Earthling

KOBAYASHI MARU

ARE YOU WHITE?

If so, are you kneeling due to something entirely out of your control, you were born with white skin?

Are you apologising for it?

Did your white skin murder anyone?

Does your white skin automatically make you a racist?

Do you know what happens when you appease your enemy? Have you ever handed your lunch money to the school bully? What happens next?

Are you cucked?

ARE YOU BLACK?

If so, are you beaming with joy as you see thousands upon thousands of whites kneeling and protesting saying only your lives matter? After all, to say ALL lives matter has a hint of racism doesn’t it? Talk about turning things on their head.

Are you happily taking advantage of what you see as being to your advantage? Are you thinking – even just for a moment – that your black skin is going to win something out of all of this? So, you managed to loot a toaster! Woopeedoo!

Is THIS what you are?

You’re going to call the cops (who are currently cucked to you while you attack them) if people protect themselves and don’t allow you to beat, maim, kill and destroy/steal their property?

And you think all of that is just going to continue?

Or let’s say you’re one of the ‘good’, well behaved protestors BUT you’re still protesting for one man’s death which “exemplifies”, to you, a core racism within the white race. You have no clue about the history of slavery and who ran it. Yes, you were segregated for about a century and treated like 3rd class citizens. Etc etc etc.

BUT just like women who were not ‘legal persons” until, essentially, the 20th century and the LGBT crew who recently won their right for recognition as “legal persons” (by the way, not one of these groups resorted to the violence you have shown), yo now not only want equality but you want revenge. You all want either males to kneel, straights to kneel or whites to kneel.

IF YOU’RE A GAY BLACK MAN – HOLY FUCK, YOU WANT IT ALL!

But here’s the thing: In your emotional state of mind, thinking of all the wrong committed toward you, you blame the white for your blackness, the straight for your gayness and the male for your femininity. But the white can’t help being white like the straight can’t help not preferring a dick up his ass and for those of us who stand up when we piss, well it’s what god gave us just as he gave you your black skin.

But if it were a fact that blacks were suppressed and held back from achieving anything (due to inherent, systemic racism by whites), then how come we’ve had a Barack Obama? After all, you believe he was black don’t you? You believe he was “one of you”. How about his lawyer wife, Michelle? She’s black isn’t she?

How about all the black actors and comedians and rappers and sportsmen and the list goes on….? All of these people are making six figures at the very least. But not you, right? And it’s all about you!

I’m white. I have zero privilege in life and certainly in law. I know, trust me on that! But you won’t just because I’m white. And you call ME “racist”? I see, in the UK at least, MILLIONS of white people who have no privilege at all and it shows in the way they live. IS that due to suppression by coloured people? Well, bear with me here, but in a way it is because our GOVERNMENT have something called positive discrimination which they consistently use, while bringing more and more immigrants into the country, to show straightforward preference treatment to non whites within our society. YET, I know (and many do) that it is not black or coloured or muslim who are directly impacting us; It is an agenda enforced upon us by an untouchable elite. Strangely, you black people are very aware of this untouchable elite BUT you refer to it as “white supremacy”. However, you just need to look around and you will, if you’re honest, see just how much that elite share their supremacy with other whites. Do they? Do they hell! Are they even really white?

This elite can be found in Asia, Africa, Latin America as well as Europe and the USA. They are NOT all white. Many are yellow and brown and black but there always seems to be a “Cohen” hanging around somewhere among them. Ever noticed that?

These “elite” are the programmers. They’re programming us and they’re programming you. They’re playing a game with us and it’s a dangerous one. You seem to have no conception of this as you demand we bend a knee to you. However, these people are never going to give you (or us) what you want…… NEVER! Don’t be so naive!

What you’re seeing as “spontaneous” protests around the world are not that. Hard on the heels of a virus which attacked the respiratory system (totally fake in my view), we now have “I can’t breathe”. You think that’s coincidence? Or Cohencidence?

So they’ve taken two steps: 1. “Virus”. 2. “Protests/Riots”. What do you think 3 could be? Because trust me, there is going to be a 3. Either a global financial meltdown (affecting the west the most); A major outbreak of war (could be both) or it could be a REAL plague this time (created). There could be another 9/11 type of event but, if there were, it would have to be much larger than the last. But we have to remember the importance of destroying the USA so it may be a civil war of some kind, “isolated” in the States but, ultimately, affecting the globe. Who knows?

But here’s the main point: Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Africans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Male, Female, “Non CIS”, Gay, Straight – will ALL lose because it is a “NO WIN” game for us while we continually allow the programmers to programme.

Yes, the programmers want us all to “Come Together” and be a “One World” but, ironically, it is these same programmers who are creating the division! They are demanding this “togetherness” under their rule and THAT is the problem! What they don’t want is for us to create that togetherness ourselves, in recognition of their programming and their game (or test – after all, you could see it as a test, but a test they mean for us to lose).

If someone ever asks you “What’s going on in the world today?” Just tell them:

IT’S OUR KOBAYASHI MARU

And the only way for you, me or anyone else to win it is by not playing and then fucking up their programme!

It’s the ONLY way so make your choice. I don’t expect you to kneel for me but I certainly won’t be kneeling for you. It’s not in my “programming”.

ALL LIVES MATTER OR NONE DO!

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats!

Posted in Law by earthling on March 11, 2014

Men do not wield or submit to sovereignty. They wield or submit to authority or power. Authority and power are facts as old and ubiquitous as society itself. . . . Although we talk of [sovereignty] loosely as something concrete which may be lost or acquired, eroded or increased, sovereignty is not a fact.

If it is the Court’s claim that sovereignty is not only a fact of our political-legal world, but a fact to be encouraged, this claim will require substantiation: it is by no means self-evident that governments we create can enjoy the predicate “sovereign.” Even assuming such a possibility, does it make even a modicum of sense to suppose that what can be hemmed in by “Amendments” is actually “sovereign?” Can the claim of sovereignty be sustained? 

The following are just the first three pages of what is 22 pages long. I hope you find it of interest and I’d be pleased to get your feedback. It’s your interest that spurs me on. If it’s not there I’ll lose interest myself. I hope, through all of this, to not only make it clear to those who pour scorn over this issue that they are wholly ignorant, but also to allow me to demonstrate, here and there, through referral to the text, how the legal person con affects us all.

Legal persons

Person 1

So the “person” is either, metaphysical or a “convenient device”. While jurists (i.e. the legal profession) can’t even agree on which BUT they will prosecute you as being such.

The sheer fact that this essay needs to be written proves that the legal person is a fiction. Either way, “metaphysical” or not, it is the conjuring up of an entity for the basis of another entity being able to control it and dictate the rules it must live by (and we’re not talking just the rules of any sane individual here as, for example “thou shall not kill”. “Puzzling”, “uncertainty” AND “inconsistency” rules the day when it comes to the legal person! And it is the inconsistency part which provides us all with the most trouble as the state applies rules to various types and classes of “legal person” as they so desire. While courts and legislators just apply the rules in total ignorance of what they are applying such rules to! Ambiguity.

I guess ambiguity was the term of the day when Jade Jacob Brooks was not bestowed any human rights then. They couldn’t decide whether she was a human or not because she did not exist as a “legal person”.

Person 2

It is a conceptual analysis because the “Legal Person” is conceptual in of itself! It is a concept – nothing more, nothing less but, as they say “Perhaps the greatest political act of law is the making of the legal person” – NOTE: It does not say the EXISTENCE OF it says the MAKING OF! The point there being this: As soon as you are born (or perhaps even conceived), you EXIST – or are there some of you out there who would argue that? BUT, while you EXIST (as a living, breathing human being), it does not necessarily mean that you have been made into a PERSON – a LEGAL PERSON. And that is PRECISELY why Jade Jacob Brooks was (wrongly) described as having NOT EXISTED. To describe her as such was, on one hand, to the legal profession’s benefit however, on the other hand, it wasn’t in that it proved a dichotomy for them. How can a HUMAN exist but NOT be provided HUMAN RIGHTS?

The answer to that is then simple: HUMAN rights is a misnomer. HUMAN rights do not exist. LEGAL PERSON’S RIGHTS do!. One can only be given these rights IF one acquiesce’s to the system which offers them. However, in acquiescence to that system, one is then saying “Yes I will abide by ALL of your rules and yes, you can apply rules to me which are obviously discriminatory and corrupt”. For example, when it comes to employment law. An employment contract is what?

IT IS A CONTRACT. Law of contract already exists and, within such law, it is perfectly capable of handling ANY dispute in ANY type of contract. BUT the Banks and Corporations (as employers) do not WISH to allow people to enforce the law of contract so what have they done? They have had governments provide THEM with “LEGAL PERSONHOOD” with the ‘same’ “rights and privileges and duties” as you and I as actual HUMANS (referred to as “natural persons”) while, then using what is, in fact, discrimination to then provide benefits to employers (corporations) because, in law – as you are aware of today with the destruction of legal aid – the one with the most money is, invariably, the one who wins AND, if you do not possess enough money, you can’t even get to court now. Additionally, the corporations are protected (discrimination once more) because the state has introduced “Statutory law” – i.e. NEW rules – called “Employment law” which is STILL the law of contract but it has been corrupted for the benefit of the Corporate legal person.

With the emancipation of the slaves, they simply were given a step up on the ladder to be equal with the debt slaves whereas debt slaves, prior to their emancipation, could own slaves as property outright. The same discriminatory practice exists today when we consider the rights of homosexuals and the rights of transexuals. I would like to understand what these feminists have problems with however. What exactly is it they are not allowed to do as “legal persons” that men are? But women tend to see this “war” as a war against men yet I would submit that men genuinely do not see it and, if they do, they see it as for what it is: A war against PEOPLE by wealthier people who have indebted nations and governments and have bought their way into creating legislation just how THEY want it. It’s nothing to do with men. Theresa May and Hillary Clinton are NOT men just as Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman are NOT men! Will that stop any of them legislating against or for women? Will it hell! What steers THEIR views of anything is MONEY just as it is for their political whore peers! All of them bought off by the banking fraternity.

As you know, dolphins have legal person status now in India so the point made about animals will soon be out of date.

Corporations have “Dual status” of “persons” AND “property”. Well of course, because that gives them the flexibility they need when they need it. However, isn’t YOUR body YOUR property?

I like note 4 re slaves: The hypocrisy never ends not even today. Law is applied by the jurists and the legislature in whichever way they choose according to what is more beneficial to them at any one time.

And note 6 is a beauty and here we see the confirmation, in part, regarding the issue Jade Jacob Brooks found herself with for about 20 years of her life.

Person 3

So, it is recognised fully that there is no morality within a corporation (corp(se) “dead” oration “speaking”) but it is offered the rights of us humans. The concept depends upon “analogies and dianalogies” and anything else which can be thought of to justify it!

Some jurists who believe the corporation is both legal and moral are liars because those same jurists KNOW that the entire raison d’etre of a corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders and that principle is upheld in courts all over the world. This is PRECISELY why Monsanto and other corporations can sue other legal persons (companies, human AND governments) for a loss of profit IF any of these other legal persons stand in the way of such profit for any MORAL reason!

U.N. inadvertently confirms “Freeman” concept

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

THANK YOU U.N. YOU COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR!

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

This is not, in any way, a “quick fix” for just a few people to take on the system. What it is, is a factual, verified, “report” on what it is and how it is that the present system uses the legal fiction known as the “person” to totally control a life (and a corporate life) from birth to death. Due to ignorance within a democracy, there is no way of any one person (I should say, human) taking on this system and winning with this absolute, proven, verified logic. Verified, no less than by the U.N. itself – it is, in fact, manipulation and control hidden in clear sight. Article 6 of the U.N Declaration of Human Rights actually destroys their entire construct where itself, it states what I show on the following blog. Please read this blog also and simply work through the logic. I assure you, there is not one legal Barrister, judge or lawyer who can argue against this logic. Logic is NOT what the legal world works on because, if it did, it would simply fall apart. https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/the-human-rights-act-deception-2/

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

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

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

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

“Domicile” and why that Barrister shit himself: set15

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

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

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

So, back to the issue:

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

The U.N. states:

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

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

20-22.pdf

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

Again, directly from the U.N.

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

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

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

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

Child-rights@hrea.org: msg00069.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3_WEB%20E%20Rep.%2012.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the solution? Have no birth certificate?

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

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

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

THIS IS WHERE FREEDOM AND TRUTH BEGINS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO BREAK THE COMMON LAW. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO CAUSE HARM, INJURY OR LOSS. THIS IS ABOUT REMOVING THE SUBBROGATION OF YOUR RIGHTS BY A CORRUPT SYSTEM WHICH IS ABUSING ITS POWER.

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

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

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

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

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

DO NOT THINK THIS IS A FLIPPANT REMARK!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM 8th Nov 2011:

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

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

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

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

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

Colonel Edward Mandell-House:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM 30th November 2011:

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

Origin of terms ‘Negro’ and Afrika

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

0901.htm

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

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

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

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