Earthling

The disease within.

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on February 25, 2014

From the annals (or was it anals?) of Lord Fingerboy of Fuckinghamshire……

voice_clarke

1965

My Lords, we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against homosexuality and my noble Lord Boothby is, himself a homosexual. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for homosexuality so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

LORD BOOTHBYAs I see it, the main object of this Bill is to avoid blackmail. We know that there are more cases of blackmail in connection with homosexuality than anything else in this country. I suggest to your Lordships that if this Amendment is passed, the main object of the Bill will be destroyed. We are out to avoid blackmail. I have consulted a number of eminent solicitors in the course of the last three months, some of the most eminent solicitors of all. They have said this to me and I think it is a point, “If anyone who occupies a position of public responsibility, or is in a position of public notoriety, came to us and said he was being blackmailed, rightly or wrongly, with reason or with no reason, for homosexuality, we should very much hesitate to advise him to fight the case. On balance, we should advise him to pay. But if it were Mr. John, or Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jenkins, of Wolverhampton, or Leicester, or perhaps even Edinburgh, someone who was of no importance at all, he would pay his fine of £.10, and that would be the end of the matter, and there would be no headlines in the newspapers at all”.

I sincerely believe that this is absolutely wrong. Any young man in this country is in a position to blackmail a man who is in a position of responsibility, or who is a well-known figure in this country. I have been advised—I assure the noble Earl, and I am sure he would agree with me; I cannot mention names but they are the very best solicitors—that in these cases the probability is that they would say, “Pay, and finish with it, because we can give no guarantee whatever of any safety or security”. That is what I want to avoid in this Bill above anything else.

§LORD CHORLEYIt seems to me that the two noble and learned Lords who are supporting this Amendment so strongly are so emotionally involved in this problem that they have lost the sense of proportion that lawyers ought to bring to bear on matters of this kind. The idea that something ceases to become consent because there is a gift attached to it is completely new in the whole domain of English law. It is a most astonishing proposition. They go on to say that men of over 21 years of 396age are no longer to be free agents. They are to be curbed in this sort of way by the law. When they look back on this debate in a few weeks’ time I think they will be puzzled to know how they could be led to such an emotional situation. It has never been suggested in the whole of history that men over 21 should not be free agents in respect of what they decide to do and that they should be curbed in this way. On the face of it, it is a proposition that I should have thought would not hold water for a minute.

§LORD CONESFORDI have heard more astonishing law from the last two speakers than I have heard during the rest of my legal life. It would seem that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is under the impression that bribery is no offence.

§LORD CHORLEYIs the noble Lord suggesting that this is a case of bribery? It is not within a mile of bribery.

§LORD BOOTHBYBlackmail.

§LORD CONESFORDThe noble Lord, Lord Boothby, flits from pillar to post with such rapidity, reversing what he said in his last speech with every new speech he makes, that it is difficult to keep up with him. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that an eminent solicitor, wisely nameless—

§LORD BOOTHBYMore than one.

§LORD CONESFORDMore than one solicitor advised a person who was being blackmailed to pay up. I can only say that the most eminent practitioner in the law at the time I first began to practise told me that from time to time he had been consulted by people who were being blackmailed. He had always given the same advice—pay nothing and tell them to be damned. He said, “I know that my advice was right, but it was seldom taken”.

I am in complete sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, so far as I understand him, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in loathing blackmail. What astonishes me in this whole controversy is the quite extraordinary view that, if we pass this Bill or something like it, the blackmailing of homosexuals will cease. Why on earth should it? The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, quite rightly, that to a 397public man a reputation of being homosexual could be very harmful. Therefore, the revelation that he is a homosexual—

§LORD BOOTHBYI really must protest against that. I never said that I was a homosexual—”The revelation that I was a homosexual”.

§LORD CONESFORDI said nothing of the kind. The noble Lord is not always the person concerned if he is concerned at all. I shall perhaps be saying something of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did earlier in this debate, about which I had intended letting him off.

§LORD BOOTHBYBe careful.

§LORD CONESFORDI will be careful. If it is damaging to a public man to be known to be a homosexual, whether it is a criminal offence or not, the blackmailer can make a threat of revealing the fact, and that threat may be so severe that it may be worth buying off with money. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the mere passing of a Bill of this kind will end the risk of blackmail in connection with homosexual offences.

I share what I am sure is the hope of the Lord Chancellor, that if there is a reform of the law, blackmail will diminish; but I do not put it higher than that. Can we not get some of the advantages of a reform of the law without opening the door to something that everybody in the House, whatever his views on this problem, would think horrible—namely, a rich man using his wealth, not to buy affection, but to buy the commission of what has hitherto been a serious criminal act? That, as it seems to me, is a real risk. It is against that that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has devised this Amendment. It may he imperfect; there may be objections to it; but I am sure it deserves more respect than it has hitherto received.

Since I promised that I would deal with the noble Lord who has so consistently interrupted everybody who has been making a speech on this subject throughout this afternoon, let me come to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, on the very first Amendment to-day, the noble and learned Lord—

§LORD BOOTHBYI am not learned.

398

§LORD CONESFORDNo; but Lord Dilhorne is. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said that in earlier proceedings Lord Boothby had misrepresented to the House the nature of this Bill and the nature of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee. This was indignantly denied by Lord Boothby.

§LORD BOOTHBYHear, hear!

§LORD CONESFORDVery well. Then I would recommend Lord Boothby to acquire a copy of the Hansard of May 12 of this year, and to turn to column 131. He will there find that he interrupted my noble friend Lord Rowallan with these words: All we are talking about is the Labouchere Amendment, and that is all that the Wolfenden Committee wants to be removed.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 73).] Lord Rowallan said: I am afraid that I cannot accept such a statement. Then Lord Jessel said this: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had been here a little earlier, he would have heard from my noble friend Lord Dundee a very full description of what happened. Then I intervened for, until this evening, the only time I have intervened on this topic, as follows: My Lords, I am not taking any side in this intervention, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is entirely wrong in saying that all we are discussing is the Labouchere Amendment, or that that was the sole subject of the Wolfenden Report.

§“LORD BOOTHBYOf course it was.

§“LORD CONESFORDOf course it was not.”

At that point the noble Earl the Leader of the House very properly intervened with the suggestion that Lord Rowallan might get on with his speech. I hope that the quotation I have made from the previous intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will show how utterly wrong he was in suggesting that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne had misrepresented him in any way in the speech that he made, and I hope that possibly what I am saying now may induce him to—

§LORD BOOTHBYKeep his trap shut.

§LORD CONESFORD—to remain in a sedentary position until he has something worth while to say.

2014

My Lords, I am now 49 years older as I stand here before you once again, but we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against paedophilia and a few of my noble Lords, Ladies and among those in the other place, we know as we did in the 1960s regarding the homos, are pedophiles.. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for paedophilia so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions once more! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

However, as was done in the sixties and seventies, we must lay the groundwork for the population to come to terms with such activity. We must use every weapon at our disposal – from media to human rights pressure groups – to impress the legality, morality and normality of such acts. We must ensure that the public recognises such as simply another sexual orientation.

2050

Holy shit! The Prime Minister has just fcuked a donkey! My Lords, I am now 110 and I sit here before you with my colostomy bag but I still believe in our greater good. We must protect the good name of this Parliament even though just an inconsequential satellite of the World Zionist government on Temple Mount. At present we have a law against bestiality and a few of my noble Lords……… actually, you know what? I’m done with you fcuking perverts!

But our good old boy, Icke, can see totalitarian tiptoe’s and connections everywhere but he can’t see it in this? I guess it doesn’t fit his agenda! 😉

“Hush it up, get rid of it, protect the Crown, the Parliament and our entire way of life from the public otherwise they may want to lynch the whole lot of us!”

You’re damned right we do!

Mirror paedo judge

God gave us the sun to harness for tax purposes!

Posted in "Climate Change" by earthling on February 24, 2014

I just wanted to re-publish this blog having read the following which backs up what I was saying in the blog, written perhaps a couple of years ago.

Off grid is illegal

As I said below, they cannot allow the world, meaning people individually or in groups, to generate their own power and utilities. But you would think, on the face of it, that that is what “Green Energy” and using free sunlight and harnessing water etc was all about wouldn’t you? But no, it isn’t and never was. Please note that you are only provided with a tariff discounting structure IF you have your solar system installed by a REGULATED installer. PLUS, it must be a GRID TIED system and, generally, you are not allowed to operate a system which has a storage battery facility if you wish to participate in the tariff scheme. You see, a storage system would allow for the energy received by the panels during the day which is excess to what your daytime usage is, to be stored in batteries which would then allow your energy requirements during the evening (no sun) to be delivered via the batteries. That would mean that you would never need to rely on the grid. THEY CANNOT HAVE THAT! So then, even though solar energy from the sun is free, they ensure that most of the solar (or wind) STILL is connected into the grid and, as such, they have the excuse for taxing the sun and the wind and any and every other resource which exists in the universe.

Once this person publicized what they were doing, that’s when the system’s “jackboot” came down. The odd few people can get away with it if they’re silent and discrete but, under no circumstances, can they allow freedom to catch on.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/02/22/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

Before you read the rest, please have a listen to this (just the section from 10.53 to 11.53).

And if you want more detail on what these two were discussing, it’s all here and it is truly inspiring…

Now he believes Global Warming is real. Nevertheless, real or not (and it isn’t – certainly not from an AGW perspective), he’ STILL thinking and doing the right things. He’s visionary.

So here’s the rest of the blog from a couple of years ago….

Since when did you ever hear of Solar plants being built in the North Sea and throughout the UK’s offshore interests?

You didn’t did you? What a STUPID idea Earthling!

And indeed it is! Absolutely ridiculous!

And that is why the UK is now cutting Solar incentives! You see, while the Green renewable age began with the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” (a MUST read for all you Friends of the Earth and Greenies) followed by “The first  Global Revolution” we can’t possibly have this:

“In a time of economic gloom, the solar industry has been one of the UK’s brightest success stories, enabling homes and communities across the country to free themselves from expensive fossil fuels.”

Because that isn’t what this game is about you silly “Environmentalists” who support 350.org etc (Rockefeller funded organisations). It’s not to FREE you! How extraordinarily naive of you! Why would those who dreamed up this entire scheme and who own and control the world’s energy resources, wish to then allow you to live freely of them? Are you seriously nuts?

The game is to “reinvent” energy but in a way that these people will still control it whether it is natural Free energy from wind or from sea or solar. If we all became self sufficient for goodness sakes, these people would lose $billions if not $trillions. Come on folks! Think will you? Finally?

WHO OWNS THE SEABED?

THE CROWN OWNS THE SEABED!

NOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ALL THAT INCOME FROM THE OFFSHORE WINDFARMS WHICH THE CROWN DERIVE ROYALTIES FROM IF THEY BECAME OBSOLESCENT AND EVERYONE WAS FREE OF THE NATIONAL GRID?

COME ON NOW. IT ISN’T DIFFICULT!

YOU CAN’T DO THAT TO THE CROWN! YOU CAN’T REMOVE THEIR SOURCE OF PROFITABILITY! THEY TOOK OWNERSHIP OF THE OIL AND GAS AND COAL FOR ALL THESE YEARS/DECADES AND HAD YOU PAY FOR YOUR ENERGY FROM NATURALLY OCCURRING SOURCES. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO TAKE THE SUN AND WIND FROM THEM EITHER!

WHILE, IN THE UK, WHERE DO THEY WANT THE INVESTMENT GOING?

WINDPOWER!

WHY?

BECAUSE THEY ARE FOCUSING ON OFFSHORE – THE SEABED – ROYALTIES!

Have a read:  the-crown-is-profiting-from-your-misery-fuel-bills-anyone

WHEN DID YOU EVER SEE A SOLAR PANEL FARM ON THE SEA?

OFF GRID: DANGEROUS! NO EDF, NO SCOTTISH POWER, NO ROYALTIES!

ON GRID: PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE! EDF, SCOTTISH POWER, YOU NAME IT!

And here was you thinking Monopolies were illegal! It’s not only the monopoly of currency issuance by the Bank of England but also the total monopoly of the National Grid. Are you beginning to see why?

Engagements

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.

Now one must remember, reading the above, that your Energy “supplier” does not supply at all. THAT is a “legal fiction” and they don’t like you to appreciate that! If you “change suppliers” do you think for one moment you are getting a completely different supply of gas and electricity through your system? 🙂 It ALL comes from the same source and that source is the National Grid. It is the National Grid which is your SUPPLIER. So your “supplier” (and for that matter, the government) are letting you, in your ignorance, believe little fables. The Energy “suppliers” are basically a consortium of Customer service and maintenance people who provide you with “competition” on tariffs from exactly the same source!

There’s a lot more about that little angle but perhaps for another blog sometime!

High Court application against UK solar incentive cuts

12 December 2011

The UK High Court has agreed to hear applications by Friends of the Earth and solar companies Solarcentury and HomeSun for permission to challenge Government plans to slash financial incentives for solar electricity on Thursday 15 December 2011.

By Kari Williamson

Confirmation of the hearing follows an earlier High Court ruling rejecting permission for a legal challenge. The organisations are now asking the High Court to reverse the decision and allow a hearing into the legal challenges regarding solar incentive cuts as soon as possible.

Friends of the Earth is also asking the High Court to cap its potential legal costs for the case. International rules specify that costs should be limited in public interest cases on the environment.

The legal challenges centre around the plans by the UK Government to slash feed-in tariff subsidies for solar photovoltaic (PV) installations completed after 12 December this year.

The Government is currently running a consultation into feed-in tariffs – but the 12 December cut-off point comes two weeks before the consultation ends.

Friends of the Earth’s Executive Director Andy Atkins, says: “We strongly believe Government plans to abruptly slash solar subsidies are illegal, we hope the High Court agrees to allow our case to be heard as soon as possible.

“We’ve also asked the High Court to cap our potential costs. International rules say this should be allowed in public interest cases on the environment – we can’t afford to bring a challenge if we face unlimited liability for the other side’s legal fees.

“In a time of economic gloom, the solar industry has been one of the UK’s brightest success stories, enabling homes and communities across the country to free themselves from expensive fossil fuels.

“It’s short sighted for Ministers to move the goalposts and prematurely pull the subsidy – this will cost tens of thousands of jobs, bankrupt businesses and reduce Treasury income by up to £230m a year.”

GOOD LUCK FRIENDS OF THE EARTH!

Meanwhile, you may want to give this a little ponder because, once this infrastructure is in, there is no need to pay tariffs to Energy companies. It is truly self sustaining with just the need for maintenance. And very little of it.

Once the investment is sunk, why is there need for ongoing bills?

The answer: There isn’t!

The People’s Voice & OFCOM.

Posted in Law, Media, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on October 24, 2013

There you are.

It’s YOUR voice right? David keeps telling you that. It’s YOU funding it too right? David keeps telling you that too. It’s for the public’s interest isn’t it? That’s the whole idea of it isn’t it? To be in the public’s interest to expose these nasty people across the board isn’t it?

So, go for it. According to OFCOM, information as to whether “The People’s Voice” has applied or is being considered for a licence cannot be divulged (and this is the thing that gives you the power to put him on the spot) “is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business. ” (They quote the Communications Act 2003 and that Act expressly states that if you do not have consent from the business owner – that OBVIOUSLY not being you then! lol – then they will not reveal the information. So then ASK for David’s consent! He is transparent isn’t he? He wouldn’t be hiding anything would he? Why on EARTH would he do that? 🙂

But here is the sensational irony which shall be totally lost on all the Icke congregation:

British regulatory legislation is protecting David Icke from the need for transparency in his business dealings which are meant to be for the British (and world) public and funded by the British (and world) public!

While David Icke and TPV is about absolutely destroying the very establishment which has decided to provide him with that protection from transparency!

WHOOSH! Right over Icke followers heads!

From: Julia.Snape@ofcom.org.uk
To: Me
Subject: The Peoples Voice 1-245308060
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:25:23 +0000

Dear Mr

Please find attached a response to your request for information.

Kind regards

Julia

Ofcom 1

Dear Julia,

Thank you for your confirmation that you have not issued a licence to “The People’s Voice” as of today. Having originally contacted Ofcom about the need for such a CONTENT licence for internet based broadcasting, I was advised as below:

From: TV.Licensing@ofcom.org.uk
To: Me
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000

Yes.

Services which are broadcast from the UK via the internet are licensable.   This is set out in the notes of guidance for applicants and reflects the requirement of the Audio Visual Media Services Directive.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/guidance_notes_and_apps/

Therefore, my follow up questions are as follows:

1. I must assume, therefore, that if such an organisation has not been issued with a licence by the time of commencing broadcasting, that they shall be in breach of the statutory requirements in such an instance? This is a general question relating to any and all broadcasters and potential broadcasters of internet content. If this assumption is incorrect, can you advise me of the specific situations in which a broadcaster need not apply for and be granted a licence by OFCOM (or ATVOD)?

2. Specifically, is it necessary that “The People’s Voice” DOES have a licence (content licence) to broadcast? According to the reply above, this is the case. Is the reply correct?

3. Further, I would wish to add this: “The People’s Voice” is, as can be clearly evidenced by the continuing requests for donations by the public and the continuing promotion of the station as being “The People’s” station, suggesting it is purely being set up and broadcast FOR the “public interest”. It is the public funding it (unless I am mistaken – which is very probable in my opinion although that is not what is being “sold” TO the public). If, then, it promotes its entire raison d’être as being “in the public interest” then it is not, at all, in the public interest that they do not know and have no way of knowing whether the public’ interest is being served by the station/company (a Private Limited Company suggesting it is non profit) complying with the statutory requirements. If the public is not allowed such information then it is a clear indication that the company is acting in a private and non transparent manner and that OFCOM and present legislation is enabling such.

How, then, can it be stated that it not require a “public interest test” to provide this information for a broadcast network funded by the public? Please answer this question for me very logically.

4. Having read section 393(1) of the Communications Act, it does occur to me that for, as you say, the information to be “classified” (for that is what this is – classified and not available to the public), the “business” must have been granted a provision to operate under that act for the protection of section 393(1) to come into force. Am I correct?

393 General restrictions on disclosure of information

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, information with respect to a particular business which has been obtained in exercise of a power conferred by—

(a)this Act,

(b)the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum (so far as not contained in this Act),

(c)the 1990 Act, or

(d)the 1996 Act,

is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business.

So, a legislative body related to government must have given approval for “The People’s Voice” (or ANY such broadcaster) to operate under the terms of the Communications Act 2003. Again, Am I correct?

5. To be given such approval and be protected from the need to divulge such information relating to whether or not the business has a licence to operate under OFCOM, obviously then suggests that the British government are entirely approving of the expected content from such a broadcaster. Am I correct?
Please note, the above questions (4 and 5) are logical and can be answered in a general form. There is absolutely no justification for not replying to these questions in a general form then.
6. Inasmuch as you, personally, will have the knowledge of whether the station is abiding by the statutory requirements then, in your capacity as an OFCOM employee (and one, therefore, who must abide by statutory legislation as you are doing now by not divulging what is written within the Acts) please state/confirm that you, in your capacity, would, and will, flag the noncompliance of any and all broadcasters who require a licence from you (or ATVOD). This may be treated as a freedom of information act request questioning a Freedom of Information Act officer. My guess is that, as such, such an officer would have to be transparent and factual in their reply (unless the FOI Act also gives some form of “pass” for that also?).
Thank you and regards,

So here’s how the conversation went between David Icke and those who granted him the benefit of conducting his business under the Communications Act 2003:

“Hello Mr Icke, what can we do for you?”

“Well I’d like to set up a business in broadcasting over the internet please”

“Indeed Mr Icke. What exactly is it you intend to broadcast?”

“Oh just a lot of the REAL news that the BBC etc don’t broadcast and show everyone the truth of the corruption and paedophilia etc etc which goes on among our legislators, the Police, Government, Parliament, the Queen and generally do whatever is possible to expose the scum for what they are.”

“Hmmm. Do you realise that it is all of those institutions and the people within them and who you speak of who create the laws and legislation of this country Mr Icke? It’s highly unlikely then that you shall be granted such a business under the Communications Act 2003 which will, effectively, protect you from having to give information out to those who fund you and those who you say the tv network is for and on behalf of. Generally speaking in the real world Mr Icke, one’s enemies being in such a powerful position, do not tend to provide the legal vehicle for one to attack them. Are there any extenuating circumstances as to why you think it would be different in your case?”

“33”

“Oh I see! How would you like to pay?”

“American Express?”

“That’ll do nicely sir, thank you!”

GET REAL ICKEANS! Actually use your newly found “enlightenment” to THINK assholes!

Icke comms act 2003

David, if I had an audience like yours I’d be grinning like a cheshire cat too!

Addendum:

While this guy who wanks off strangers in public toilets (and you find out Tony Blair or any other politician does the same and what do you do?) gets a prime slot on BBC television to make the call for “Revolution” while neither he nor Icke have ANY form of solution (they do not have the intellect to propose a solution!!).

What is it you do not understand about the very thing Icke and co talk about? “Ordo Ab Chao”. This is PRECISELY what you are seeing these same people creating – CHAOS. Because, without a solution, a “revolution” WILL simply create that chaos! JOB DONE!

To all of you who consider yourself “awakened” WAKE THE FUCK UP! And no, I shall not apologise for the language. You deserve the sheer condescension thrown at you!

“Do you have a solution Earthling? If not shut up!” – Well in fact I do. I have solutions but I would need people to listen and support them as much as these guys have their audience otherwise I am pissing in the wind. There are two main elements: The monetary system and the legal system. There is also the religious aspect but that can wait. With numbers supporting what I would have planned (and it is very easy and takes nothing but sheer numbers to support WORDS. Yes WORDS. That is ALL it takes.) not “I” but WE could literally destroy this system BUT (and this is the big thing) BUT we would destroy it with a solution NOT just “We want a revolution”. Give him his due (and I hate to) Paxman was right to say “Yes but what do you replace it with?”

Why are these people getting to raise their profiles on the BBC etc? While they have no solution? It is because they are the perfect, well known (loved) celebrities that the vast majority of plonkers out there will listen to in abject ignorance! It is PERFECT for the establishment. If you do not understand this then you do not deserve the description of “Awakened”.

 

 

Don’t get me wrong. I recognise what I believe to be sincere (although I have been proven wrong with Icke and that is a certainty) and correct points being made by Brand. He delivers the points well also BUT, without a solution, the people who we are working against utilise every side to create the hegelian “synergy” that they need to create the change that THEY wish to impose. They do it subtly and they do it well. You KNOW that. And until such times as a solution is put forward and listened to and supported, all you are doing by “rah rah”ing Russell Brand and co is creating the chaos that these people want. That is why he is on the BBC. IF he had a solution (a real one) the BBC would not got near him with a ten foot pole.

Brand mentions support of a solution if one comes forward, then, while I have blogged about them incessantly over the last year or so (having concentrated on the problems beforehand), it is now time to support solutions. The destruction of the present monetary system and replacement with MPE (or equivalent) is one aspect. The other is the recognition of the legal person and how it is implemented to all our detriment then, not so much replacing it but recognising the con in it and adjustment of such to create a TRUE “everyone is equal before the law” system. Both of these elements go hand in hand – they MUST do because they feed off one another.

How to achieve it? Simple (it really is): I can write to 10 Downing street and copy to all media outlets (tv and press) and provide absolute fact and evidence coupled with total logic which YOU would support) and, with your support (but it would have to be hundreds of thousands of people – that’s it, it needs NUMBERS. Numbers which Icke and co have but do not utilise for the purpose of lobbying) we could shake the UK government and parliament to its very core based upon pure intellect. NOT chaotic, on the streets revolution (it never achieved anything).

But then who am I right? Well, who are you?

And that is the underlying problem: You look to celebrity to sort it or be your “spiritual” leader. This NEVER works. What DOES work is understanding the solution (and even if there are certain areas of it you do not understand or even disagree with – we are NEVER all going to agree on every detail, that’s what makes us individuals – you still recognise the fundamentals being 100% accurate and beneficial to you and us all) and then taking the view that the best interests of the 99% are served in such a case. You do not achieve “nirvana” for all in one single step but the first step will be catastrophic for the 1% and create the basis for progressing toward that “nirvana”.

One small step…….

 

The question remains: How do we gather hundreds of thousands? THAT is the issue.

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!

The “Natural Person” and the Matrix

Posted in Law by earthling on December 3, 2011

It is becoming more and more clear that even some (most?) of “they” do not even understand the terms by which we are all enslaved to debt and to a “matrix” known as the legal world.

The Matrix is: Are you “Neo” (a human being) or are you a fiction (a “person”).

The former is free the latter a slave. Period!

Case in point:

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

HC Deb 19 January 1993 vol 217 cc271-351

Mrs. Gorman

Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of training and the use of slush funds, I should be interested to hear his comments on the attitude revealed in article 57 and amendment No. 199. The article is sinister because it refers to the laying down of            directives for the co-ordination … by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States            in relation to the activities of self-employed persons. It is sinister because the essence of many forms of self-employment is that people can drift into them, especially when they have lost other work. If there are to be directives, laws and regulations—

§The Chairman            Order. The hon. Lady’s point is relevant. She has asked a question and perhaps she will now allow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston to answer.

341

§Sir Richard Body            I agree wholeheartedly with the point of my hon. Friend’s intervention. I was self-employed before I came to the House—many of us were. A self-employed person should be sufficiently endowed to be able to decide for himself or herself what type of vocational training is suitable. It is amazing that the European Community or those who drafted the treaty should go so far as to suggest that the self-employed should take part in such schemes—it should be entirely a matter for them.

§Sir Teddy Taylor            Does my hon. Friend accept that article 57 does not offer opportunities for everyone? The second sentence of paragraph 2 of article 57 refers to            training and conditions of access for natural persons.            My hon. Friend seems to have studied this matter carefully. As we know from last night, however, the Minister does not answer questions but simply reads prepared speeches. That is unfortunate, but perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. Bearing in mind the reference to “natural persons”, can he tell me what unnatural persons are? Or perhaps some Opposition Member can enlighten us.

This is a very serious point. The Bill with which we are dealing is to become the law of the land. Training and access are to be provided for natural persons but not, apparently, for unnatural persons. What on earth is a natural person? May we have an assurance—

§The Chairman            The hon. Gentleman must not keep asking the same question. He has asked what a natural person is. Perhaps he will allow his hon. Friend to respond.

9.15 pm

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend is, of course, right. This just goes to show how difficult it is to translate these documents into some kind of English. At one time I did a little lecturing in company law. We used to talk about “persons”. A person can be a corporate entity. For example, I believe that, in law, ICI is a person.

§Sir Teddy Taylor            But a natural person?

I WANT TO KNOW GODDAMNIT! AM I OR AM I NOT A “PERSON”?

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend and I are natural persons. I shall not point to anyone who might be described as anything other than a natural person; indeed, all of us here are natural persons. In law, ICI, Unilever, Shell and all other such organisations are persons, but not natural persons. 

§Sir Teddy Taylor            I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is one of the wisest people in the House, but I have to point out that he is stating what he thinks the position to be. Is there a definition anywhere? Constituents of mine will probably have to obey these laws. When it comes to training and access, I shall have to ask, “Are you a natural person?” My hon. Friend says that he thinks that he and I are natural persons. Where is the definition? This is not fun; it is a serious matter. All those who say that this Bill should be rushed through should realise that what it contains would become the law of the land. I demand that before we leave this matter we be told, by my hon. Friend or by somebody else, what the blazes a natural person is. 

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend should not be quite so naive as to believe that the people who drafted this treaty, as well as those who will put it into effect, have very much interest in the people of Southend. The treaty            342            contains many examples of the way in which it will be very difficult for ordinary people, particularly those who are self-employed, to understand the laws that govern their lives, disobedience of which may result in punishment.

 

I hope that provides the reader with an insight as to what a natural person and a legal person are RECOGNISING that they both are defined in law and neither is “natural” but legal fiction. Both are under the same LEGAL heading of “person” but the words “natural” and “legal” are simply to differentiate (IN “LAW”) that which, outside of the legal definitions of “person”, is a living human being and  that which is purely a “person” created on paper (such as a Corporation by way of its Articles of Association OR a Nation State by way of its Constitutional arrangements just as the EU achieved a legal personality in 2009).

So here we have a Lord (and others), Teddy Taylor, who hasn’t got the first clue about what determines personhood yet there are so many people out there in the UK who would turn and listen to a Lord before they listened to a “dumb blogger nobody”. They will ask for “proof” when proof is already given but they will ask for “proof” in terms of documentation form the very people (government/state) who are using the “law” (their corrupted, devious version of it)   to oppress them. These very same people then are asking the people who the majority (vast majority) of the public distrust – the political establishment of this country – to admit what they are doing when, day by day, we see these people lying through their teeth and literally “leeching” from the good people of this country who, ignorantly and in obeyance of a corrupt regime, continue to pay their taxes while this bunch of leeches pay off their friends, pay themselves, use your tax to pay for their mortgages down to their DVDs.

All I can say is that the people of this country have a very robust form of “Stockholm Syndrome” and until they relieve themselves of it and educate themselves on the excesses of this corrupt British regime, then Britain is finished.

We have a Police force and an Armed Forces who are completely unaware of all of this and just continue carrying out their duties while their own families and everyone around them in this country lose their wealth and health and yet these IDIOTS don’t ask themselves “Why are we doing this job? We are constructing for these people the very bars of our own prison!”.

SHEER IDIOCY!

 

Meanwhile Teddy, if you’re listening buddy, you ain’t got a bloody clue do you? They create the “legal framework” as they go along. These bastards continue and carry on arbitrarily constructing the next paradigm regarding who and what will be considered a “person” in years to come and you know what? It might just not be YOU! What’s your IQ?

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.”

the-terasem-movement-4th-colloquium-on-the-law-of-futuristic-persons

 

KEN CLARKE – EXPENSES SWINDLER

On 12 May 2009, The Daily Telegraph reported that Clarke had “flipped” his council tax. He had told the Parliamentary authorities that his main home was in his Rushcliffe constituency, enabling him to claim a second homes allowance on his London home and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill for the council tax due on that property. However, he told Rushcliffe Borough Council in Nottinghamshire that he spent so little time at his constituency address that his wife Gillian should qualify for a 25% council tax (single person’s) discount, saving the former chancellor around £650 per year. Land registry records showed that Clarke did not have a mortgage on his home in Nottinghamshire, where he has lived since 1987. He instead held a mortgage on his London house, which he had most recently charged to the taxpayer at £480 per month.

Why didn’t HE go in the purge? Well, when you start to understand all of this big picture you will understand that!

They purged who they wanted rid of and they used those “sacrificial lambs” (who had done far less than Clarke and others in many cases) to give you the impression they were doing something about it. And YOU SWALLOWED IT!