The ‘Magna Carta’ 1215 ~ A comprehension of its true roots & history…
Understanding the true history of this monumental document.
Is key and fundamental to knowing who you are; and all your; individual, indefeasible, inherent ‘God-given’; non-negotiable, unalienable, inviolable, divine rights and entitlements, waiving none ever and acting and remaining in honour at all times…
‘William Keyte’ of the ‘UK Constitution Group’… gives us… a concise and very informative in depth view of one of the Greatest historical documents in history…
The ‘Magna Carta 1215’… also known as the ‘Great Charter’… it’s history and it’s validation… and how it still applies in todays world… more than ever…
And how together… by applying it’s solid founding principles based in ‘common law’… how ‘we the people’ of this Great Nation ~ ‘Great Britain & Northern Ireland’ and the ‘Commonwealth’ speaking peoples and nations of the world can change OUR destiny…
‘we the people’ created government… government work for us..!
“knowledge is power”… ⚡️
“we the people” have the power..! 💥💥💥
This is a relatively short video approximately 45 min…
Well worth investing your time to watch and listen carefully to the knowledge that’s being shared…
This is Part 1 of 2
https://youtu.be/9mBC873TSEE
Understanding the true history of this monumental document.
Is key and fundamental to knowing who you are; and all your; individual, indefeasible, inherent ‘God-given’; non-negotiable, unalienable, inviolable, divine rights and entitlements, waiving none ever and acting and remaining in honour at all times…
‘William Keyte’ of the ‘UK Constitution Group’… gives us… a concise and very informative in depth view of one of the Greatest historical documents in history…
The ‘Magna Carta 1215’… also known as the ‘Great Charter’… it’s history and it’s validation… and how it still applies in todays world… more than ever…
And how together… by applying it’s solid founding principles based in ‘common law’… how ‘we the people’ of this Great Nation ~ ‘Great Britain & Northern Ireland’ and the ‘Commonwealth’ speaking peoples and nations of the world can change OUR destiny…
‘we the people’ created government… government work for us..!
“knowledge is power”… ⚡️
“we the people” have the power..! 💥💥💥
This is a relatively short video approximately 45 min…
Well worth investing your time to watch and listen carefully to the knowledge that’s being shared…
This is Part 1 of 2
https://youtu.be/9mBC873TSEE
YouTube
This is BIG!
The answer is in our hands. I speak with William Keyte about the UK Constitution and how, together, the people of this great nation, can change our destiny.
IMPORTANT LINKS:
Website: https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/
Memes: https://www.commonlawc…
IMPORTANT LINKS:
Website: https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/
Memes: https://www.commonlawc…
👍3🔥2❤1
Supreme Court confirms 'fraud unravels all'.pdf
72.3 KB
‘Supreme Court’ confirms… ‘fraud unravels all’..!
Under English law, there is no defined cause of action of civil or commercial ‘fraud’…
Instead, the term is used to cover a range of legal options, including deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation; claims arising out of conspiracy, bribery, forgery, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust; and inducing breach of contract, many of which often form elements of lender litigation…
The common theme is deliberate action on the part of the ‘wrongdoer’ which generally involves dishonest conduct…
The law sees any such action as being so serious that the Maxim: “fraud unravels all”… is now well established…
The presence of a fraud might therefore invalidate a contractual agreement or carve-out, or it might lift the bar on re-litigation which would otherwise exist…
(Excerpt) read the short full article above ⬆️ to get a deeper comprehension…
Under English law, there is no defined cause of action of civil or commercial ‘fraud’…
Instead, the term is used to cover a range of legal options, including deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation; claims arising out of conspiracy, bribery, forgery, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust; and inducing breach of contract, many of which often form elements of lender litigation…
The common theme is deliberate action on the part of the ‘wrongdoer’ which generally involves dishonest conduct…
The law sees any such action as being so serious that the Maxim: “fraud unravels all”… is now well established…
The presence of a fraud might therefore invalidate a contractual agreement or carve-out, or it might lift the bar on re-litigation which would otherwise exist…
(Excerpt) read the short full article above ⬆️ to get a deeper comprehension…
🙏2
Res Judicata.pdf
80.4 KB
‘Res Judicata’: [Latin, A thing adjudged.] applicable in both the USA 🇺🇸 UK 🇬🇧 & the ‘Commonwealths’… and most courts systems across the world… 🌍
A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit.
The U.S.A. 🇺🇸 legal system places a high value on allowing a party to litigate a civil lawsuit for money damages only once.
U.S. courts employ the rule of ‘res judicata’ to prevent a dissatisfied party from trying to litigate the issue a second time.
Short but interesting insight in the attached PDF above ⬆️ and the additional PDF Article preceding this one.
https://t.me/CommonLawLawfulRebellion/395
Res Judicata: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/res+judicata
A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit.
The U.S.A. 🇺🇸 legal system places a high value on allowing a party to litigate a civil lawsuit for money damages only once.
U.S. courts employ the rule of ‘res judicata’ to prevent a dissatisfied party from trying to litigate the issue a second time.
Short but interesting insight in the attached PDF above ⬆️ and the additional PDF Article preceding this one.
https://t.me/CommonLawLawfulRebellion/395
Res Judicata: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/res+judicata
👍1
Misfeasance in Public Office .pdf
225 KB
‘MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE’
by: Mark Aronson
INTRODUCTION
The fact that administrative or executive action is invalid according to public law principles is an insufficient basis for claiming common law damages.
The remedies in public law for invalid government action are orders that quash the underlying decision, or prohibit its further enforcement, or declare it to be null and void.
Unlawful failure or refusal to perform a public duty is addressed by a mandatory order to perform the duty according to law.
In other words, harm caused by invalid government action or inaction is not compensable at common law just because it was invalid.
The tort of ‘misfeasance in public office’… represents a “safety net” adjustment to that position, by allowing damages where the public defendant’s unlawfulness is grossly culpable at a moral level.
Briefly, ‘misfeasance in public office’ is a tort remedy for harm caused by acts or omissions that amounted to:
1. an abuse of public power or authority;
2. by a public officer;
3. who either;
a. knew that he or she was abusing their public power or authority, or
b. was recklessly indifferent as to the limits to or restraints upon their public power or authority;
4. and who acted or omitted to act
a. with either the intention of harming the claimant (so-called “targeted malice”), or
b. with the knowledge of the probability of harming the claimant, or;
c. with a conscious and reckless indifference to the probability of harming the claimant…
(Excerpt) from the PDF above ⬆️
Please read the full PDF to get a deeper comprehension of the term: ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’… (which is very serious crime indeed) and can carry a prison term of ‘Life imprisonment’..!
by: Mark Aronson
INTRODUCTION
The fact that administrative or executive action is invalid according to public law principles is an insufficient basis for claiming common law damages.
The remedies in public law for invalid government action are orders that quash the underlying decision, or prohibit its further enforcement, or declare it to be null and void.
Unlawful failure or refusal to perform a public duty is addressed by a mandatory order to perform the duty according to law.
In other words, harm caused by invalid government action or inaction is not compensable at common law just because it was invalid.
The tort of ‘misfeasance in public office’… represents a “safety net” adjustment to that position, by allowing damages where the public defendant’s unlawfulness is grossly culpable at a moral level.
Briefly, ‘misfeasance in public office’ is a tort remedy for harm caused by acts or omissions that amounted to:
1. an abuse of public power or authority;
2. by a public officer;
3. who either;
a. knew that he or she was abusing their public power or authority, or
b. was recklessly indifferent as to the limits to or restraints upon their public power or authority;
4. and who acted or omitted to act
a. with either the intention of harming the claimant (so-called “targeted malice”), or
b. with the knowledge of the probability of harming the claimant, or;
c. with a conscious and reckless indifference to the probability of harming the claimant…
(Excerpt) from the PDF above ⬆️
Please read the full PDF to get a deeper comprehension of the term: ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’… (which is very serious crime indeed) and can carry a prison term of ‘Life imprisonment’..!
‘Bailiffs & Police Involvement’ ~ CASE LAW.
If a police officer is in attendance and assists the bailiff to gain entry or persuades the debtor to open the door then any levy the bailiff makes is void and the debtor can sue for damages: Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777.
There must be very good reasons for arresting a debtor on the grounds of preventing a breach of the peace, only a serious and imminent threat justifies arrest: Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER 705.
If a police officer arrests a debtor after throwing a bailiff off the premises who had refused a request to leave, the officer is guilty of false arrest because no offence was committed and the bailiff was there illegally: Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308.
A police officer must arrest a bailiff for breach of the peace if he places the debtor in fear of violence or harm if that offence is made in the presence of that officer: R v Howell (Errol) [1982] 1 QB 427.
A police officer must apprehend and arrest the party that is threatening violence: Redmond-Bate v Department of Public Prosecutions, The Times July 28 1999, Lord Justice Sedley.
If a bailiff causes a disturbance but does not make a threat, it is unreasonable for the police to arrest him: Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000.
If a person is arrested for non payment of a debt, he can "buy" his freedom by paying the debt stated on the warrant: Plomer v Ball [1837] 5 A&E 823 (council tax and court fines).
Attending ~ Without a Levy on Goods ~ Breaking & entering.
If a bailiff breaks into your property without a valid levy the bailiff has a civil and criminal liability: Khazanchi & Anor v Faircharm Investments Ltd & Ors, Court of Appeal
Bailiffs cannot break open a door but can open one if it is unlocked: Budd v Pyle [1846] 10 JP 203.
Bailiffs can force entry to premises that are not a dwelling house nor connected to one.
Only a debtor's home is protected by law: Hodder v Williams [1895] 2 QB 663.
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling but can in the case of a commercial or business premises: Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77.
Contrast: A bailiff breaking down a door of a commercial warehouse is unlawful ~ Bowen LJ and the bailiff's appeal was dismissed: American Concentrated Must Co v Hendry [1893] 68 LT 742.
Provided a bailiff enters a property peacefully and without breaking in, he can break open inner doors inside the property; Lee v Gansel [1774] 1 Cowp 1.
A bailiff entering through an unlocked door can break the lock if the door is subsequently locked while still inside: Pugh v Griffith [1838] 7 A&E 827
Forced entry into homes
A bailiff in execution of a warrant or a writ may not make forcible entry to a dwellinghouse unless and until he has completed seizure of the goods in consequence of the first entry: Halsbury's Laws of England loose leaf edition vol.1 paragraph 9.128 and originally from Semayne v Gresham [1604] Yelverton 29.
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance.
This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway: Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753.
Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434; similarly: McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483.
A bailiff must leave the premises when told to do so: Robson & Another v Hallett [1967] 2 QB 939.
A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages: Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256.
If a police officer is in attendance and assists the bailiff to gain entry or persuades the debtor to open the door then any levy the bailiff makes is void and the debtor can sue for damages: Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777.
There must be very good reasons for arresting a debtor on the grounds of preventing a breach of the peace, only a serious and imminent threat justifies arrest: Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER 705.
If a police officer arrests a debtor after throwing a bailiff off the premises who had refused a request to leave, the officer is guilty of false arrest because no offence was committed and the bailiff was there illegally: Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308.
A police officer must arrest a bailiff for breach of the peace if he places the debtor in fear of violence or harm if that offence is made in the presence of that officer: R v Howell (Errol) [1982] 1 QB 427.
A police officer must apprehend and arrest the party that is threatening violence: Redmond-Bate v Department of Public Prosecutions, The Times July 28 1999, Lord Justice Sedley.
If a bailiff causes a disturbance but does not make a threat, it is unreasonable for the police to arrest him: Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000.
If a person is arrested for non payment of a debt, he can "buy" his freedom by paying the debt stated on the warrant: Plomer v Ball [1837] 5 A&E 823 (council tax and court fines).
Attending ~ Without a Levy on Goods ~ Breaking & entering.
If a bailiff breaks into your property without a valid levy the bailiff has a civil and criminal liability: Khazanchi & Anor v Faircharm Investments Ltd & Ors, Court of Appeal
Bailiffs cannot break open a door but can open one if it is unlocked: Budd v Pyle [1846] 10 JP 203.
Bailiffs can force entry to premises that are not a dwelling house nor connected to one.
Only a debtor's home is protected by law: Hodder v Williams [1895] 2 QB 663.
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling but can in the case of a commercial or business premises: Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77.
Contrast: A bailiff breaking down a door of a commercial warehouse is unlawful ~ Bowen LJ and the bailiff's appeal was dismissed: American Concentrated Must Co v Hendry [1893] 68 LT 742.
Provided a bailiff enters a property peacefully and without breaking in, he can break open inner doors inside the property; Lee v Gansel [1774] 1 Cowp 1.
A bailiff entering through an unlocked door can break the lock if the door is subsequently locked while still inside: Pugh v Griffith [1838] 7 A&E 827
Forced entry into homes
A bailiff in execution of a warrant or a writ may not make forcible entry to a dwellinghouse unless and until he has completed seizure of the goods in consequence of the first entry: Halsbury's Laws of England loose leaf edition vol.1 paragraph 9.128 and originally from Semayne v Gresham [1604] Yelverton 29.
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance.
This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway: Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753.
Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434; similarly: McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483.
A bailiff must leave the premises when told to do so: Robson & Another v Hallett [1967] 2 QB 939.
A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages: Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256.
If the bailiff has already started to make a levy, he can no longer be made to leave and he cannot be assaulted: Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308.
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling: Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77.
Otherwise a door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter: Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453; likewise a person standing back to allow the bailiff to walk through but the bailiff must not abuse this license by entering by improper means or by unusual routes: Ancaster v Milling [1823] 2 D&R 714 or Rogers v Spence [1846] M&W 571.
Ringing a doorbell is not causing a disturbance: Grant v Moser [1843] 5 M&G 123 or R. v Bright 4 C&P 387; nor is refusing to leave a property causes a disturbance: Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 or Jordan v Gibbon [1863] 8 LT 391.
Permission for a bailiff to enter may be refused provided the words used are not capable of being mistaken for swear words: Bailey v Wilson [1968] Crim LR 618 or Snook v Mannion [1982] Crim LR 601 or R (Roalfe) v Woking Magistrate's Court [2005] EWHC 2922 (Admin).
If the entry is peaceful but without permission then a request to leave should always be made first: Tullay v Reed [1823] 1 C&P 6; or an employee or other person can also request the bailiff to:, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.
Excessive force must be avoided: Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791.
A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry: Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197.
Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps: Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.
Also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance: Ingle v Bell [1836] 1 M&W 516.
Bailiffs cannot apply force to a door to gain entry, and if he does so he is not in the execution of his duty: Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781: ~ likewise placing an arm inside the door: Rossiter v Conway [1893] 53 JP 350.
If a bailiff enters a property and makes a noise and disturbs the peace it is lawful for the occupier to eject him and if he refuses to leave the police may be called: Green v [1830] 4C&P 308 or Shaw v Chairtirie [1850] 3 C&K 21.
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling: Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77.
Otherwise a door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter: Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453; likewise a person standing back to allow the bailiff to walk through but the bailiff must not abuse this license by entering by improper means or by unusual routes: Ancaster v Milling [1823] 2 D&R 714 or Rogers v Spence [1846] M&W 571.
Ringing a doorbell is not causing a disturbance: Grant v Moser [1843] 5 M&G 123 or R. v Bright 4 C&P 387; nor is refusing to leave a property causes a disturbance: Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 or Jordan v Gibbon [1863] 8 LT 391.
Permission for a bailiff to enter may be refused provided the words used are not capable of being mistaken for swear words: Bailey v Wilson [1968] Crim LR 618 or Snook v Mannion [1982] Crim LR 601 or R (Roalfe) v Woking Magistrate's Court [2005] EWHC 2922 (Admin).
If the entry is peaceful but without permission then a request to leave should always be made first: Tullay v Reed [1823] 1 C&P 6; or an employee or other person can also request the bailiff to:, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.
Excessive force must be avoided: Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791.
A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry: Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197.
Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps: Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.
Also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance: Ingle v Bell [1836] 1 M&W 516.
Bailiffs cannot apply force to a door to gain entry, and if he does so he is not in the execution of his duty: Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781: ~ likewise placing an arm inside the door: Rossiter v Conway [1893] 53 JP 350.
If a bailiff enters a property and makes a noise and disturbs the peace it is lawful for the occupier to eject him and if he refuses to leave the police may be called: Green v [1830] 4C&P 308 or Shaw v Chairtirie [1850] 3 C&K 21.
👍3
‘Bailiffs & Police Involvement’ ~ CASE LAW.pdf
69.2 KB
‘Bailiffs & Police Involvement’ ~ CASE LAW
What to Do when in court.pdf
95.3 KB
How to Address ‘Notice’s received in the post..!
Thanks to impeccable and duly noted and honored reasoning, we can all prove which jurisdictions the courts are operating in.
There are only three three (3) choices:
1)Administrative (Corporate Tribunals addressing their own employees).
2)Admiralty (Military Law of the Sea) and;
3) Maritime (Otherwise known as Commercial Law, or the Law of Contracts).
(Excerpt from short PDF). Applicable in the USA 🇺🇸 UK 🇬🇧 and many of the Commonwealth Countries 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🇿🇦
Thanks to impeccable and duly noted and honored reasoning, we can all prove which jurisdictions the courts are operating in.
There are only three three (3) choices:
1)Administrative (Corporate Tribunals addressing their own employees).
2)Admiralty (Military Law of the Sea) and;
3) Maritime (Otherwise known as Commercial Law, or the Law of Contracts).
(Excerpt from short PDF). Applicable in the USA 🇺🇸 UK 🇬🇧 and many of the Commonwealth Countries 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🇿🇦
❤4
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
This website is a great resource and contains a wealth of information…
Be sure to click on the menu of the webpage to explore it’s in depth resources and information…
Applicable to both English 🏴 & American 🇺🇸 law…
And the Commonwealth countries… Australia 🇦🇺 New Zealand 🇳🇿 Canada 🇨🇦 etc etc etc…
https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
This website is a great resource and contains a wealth of information…
Be sure to click on the menu of the webpage to explore it’s in depth resources and information…
Applicable to both English 🏴 & American 🇺🇸 law…
And the Commonwealth countries… Australia 🇦🇺 New Zealand 🇳🇿 Canada 🇨🇦 etc etc etc…
https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england
LONANG Institute
William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Read William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). This is the second edition with corrections and all footnotes.
‘Legal v Lawful’... podcast interviews conducted by Crrow777... these are the full 2 hr shows.
The link at the bottom of this post takes you to a folder created in Google Drive...
The podcasts explain and cover many subjects... the difference between ‘Legal v Lawful’ surrounding the fraud our birth certificates, legal fictions, i.e. strawman & how effective lawful common law can really be to combat this corruption and take back control of our lives... etc etc etc...
These podcasts/interviews are conducted with ordinary common men & women; who’ve worked; and still are working tirelessly behind the scenes, putting together lawful documentation to help assist us to combat this attempted unlawful Tyranny in our everyday lives...
Details of websites are given within the podcasts and where you can obtain the relevant documentation needed, to help us win against the corruption.
If you’d like to access these podcasts, then please just use this link provided below... enjoy the journey..!
::PEACE:: 🌹🐝 🌈 🕊❤️
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c43168EAqQX1OEG-oLnGtw7Xk9aH8qKD
The link at the bottom of this post takes you to a folder created in Google Drive...
The podcasts explain and cover many subjects... the difference between ‘Legal v Lawful’ surrounding the fraud our birth certificates, legal fictions, i.e. strawman & how effective lawful common law can really be to combat this corruption and take back control of our lives... etc etc etc...
These podcasts/interviews are conducted with ordinary common men & women; who’ve worked; and still are working tirelessly behind the scenes, putting together lawful documentation to help assist us to combat this attempted unlawful Tyranny in our everyday lives...
Details of websites are given within the podcasts and where you can obtain the relevant documentation needed, to help us win against the corruption.
If you’d like to access these podcasts, then please just use this link provided below... enjoy the journey..!
::PEACE:: 🌹🐝 🌈 🕊❤️
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c43168EAqQX1OEG-oLnGtw7Xk9aH8qKD
🔥2
Karl Lentz talks to Brian Gerrish and explains how simple ‘common law really is and how he won back custody of his offspring (children) from the criminals in government who kidnapped them. He also explains how he used the same principles and helped others to do the same..!
An hour of your time is well worth spent, watching this very interesting, informative & important video..!
https://youtu.be/VgfBszEKsfw
An hour of your time is well worth spent, watching this very interesting, informative & important video..!
https://youtu.be/VgfBszEKsfw
🔥3
John Harris... (R.I.P.) was just a commoner, an ordinary man, a humble carpenter…
John devoted a good deal of his time, to bring the truth & knowledge your about to see in this video to us all... at great personal sacrifice to himself and his family…
Sadly; John is no longer with us. A tremendous loss to us all..! 😔
It would appear, that the powers that shouldn’t be, weren’t to pleased & happy with Johns efforts, and he died under very suspicious circumstances indeed…
Many believe he was suicided... for bringing this knowledge and truth to the public’s attention...!
We should be eternally grateful for his sacrifice..! 😔
https://youtu.be/uOOF5uOcah0
John devoted a good deal of his time, to bring the truth & knowledge your about to see in this video to us all... at great personal sacrifice to himself and his family…
Sadly; John is no longer with us. A tremendous loss to us all..! 😔
It would appear, that the powers that shouldn’t be, weren’t to pleased & happy with Johns efforts, and he died under very suspicious circumstances indeed…
Many believe he was suicided... for bringing this knowledge and truth to the public’s attention...!
We should be eternally grateful for his sacrifice..! 😔
https://youtu.be/uOOF5uOcah0
YouTube
It's an illusion - John Harris
http://www.tpuc.org/
❤20🔥3👍2
i: a man; karl: of the lawful bloodline; house of lentz.
‘natural common law(s)’ are based upon the:
1. Customs; rules ; policies ; regulations; and procedures found within a society (see: 'Body Politic').
2. Set of beliefs; found within a people that are (suppose) to be fair and just to all of its constituents at that particular place; time.
When i: a man; exit my domestic authority, and enter the domestic authority of a society.
It would bide, i: a man; and as a 'guest'; well, to have knowledge of its ‘common law(s)’.
WORD OF THE MONTH: CAPITALISE: adj.: Gage Canadian Dictionary ~ 1983 § 4
1. "To take advantage of - to use to ones own advantage."
John Henry: Doe; known as a ‘person’ (a legal fiction) and/or a (corporation) who is his own master (sui juris). Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition; page 1968. Provides a more comprehensive definition as follows.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO’: (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalisation). In Roman law; a diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man or woman’s; status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA’: (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalisation; e.g. JOHN HENRY DOE or DOE JOHN HENRY) ~ The highest or most comprehensive loss of status.
This occurred when a man or woman's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when they became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MEDIA’: (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status.
This occurred where a man or woman loses their rights of citizenship, but without losing their liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MINIMA’: (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Henry Doe). This is lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status
This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed.
It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a ‘person’ who had been their own master (sui juris) [of their own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one, who had been under the ‘patria potestas’. [parental authority]. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See: Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.
‘CAPITAL CRIME’: The term capital originates from the Latin… ‘capitalis’; literally "regarding the head". Crimes that result in a death penalty, are known as; Capital Crimes and/or Capital Offences .
Hence, a capital crime was originally punished, by severing the head from the body.
Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution, is the sentence of death upon a ‘person’ by the state as a punishment for an offence.
Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… are not laws..! They are only the colour of law.
The purpose of the aforementioned, is to create a ‘fence’ around the ‘person’ (not the man or woman).
When a ‘person’ (legal fiction) strays from or goes outside of the ‘fence’ by breaking these; Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… etc… it’s the ‘person’ that commits an (off-fence)… offence..! Not the man or woman.
‘natural common law(s)’ are based upon the:
1. Customs; rules ; policies ; regulations; and procedures found within a society (see: 'Body Politic').
2. Set of beliefs; found within a people that are (suppose) to be fair and just to all of its constituents at that particular place; time.
When i: a man; exit my domestic authority, and enter the domestic authority of a society.
It would bide, i: a man; and as a 'guest'; well, to have knowledge of its ‘common law(s)’.
WORD OF THE MONTH: CAPITALISE: adj.: Gage Canadian Dictionary ~ 1983 § 4
1. "To take advantage of - to use to ones own advantage."
John Henry: Doe; known as a ‘person’ (a legal fiction) and/or a (corporation) who is his own master (sui juris). Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition; page 1968. Provides a more comprehensive definition as follows.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO’: (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalisation). In Roman law; a diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man or woman’s; status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA’: (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalisation; e.g. JOHN HENRY DOE or DOE JOHN HENRY) ~ The highest or most comprehensive loss of status.
This occurred when a man or woman's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when they became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MEDIA’: (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status.
This occurred where a man or woman loses their rights of citizenship, but without losing their liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MINIMA’: (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Henry Doe). This is lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status
This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed.
It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a ‘person’ who had been their own master (sui juris) [of their own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one, who had been under the ‘patria potestas’. [parental authority]. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See: Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.
‘CAPITAL CRIME’: The term capital originates from the Latin… ‘capitalis’; literally "regarding the head". Crimes that result in a death penalty, are known as; Capital Crimes and/or Capital Offences .
Hence, a capital crime was originally punished, by severing the head from the body.
Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution, is the sentence of death upon a ‘person’ by the state as a punishment for an offence.
Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… are not laws..! They are only the colour of law.
The purpose of the aforementioned, is to create a ‘fence’ around the ‘person’ (not the man or woman).
When a ‘person’ (legal fiction) strays from or goes outside of the ‘fence’ by breaking these; Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… etc… it’s the ‘person’ that commits an (off-fence)… offence..! Not the man or woman.
👍1
The State looks to create joinder, with the man or woman, thereby holding them as ‘surety’ for the alleged penalty imposed.
If the man or woman accepts the ‘order’ or correspondence, and/or; the use of the ALL CAPS NAMES… e.g. JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe..!
They accept joinder that the state is looking for and thereby default; the man or woman becomes surety and subject to the punishments deemed fit to be issued and enforced by the State…
Everything is Trusts & Contract’s created by the State.
A ‘legal fiction entity’ and/or a ‘corporation’ cannot do business with a living man or woman. It can only do business with another ‘legal fiction’ and/or ‘corporation’. Hence the reason a ‘legal fiction person name’ and/or ‘corporation’ was created by the State on your born/birth day via birth certificate.
The act of Registration of the new born babe with State, unknowingly to the parents; inadvertently gave the baby away to become a ward of the State.
Your ‘corporate vessel’ 🚢 was then built and issued a ‘birthing certificate’ in the ‘legal fiction person names’ of; JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe.
The ‘legal fiction person name vessel’ (fraud) 🚢 was launched and was allowed to dock as a ward of the State, which in turn enabled the State to conduct commerce with the man or woman via the ‘legal fiction person names’; JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe..!
If the man or woman accepts the ‘order’ or correspondence, and/or; the use of the ALL CAPS NAMES… e.g. JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe..!
They accept joinder that the state is looking for and thereby default; the man or woman becomes surety and subject to the punishments deemed fit to be issued and enforced by the State…
Everything is Trusts & Contract’s created by the State.
A ‘legal fiction entity’ and/or a ‘corporation’ cannot do business with a living man or woman. It can only do business with another ‘legal fiction’ and/or ‘corporation’. Hence the reason a ‘legal fiction person name’ and/or ‘corporation’ was created by the State on your born/birth day via birth certificate.
The act of Registration of the new born babe with State, unknowingly to the parents; inadvertently gave the baby away to become a ward of the State.
Your ‘corporate vessel’ 🚢 was then built and issued a ‘birthing certificate’ in the ‘legal fiction person names’ of; JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe.
The ‘legal fiction person name vessel’ (fraud) 🚢 was launched and was allowed to dock as a ward of the State, which in turn enabled the State to conduct commerce with the man or woman via the ‘legal fiction person names’; JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe..!
👍2🔥2