

Mr. Gower

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, if this right was granted, he would limit it to the people who are in actual occupation of the houses?

§Sir F. Soskice            Personally, I would. I am not tying myself to any particular scheme, but, looking at the arguments both ways, I should have thought that the people who ought to be helped by the scheme are those people who have been actually occupying lessees under long leases which are about to run out, and occupying houses which they consider to be their homes and actually to belong to them, except for a legal fiction, the origin of which stretches far away back into history to a legal accident of 100 years ago. Those are the people—

§Several Hon. Members rose—

§Sir F. Soskice            I am sorry, but I must get on with my speech.

CROWN LANDS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65

MR. HENLEY

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

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

RECOGNITION OF CORPORATE STATUS OF CERTAIN FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

HC Deb 17 August 1991 vol 195 cc422-35

Mr. Cryer

The Solicitor-General should clarify some of the sloppy wording in the clause. It states that if            any question arises whether a body which purports to have or, as the case may be, which appears to have lost corporate status            it will be granted a legal personality.

Corporate status is one of the prime means of crookery, fraud and milking money out of various organisations. Corporate status is granted as a convenience to allow capitalism to develop. It allows a fictional person to exist separate from the members of the organisation itself. That person has limited liability, does not become bankrupt and is not affected when the body corporate, with its separate and distinct legal personality, goes into liquidation. In that way, companies go into liquidation with their directors owing huge sums of money to them. Companies, with their separate, legal personality, lend money to the directors who form the company on extremely advantageous terms, sometimes without any repayment provisions.

§Mr. Fraser            That is illegal.
§Mr. Cryer            Yes, it is now, but I am talking about the history of corporate endeavour.We are dealing with a group of people who will be given corporate status, and who are from states which may not even be recognised, with legislation that will not be as comprehensive as United Kingdom legislation. These issues may apply to other states, and even United Kingdom legislation is not foolproof, is it?Will the legislation bring under the Banking Act 1987 all the bodies which purport to have lost corporate status or which have had that status under the laws of the territory concerned? If it does, that will ensure that the Bank of England will be able to scrutinise them. We know that under the Bank of England’s powers there is no possibility of any bank in this country engaging in fraudulent practices—unless, of course, we turn to immediate history and look at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Despite all the legislation, the Bank of England has not been able to find out what happened in that case.

POLICE BILL—(No. 392.)

HC Deb 04 August 1890 vol 347 cc1782-830

(10.27.)MR. ADDISON(Ashton-under-Lyue)

I really am quite astonished at the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey). All who are acquainted with Quarter Sessions know that they are a Court of Record, cognizant of such matters as those into which we are now inquiring, whereas the Borough Magistrates are not a Court at all in the legal sense of the word. The hon. Member for Sunderland speaks of a contest between Borough and Country Magistrates. I am well acquainted with Lancashire, and to say that there is any contest between the Borough Magistrates and the County Magistrates in that County, where there-are many Borough Magistrates, is a mere-fiction.

§*(10.29.)MR. BRUNNER(Cheshire, Northwich)            I am amazed to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that there is no jealousy between the Borough and the County Magistrates in Lancashire. At every Quarter Sessions complaints, are heard on the part of the Borough Magistrates of Manchester and Liverpool of their decisions being overridden                        1817            by the County Magistrates. I trust the Secretary of State will inform himself on this point. I can assure him that if ho does not listen with favour and consideration to the appeal on behalf of the Borough Magistrates, he will give a great deal of pain to a great many worthy supporters of the party of which he is a distinguished ornament. We have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Addison) that Borough Magistrates are not a Court. Well, my hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who has been accused of ignorance, is well aware of that; it is a fact we have known for a long time; a fact which we dislike and which troubles us. We consider that Borough Magistrates, being such as we know them to be, are quite as capable of forming an opinion as Magistrates appointed by Lords Lieutenant of Counties. I trust yet that the Home Secretary will see fit to add these words which, by the hon. and learned Member for Stockton (Sir Horace Davey), have been declared to be necessary. I do not pretend to give a legal opinion, but it does not seem to me to be necessary that Borough Magistrates should be constituted a Court with full legal powers in order to act as a Court of Arbitration between policemen and those who govern them.

COMPANIES OF ENEMY CHARACTER BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 December 1915 vol 20 cc577-89

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, the Bill to which I invite your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is of a simple character, and its object is to make provision with respect to companies of enemy character carrying on business in this country. Your Lordships require no reminder from me that trading with the enemy is in itself an offence except with His Majesty’s permission, but the legal fiction which prevents objection being taken in the case of an enemy company which is registered in the United Kingdom is one the reason for which it requires some legal acumen to discover. If instead cf being registered as a company these            578            people were engaged in an ordinary partnership and it was found out that they were alien enemies, the matter would be a very simple one indeed. But by a legal fiction —for it is absolutely a legal fiction—a company composed of twelve Germans can register under the Companies Acts here, and by that very simple process can be made, forsooth, an English company. A company so registered has been declared to be an English company, capable of doing everything that the legal person thus constituted by law may think proper to do by way of trade.

Legal fictions, I know, are not very popular with the general public. John Doe and Richard Roe have departed from among us, but they served a very useful purpose. But John Doe and Richard Roe were never allowed to be actual persons and to be so dealt with when they ran counter to common sense. An ingenious gentleman, in an action of ejectment, once pleaded that he had got a release from John Doe or Richard Roe— I forget which—but the Courts cut very short this treating of a legal fiction as a reality, for they sent him to prison for contempt of Court, and very justly. After all, legal fiction was intended as legal fiction; it was never intended that these fanciful persons should he invested with the ordinary powers of a natural person. So I think it might have been well if the Courts who had to deal with this question had recognised the fact that the legal entity is not different in its constitution when you come to deal with the question which was in debate in the case of the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company v. Messrs. Daimler. It was because the entity created has no nationality at all that the question of trading with the enemy was held not to arise.

PARLIAMENTAY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTY SECOND DAY.

HC Deb 26 August 1831 vol 6 cc669-96

Mr. Hunt

next moved, “that all persons who shall be excluded from voting for Members of Parliament, shall be exempt from the payment of taxes and rates, and from serving in the militia, and be protected from being compelled to serve in the navy, under the Impressment Law.” The principle on which he made this Motion was, that Taxation and Representation ought to go hand in hand. In our Law Courts it was supposed, that every man should know the law, and no man could be allowed to plead ignorance of the law, as it was presumed he had helped to make it by himself or his Representative. He wished to make this a fact instead of a legal fiction, by giving every man a right to make the law through his Representative, or exempt him from the payment of taxes to which he had never consented.

§Lord Althorp            said, that the principle of the hon. Member did not go far enough, for he ought to hold, that a person who did not vote for a Member of Parliament was not bound to obey the law.
§Mr. Hunt            thought the noble Lord was correct, and that was one reason why he wished for Universal Suffrage.

§        Amendment negatived.

§Mr. Praed            moved, that at the end of the clause there be inserted—”Provided always, that no person shall, by reason of anything herein contained, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, who shall, within twelve calendar months next previous to the 12th of November in                        687            the present year, or next previous to the last day of August in any succeeding year, have been in the receipt of parochial relief.”

LEGITIMACY BILL

HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

With all deference to the most reverend Primate, that is not what the court is            338            asked to declare. The court is asked to declare that the child was born in lawful wedlock between Mrs. X and Y. Otherwise, by the laws of legitimacy as understood in this country, it could not be a legitimate child. It is that which personally I find so shocking.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seemed to think—at least so I understood—that there was no material difference between the situation which I have just described and the situation which was dealt with by the Act of 1926, under which both the parents were unmarried at the time of the birth of the child and they merely, as it were, anticipated the ceremony. But to me at any rate, there is all the difference in the world between the two cases. In one case both were free to marry each other; in the other one or both was solemnly linked at the time in wedlock to another man or another woman. How is it possible for the court to ignore that fact? If I may say so with all deference—and this is a great impertinence—some lawyers always seem to think that by adding the adjective “legal” to the word “fiction” it makes it much more respectable, just as in politics when a Government wants to do something which is manifestly unjust to some section of the community it thinks it makes it sound better by calling it “social” justice. In both cases, the addition of the adjective is intended to produce a different and more agreeable atmosphere. But to the ordinary man, such as most of us in this House are, a fiction remains a fiction, whatever adjective is attached to it; a lie remains a lie even though it is condoned by the law.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

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

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

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

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

LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 16 November 1967 vol 286 cc869-80869

§        4.23 p.m.

§LORD HUGHES            My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, this Bill is based on the Report of the Scottish Law Commission Reform of the Law Relating to Legitimation per subsequens matrimonium, published in April of this year………….

As your Lordships will see, these provisions of the Bill are necessarily very detailed, but since much of it is a restatement of the existing law I propose to confine my remarks, at this stage, at any rate, to the main changes effected in the present law. The main change to which I would draw your Lordships’ attention is the removal of the present legal fiction in Scots law that legitimation confers legitimate status retrospectively with effect from the child’s date of birth. The fiction finds its origins in the Canon Law which offered as a doctrinal justification of legitimation by subsequent marriage the view that the marriage took effect retroactively by a fiction of the law from the date of conception; and thus the children were regarded as legitimate from their birth. As the Law Commission point out, however, this is nowadays little more than a legal fiction. The Scottish courts have criticised the fiction and have held, for example, that property rights of third parties cannot be affected by the fiction of retroactive legitimation.

Constitution

HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

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

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

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

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

Finance Bill

HC Deb 12 July 1983 vol 45 cc778-837

Mr. Robin Cook

There is one exception to that commonsense approach, and that is income tax. The exception arises because the legal fiction is that income tax is not a permanent tax. It may have been with us since the days of Pitt. but it is not a permanent tax. It is an annual tax, and every year the Treasury considers afresh, with careful consideration. whether it requires income tax, and having reluctantly decided that it does, it brings forward a fresh clause giving authority for income tax to continue for a further year. As income tax would automatically lapse without the fresh clause, it follows that there is no law setting out the status quo for income tax as there is with VAT or other taxes.

This legal fiction has certain hilarious consequences. It means, in the context of today’s debate, that the Government are not cutting the higher rate bands on income tax by 14 per cent. On the contrary, the Government are imposing a fresh and unanticipated burden upon the higher paid. However, other consequences are rather less hilarious. The Committee is severely restricted in what amendment it can propose to such a proposal. Were the Government to propose to double thresholds for the higher tax bands, and it is not inconceivable that the Government would propose to do so in the future, it would be improper and incompetent for any other hon. Member to seek to reduce that doubling of the threshold.

The Committee would be left with the choice of accepting that doubling or voting against clause stand part. If the Committee were to vote against clause stand part, it might find itself in the same position as that in which the Opposition found themselves with the last Finance Bill in the previous Session. The Committee would also be voting against the clause that contains the authority for the standard rate of income tax. Thus, were the Committee to carry that resolution opposing clause stand part, it would abolish income tax in toto, although that is not what it would be seeking to do.

This problem flows from the legal fiction that income tax is an annual tax. Were the man in the street to be told that income tax is not a permanent tax and that the procedures of the House of Commons operate on the assumption that income tax is subject to imminent abolition, I suspect that he would consider that to be further striking proof of just how out of touch Members of Parliament were with reality. Nor does that accord with the current state of the law. In 1977 and again in 1980 the House provided explicit statutory power for the indexation of income tax, which makes sense only if we assume that income tax is a permanent tax likely to be renewed year by year.

LEGITIMACY BILL

HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

There are, however, legal methods of meeting that situation. One—the Amendment recognises it—is that, in spite of the adultery, the parents, or rather the one parent and the other partner to the marriage, agree that the adultery shall be concealed; the married couple take the child born of adultery into their own family, into the family life, as one of their own children. Pastorally that is a legal fiction, but pastorally it is the one nearest available for the true good of all concerned, because it gives to the illegitimate child the active care of one parent and a secure home, things of which an illegitimate child should not be deprived.

Now we come to the problem of this Bill. A and B, by adultery, cause a child to be conceived and born out of wedlock. In due course—or rather, if you like, in undue course—by whatever ill or unhappy means, A and B become            320            legally married. What is to happen to the child? That is the question. It can be left with no status at all in the world, belonging to nobody. But surely none of us would like that. What then is to be its relation towards its newly married parents and to the world in general? The parents can adopt their own child. That is the course recommended by some, for perfectly good reasons; or, if this Bill passes, they can secure for the child a legitimated status: not a legitimate status, because that can never be acquired or given by any law, but a legitimated status conferred by legal machinery, just as adoption is conferred by legal machinery.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 79.]

HC Deb 14 February 1881 vol 258 cc774-855

MR. FINIGAN

thought that if the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), and the schedule of crimes which he had placed on the Paper, were fairly looked into, the Committee would see that Her Majesty’s Government had a good opportunity afforded to them for showing that they were not animated by a feeling of Dictatorship or by the feeling of alarm which had been excited in England by their own announcement of crimes and outrages, and Fenian and other plots. It was a legal fiction that every man ought to know the law. Most men did know the ordinary law, although, perhaps, not from a legal point of view. They knew that certain crimes and immoral acts were prohibited by the law—that it was not right to murder a man, or to steal his property, or to intimidate him. But when, as was now the case, they were introducing a peculiar coercive law into Ireland which might be used in a despotic manner, it was only fair that they should define what were the acts beyond the ordinary Statute Law for which a man was made punishable. He thought this schedule of crime really covered everything that the Government and their supporters could desire to discountenance in Ireland.

PROVISIONS FOR REDUCING STATELESSNESS

HC Deb 03 June 1981 vol 5 cc1008-28

Mr. Stanbrook

It is, therefore, wrong to insist that Britain should take any more. However, we cannot resist such pressure. It arises from events that are no fault of ours. An example was the Vietnamese boat people. We felt obliged to accept 10,000 of them. They came from a part of the world for            1016            which we had no legal, constitutional or imperial responsibilities. These people were simply cast upon the high seas——

§Mr. Garel-Jones            By Communists.

§Mr. Stanbrook            Yes, they were expelled by Communists. We had no obligation to these people save in the general international humanitarian sense. In spite of all our difficulties, and with all the problems that we have brought upon ourselves by this humane attitude towards the legal fiction, the mistake in our legislation that has given us such large immigrant populations which we cannot peacefully absorb, we agreed to accept 10,000 of these people.

LEGITIMACY BILL

HL Deb 02 July 1959 vol 217 cc684-714

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But, as I understand them, the promoters of this Bill say that, while that may be good law, it is very hard on the child who, through no fault of his own, but entirely through the fault of his mother (in the case with which I am particularly concerned), has to bear throughout his life the stigma of illegitimacy. I think that that is a fair statement of their point of view. In their view, that is a wrong which must be expunged. They say that it is not very difficult to expunge it; all that is needed is to make use of a legal fiction. By this convenient fiction the court, should the matter come to court, will, in certain circumstances, be empowered legally to declare that a child that has hitherto been regarded as the offspring, born at a certain date in lawful wedlock, to a certain woman and one man, shall henceforth in certain circumstances be legally transformed into the offspring, born equally in lawful wedlock, on one and the same date, of the                        699            same woman and an entirely different man. That, in effect, is, as I understand it in plain words, what Clause 1 proposes.

COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th May.]

HC Deb 16 May 1893 vol 12 cc1055-135

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member has interrupted me again and again when I referred to this matter; but he always makes a statement absolutely irrelevant to the one I make. The hon. Member has said two things not necessarily connected—two things that ought to be treated separately. The hon. Member has said that the theoretical supremacy of this Parliament cannot be disputed or disposed of. I quite agree with that, but I do not care one brass farthing for that theoretical supremacy. I know what            1120            the theoretical supremacy of this Parliament is over Australia and Canada, and I do not want to sot up in the case of Ireland a supremacy which is worth no more than the supremacy over Australia and Canada. The hon. Gentleman, so long ago as October, 1892, declared his intention to make it perfectly clear that the supremacy of this Parliament over the Irish Parliament should be limited. The hon. Member was referring to a speech made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have said—            It is not a question of asking us to divest, ourselves of this power, because we could not do so.            That is the legal fiction—that is the imposture which has been exposed to-night, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is an imposture. Referring to these words of the Chancellor of the Duchy, the hon. Member for Waterford in his article said—            The rights of the Imperial Parliament would remain intact; those rights would remain dormant, so far as Irish affairs are concerned. A Parliamentary compact would be entered into binding the Imperial Parliament to leave those rights dormant.            I will now quote the hon. Member again, because he is perfectly consistent, and why he should endeavour in this Committee to prove himself inconsistent I cannot imagine. This is a passage from his speech in the Debate on the Address in August, 1892—            It comes to this, therefore: that what we ask is this—that in this Home Rule scheme there shall be a specific undertaking—a clause specifically undertaking that while the Irish Parliament continues in existence the powers of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for Ireland should never be used.            Now, Sir, after that, what is the use of the hon. Member getting up and interrupting mo and trying to minimise the significance of his own words? Let the hon. Member get up and say he has changed his mind.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.

HC Deb 29 May 1908 vol 189 cc1405-37

MR. DUNDAS WHITE(Dumbartonshire)

said it seemed to him that the Bill would constitute an important step in securing public rights of way. They should do all they could to maintain those public rights. The rights were increasing in value every day, because under modern conditions people wanted more and more            1424            access to country districts, fresh air, and fields. He might be allowed to say that in the application of the Bill to Scotland there would have to be very considerable alterations made, and probably a new clause would be required. The principal difficulties which had arisen in England in relation to rights of way were due to the peculiar state of the law in this country. There was in England behind a right of way the presumption of dedication, and consequently any claim to a right of way might be challenged on the ground that there could have been no dedication at some particular time. He was glad to say that in Scotland they were quite free from that. The late Lord Watson, one of the highest authorities on Scots law, in Mann’s case in 1885 said—            According to the law of Scotland, the constitution of a public road does not depend upon any legal fiction, but upon the fact of use by the public as matter of right, continuously and without interruption for the full period of long prescription. I am aware that there are dicta to be found in which the prescriptive acquisition of a right of way by the public is attributed to implied grant, acquiescence of the owner, and so forth, but these appear to me to be mere speculations as to the origin of the rule.            Taking that to be the law in Scotland, the effect of the Bill as regards Scotland would seem to be to shorten the period of prescription to twenty years.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL

HC Deb 02 June 1965 vol 713 cc1773-912

Mr. Percy Grieve(Solihull)

The Clause is avowedly designed to penalise distributed profits and subject them to higher taxation in the hands of the shareholders than the other profits of companies. It is founded on a completely fallacious view of the nature of public and private companies. They are not, save by legal fiction, separate entities distinct from their shareholders. Their shareholders created them. Shareholders’ money gives them their lifeblood, and their shareholders can put an end to them.

As an hon. Member observed earlier, these compaines have no interest outside            1892            that of their shareholders. The money that flows into these companies is given by the shareholders to create the businesses which have made this country prosperous. What reason is there why these shareholders, drawing their revenues from their enterprises, should be penalised and be subject to a higher rate of tax than persons who draw their revenues from any other kind of enterprise? There is none whatever. This whole Corporation Tax, in its attitude towards the shareholder, is founded on the dislike of hon. Members opposite for the shareholder as a person.

Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]

HC Deb 08 April 1998 vol 310 cc370-452

Mr. Straw

The Bill will ensure earlier, more effective intervention to nip offending in the bud. It lays down that, for the first time, the principal aim of everyone working within the youth justice system will be to prevent offending by children and young people.

Child safety orders and powers for local authorities to establish local child curfews will protect children under 10 from being drawn into crime. The Bill reinforces the crucial role of parents. Parenting orders will help and support those who are genuinely trying to control their children’s unacceptable behaviour. Sanctions will be available for the minority who stubbornly evade their parental responsibilities.

When children first offend, the response should be quick, firm and consistent. The Bill replaces cautioning for young people with a statutory final warning scheme. Warnings will normally be followed by intervention to tackle the causes of the youngster’s offending. The Bill also makes young offenders properly responsible for their actions by the abolition of the legal fiction of doli incapax.

NOTE: “Doli Incapax” is a legal fictional term which, in UK law, holds that a child under the age of 10 is INCAPABLE OF CRIME. The point of pointing this out is thus: The legal world bestows rights and imposes responsibilities based upon entire legal fiction. It then provides exceptions to these rights and responsibilities for who and what it sees fit. That could be the exception for children under 10 of “Doli Incapax” or it may be an exception offered to a certain type of company/corporation to pay tax. Or, as in a case I just read of in Parliamentary minutes, they do not bestow a legal fiction on a transgendered person therefore, allowing that person to be raped without there having been a rape committed! Why? Because the transgendered person did not exist legally!

New Clause.—(EXTENT.)

HC Deb 28 November 1951 vol 494 cc1622-41

Mr. Delargy

I interrupt myself here to remind the Committee that when I speak about Northern Ireland I do not, of course, mean Northern Ireland at all. The legal term “Northern Ireland” is merely a legal fiction. I have already been obliged to give the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), a few lessons in Irish geography, and it should be understood that when I speak about Northern Ireland I mean the Six Counties in the northeastern corner of Ireland. I hope that when I use the words “Northern Ireland” hon. Members will remember that it is simply for the sake of simplicity and convenience.

POWER TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION

HC Deb 24 June 1998 vol 314 cc1115-43

Mr. Leigh

I am grateful for that intervention, which makes it clear that the Home Secretary and the Government take our fears very seriously.                        1125            Again, I do not want resort to hyperbole, but it has become fashionable to decry our record on civil liberties and human rights. We have nothing to be ashamed of over the past 200 years. With its unwritten constitution, our country has been a beacon for civil liberties. Amending the constitution is a very serious matter, as I am sure everyone realises. I hope that we are not taking a dangerous course.

Let me describe what could happen. Under clause 10(3)(b), a Minister can make such amendments “as he considers appropriate”. He can amend primary and secondary legislation to make it compatible with the convention. United Kingdom courts can make declarations of incompatibility under clause 4(6), which the Home Secretary was searching for earlier. Courts can make a finding that a provision of UK statute law is incompatible with the convention. Strasbourg can also make such a finding.

This is where we have the fig leaf of parliamentary sovereignty. Such directions are not meant in themselves to strike down the legislation, as happens in Canada and the United States. The ministerial power arises once a final court order has been made that cannot be further appealed against and in which there is a finding of incompatibility, or—this is the important point in clause 10(1)(b)—if it appears to a Minister that            a finding of the European Court of Human Rights            in proceedings involving our country means that            a provision of legislation is incompatible”………

I believe that we are giving unprecedented powers to Ministers. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the Government, who are rightly concerned about the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, are desperately trying to erect a legal fiction to protect that notion, which is precisely that—a fiction. The course on which we are embarking is dangerous indeed.

LEAVE. FIRST READING.

HC Deb 14 May 1857 vol 145 cc266-81266

By the law of England, a single woman was capable of exercising all the civil rights of property, and the responsibilities of property fell upon her likewise. By the highly artificial rule, which had grown up as to marriage, all these rights were denied to an English married woman, and her existence as a legal person was denied by the law. By a fiction of law, husband and wife are considered one person. Like most legal fictions, these had worked great evil, and, amongst the wealthier classes, had been got rid of by the interposition of courts of equity. The remedy was to abolish this fiction altogether, but your written laws accord with the laws of nature and good sense, and let a married woman stand exactly in the same relation to property the day after her marriage as she did the day before.

National Health Service (Amendment) Bill

HC Deb 15 April 1986 vol 95 cc795-825

Mr. Gordon Oakes(Halton)

I also support this useful little Bill. I should like to declare my interests, which are almost a mirror image of those of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I am an honorary vice-president of the Environmental Health Officers Association, and have been for many years, and I advise the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It is a professional body that looks after the standards and registration of pharmacists.

I should like to deal first with clause 1. The Environmental Health Officers Association has battled for years against the ludicrous concept of Crown immunity.                        815            Crown immunity is a legal fiction which held that the Queen or the King could do no wrong and that therefore a Department of State could do no wrong. There have been recent terrible incidents in old people’s homes or in hospitals for old people, and in hospitals that care for the mentally ill. Those are people who are least able to cope and need the greatest protection from the state. Things have gone badly wrong, people have suffered illness and many have died. The Bill is an advance against Crown immunity and I congratulate the Minister for taking what all hon. Members have said is but one small step.

Clause 1. (AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

HC Deb 28 February 1968 vol 759 cc1421-542

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York)

People will be thrown out of Kenya while holding British passports, and will have nowhere else to go. Horror should afflict the mind of every responsible Member to think that there will be people trying to come to this country with British passports who have been created stateless. That is what they really are. I know that technically and legally they are not stateless, but unless one has the rights of nationality what does nationality count for? If one cannot live and work in the area that has given one nationality, what does it mean that one has been given that empty legal fiction?

SECOND READING.

HC Deb 26 April 1876 vol 228 cc1658-744

MR. SMOLLETT

Does this Bill put women on a footing of equality with men? It does not. A man does not lose the franchise when he weds—some men come under petticoat government, but that is a different thing. Frequently men are qualified for the franchise through property brought them by their wives. By this Bill the woman will lose her vote on her marriage, and the husband will exercise the privilege without the knowledge of the woman, through the protection of secret Ballot. Therefore, there is no equality in the Bill at all. And why is this to be done? Simply because by the common law of the land a man and his wife are supposed to be one and indivisible—they are supposed to be one flesh and blood. Everyone knows that that is a legal fiction; but our lawyers are partial to fiction, and even when they propose to emancipate womankind, they have not the courage to sweep away the cobwebs of the common law. Small as the Bill is, and adjured as we are not to travel beyond the four corners of this small Bill, no two hon. Members look upon it in the same light. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), whom I do not see now in his place, asked us last year not to oppose the Bill, because it was so small a measure and so excellent a measure, and because it was the logical corollary of the Bill of 1867; but my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire says it is a huge Bill of reform which is calculated in a short period to bring us to universal suffrage.

Employment Rights

HC Deb 07 March 1986 vol 93 cc568-88

Mr. Evans

A ruthless employer, Mr. Murdoch, of News International, has been able to use the law in a way which, I submit, the House never intended.

The Secretary of State at that time was the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) and the law that he put on the statute book has been subsequently amended, altered and shaped by the judges and the legal profession so as to allow what was never intended by section 17 of the Act. It has allowed Mr. Murdoch and other employers to construct a chain of limited companies to create a legal fiction of separation. If, at company A the work or the business is being interrupted by a perfectly legitimate industrial dispute, the law on secondary action can be brought into play at company X although it is owned and operated by the same employer, because a chain of small private limited companies have been erected between them, even though the same work is being done on behalf of the same employer. The workers in that context have been denied their job opportunities and denied their work. Subsequently they have been denied their rights to such things as redundancy payment and the right to claim unfair dismissal and to take such claims to a tribunal. I am sure no decent citizen would attempt morally to justify the scenario that exists at Wapping.

And finally, the DIPLOMAT. Probably with just a very few exceptions (such as the Queen for example), the DIPLOMAT has bestowed upon him the most powerful legal fiction which a corrupt individual could ever hope for. While, if not corrupt, then by the sheer exemption from law which he has, he will become so:

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL

HC Deb 17 March 1950 vol 472 cc1407-53

Mr. Basil Nield(City of Chester)

From the course which this Debate has taken it seems to me to be quite clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House are in agreement with the general purposes of the Measure as explained by the Under-Secretary of State—that is to say, to extend special privileges to the Council of Europe. I intervene only to express some doubts whether this Bill as at present drafted is best designed to achieve that purpose. It is a short non-controversial Bill, but none the less it is one of very great constitutional importance, and I agree so much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bucks, South (Mr. Bell) has just said, namely, that where there is a proposal to extend diplomatic privilege and immunity it must have the most careful consideration by this House.

One has but to look at some of the fundamental privileges and immunities which attach to the diplomatic agent to see how important it is not to extend                        1437            these rights to other categories without the greatest care. There is a right of personal inviolability. Then there is the legal fiction which makes the house of a diplomatic agent, for example an embassy, to be regarded as within the territory of the country from which he is accredited. The position is that such an agent is not subject to the Government of the receiving Power. Several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that he is exempt from taxation, from certain local rates and from civil jurisdiction. He cannot sue or be sued, neither can his goods be seized, and he is also exempt from criminal jurisdiction.

Wrong Patrick! You’re not a person either! You’re a free man!