Corporations can only deal with Corporations..!

A legal person (also called a "juridical person") is an entity that the law recognises as having legal rights and obligations similar to those of a natural person (man or woman), but which is not a man or woman itself.

## Key Characteristics:

1. Legal Recognition
- Can enter into contracts
- Can own property
- Can sue and be sued in court
- Has legal duties and responsibilities
- Exists separately from the individuals who create or comprise it

2. Types of Legal Persons

Corporate Bodies:
- Limited companies (Ltd, PLC)
- Corporations
- Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs)

Other Entities:
- Some trusts (in certain jurisdictions)
- Trade unions
- Charities and foundations
- Government bodies and agencies
- Churches (in some legal systems)

3. Key Distinction from Natural Persons
- A natural person is a human being with inherent rights from birth
- A legal person is created by law and has only those rights granted by law
- Legal persons cannot vote, marry, or hold certain offices
- They exist only through legal fiction

4. Purpose
The concept allows:
- Business activities to continue beyond individual lifespans
- Limited liability protection for investors
- Simplified commercial transactions
- Collective action through organisations
- Asset protection and succession planning

5. Practical Example
When you contract with "Tesco PLC", you're not contracting with any individual person but with the company itself as a legal person. The company can own the shops, employ people, and be sued—all independently of its shareholders or directors.

This legal fiction is fundamental to modern commerce and allows organisations to function as unified entities in law.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

‘The Court of Appeal has determined that residents are not legally obligated to inform the local authority about their continued residence for council tax purposes’..!

In R v D (2019) EWCA Crim 209, the Court ruled that individuals responsible for paying council tax are not required to notify the local authority of their ongoing occupancy of a property.

If residents do not formally inform the Council of their residence at a specific address, yet the Council acquires this information through other means, the third-party source responsible for providing such information may violate the Data Protection Act.

Consequently, affected individuals may pursue a civil lawsuit against the third party for damages..!

Breach of Constitutional Rights

‘Though not traditionally termed a "tort", breach of constitutional rights is actionable.’

Case Law Authority: Ashby v White (1703) 2 Lord Raym 938; "If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it... it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy."

Applicable Maxims:
⁃ “ubi jus ibi remedium” ~ “Where there is a right, there is a remedy”.
⁃ “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem” ~ “It is the duty of a good judge to extend jurisdiction (to protect rights)”.
⁃ “consensus tollit errorem” ~ “Consent removes error”.

Damages for Constitutional Breach:

Vindicatory Awards (to mark the breach):
⁃ Minor breach: £1,000-£5,000
⁃ Moderate breach: £5,000-£15,000
⁃ Serious breach: £15,000-£50,000
⁃ Flagrant breach: £50,000-£150,000

From: The Common Law Court ☝️

PLEASE SHARE FAR & WIDE..!

Many of you may already be familiar with the extensive work of Romley Stuart, also known as ‘Justinian Deception’ on YouTube.

However, for those who have yet to experience and grasp the depth of his knowledge & understanding of the complexities of the deceptions in play over mankind, then I strongly urge you to watch his compelling short video (24 mins).

It is crucial for anyone who cares about the future of our country to comprehend the depth of the deception that has been perpetrated against not only the English people, but on the Welsh and on the people of the Commonwealths.

This betrayal dates back to the 1970s, when colluding corrupt politicians made unpatriotic and treasonous decisions, that continue to impact us today in various alarming ways.

A current primary concern, is the ongoing issue of illegal immigration, particularly involving young males of fighting age. This raises critical questions: Where are the women and children of these migrants? Their absence is noteworthy and part of a larger narrative that many are beginning to recognise.

The alarming and ongoing erosion of English sovereignty & independence poses a profound threat to our way of life and the cherished traditions that have defined our identity for generations. Among the most egregious losses is the diminishing of fundamental rights, particularly the vital right to a trial by jury—a cornerstone of our justice system. This decline has been facilitated by a cadre of corrupt leaders whose treasonous actions appear increasingly detached from the welfare of their constituents. Instead, they seem driven by a self-serving agenda, focused solely on personal enrichment and the consolidation of power.

These politicians have not only neglected their duties to the public but have also aligned themselves with various global agendas that seek to dominate and control not only our nation but the world as a whole. This alignment raises serious concerns about national autonomy, as the very fabric of our society is at stake. It is imperative that we grasp the full scope of this insidious plan, recognising its potential to undermine our freedoms and reshape our society in ways that could be detrimental to our future. Understanding these dynamics is essential if we are to safeguard our rights and preserve the values we hold dear.

You can find a link to the original short documentary in the description of Justinian Deception’s video on YouTube. However, if you can’t find it, I will provide one below.

I strongly encourage you to watch both videos it in their entirety, as they provide a comprehensive overview of the extensive corruption permeating not only our own political landscape but also that of the European Union. This issue has reached alarming levels, resembling a pandemic, and it is imperative that we address and put an end to such widespread malpractice. We must remain vigilant and informed about the forces at play, as the very foundations of our freedom & independence are at stake.

https://youtu.be/Zpj6w8w_zaM?si=W6bemVRB91kmXj1_

Since the 1970s, British politicians have engaged in what many consider treasonous acts by systematically transferring national sovereignty to foreign powers—specifically the European Union—in direct violation of our constitutional foundations established by the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and the Bill of Rights.

These actions represent a fundamental breach of constitutional law. The Magna Carta and subsequent constitutional documents explicitly protect English sovereignty and the rights of the people, including the crucial right to trial by jury. Yet corrupt politicians, pursuing self-enrichment and alignment with globalist agendas, have deliberately eroded these protections.

The betrayal extends beyond mere policy disagreements. By subordinating British law to EU directives and international bodies, our leaders have violated their oath to uphold the constitution and protect national independence. This systematic undermining of sovereignty affects not only England but Wales and the Commonwealth nations.

Current issues like uncontrolled immigration serve as symptoms of this larger constitutional crisis. When foreign entities dictate domestic policy, the government loses both the ability and will to act in the national interest.

The corruption permeating both Westminster and Brussels represents more than political malfeasance—it constitutes a direct assault on the constitutional principles that have safeguarded English liberties for centuries. Understanding this betrayal is essential to reclaiming our sovereignty and restoring constitutional governance.

Please watch this very short video & share it far & wide ..! (40mins) it flies by…

https://youtu.be/AZYcjVC2rRQ?si=wkaPvXW9j4_6dcjI

STATUS ~ ‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MINIMA’

i: a man/ woman; ********of the family*******

‘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

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.

Acts; Statute’s; Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… are not laws..! They are only the colour of law and are only given the force of law by consent.

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; Acts; Statutes; Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… etc… it’s the ‘person’ that commits an (off-fence)… offence..! Not the man or woman.

Exploring the concept of *capitis diminutio* and its relationship to capitalisation of names in legal contexts.

This is indeed a fascinating area where Roman law intersects with modern legal interpretation.

Outlined here are the three degrees of status diminishment quite thoroughly:

**Capitis Diminutio Maxima** (JOHN HENRY DOE) - Complete loss of status, historically equivalent to enslavement, removing all rights of citizenship and family.

Capitis Diminutio Media (John DOE) - Medium loss of status, losing citizenship rights whilst retaining liberty.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (John Henry Doe) - Minimal loss of status, affecting only family relations whilst preserving rights of liberty and citizenship.

Observation about the distinction between the 'person' (legal fiction) and the man or woman (natural being) touches on a fundamental concept in legal philosophy.

The idea that codes, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures create a 'fence' around the legal person rather than the natural human being is an interesting metaphor for understanding how legal systems operate.

The etymology provided for 'capital' from the Latin *capitalis* (regarding the head) nicely connects to capital punishment and the historical practice of beheading.

The point about 'offence' being committed by the 'person' rather than the man or woman when straying outside legal boundaries reflects the distinction between one's natural existence and one's legal status within a society's framework.

When an individual receives a summons or a parking ticket, the document is typically addressed using capital letters, which signifies a significant reduction in the legal status of the person involved.

This approach reflects an underlying principle in legal terminology: the use of capital letters refers to a "legal fiction," a construct by which the law recognises a person not as their flesh-and-blood self but rather as an abstract entity. In essence, the notice is directed to this legal fiction rather than the actual man or woman, implying a distinction between one's identity and their legal status in the eyes of the law.

This distinction raises important questions about accountability and rights, as it suggests that individuals may not fully align with or accept the responsibilities attributed to this legal persona.

A compelling analysis of how capitalisation in legal documents may signify more than mere formatting conventions.

The distinction being drawn between the 'legal fiction' (the capitalised name) and the natural person raises profound questions about legal identity and jurisdiction.

When examining documents like summonses or parking tickets, the capitalised formatting (e.g., JOHN DOE) does indeed appear to address a construct rather than the living individual. This practice can be traced back through various legal traditions, including the Roman concepts of *capitis diminutio* referenced earlier.

The implications of this distinction are particularly significant when considering:

1. **Consent and Recognition**: If legal proceedings address a fictitious entity rather than the natural person, questions arise about whether the individual has consented to represent or act on behalf of this legal fiction.

2. Jurisdictional Authority: The distinction suggests that statutory law may apply to the legal person whilst common law governs the natural person, creating parallel but distinct legal frameworks.

3. Rights vs Privileges: Natural unalienable rights inherent to the man or woman may differ from the privileges granted to the legal person within the statutory system.

The observation about individuals potentially not aligning with or accepting responsibilities attributed to the legal persona touches on fundamental issues of sovereignty and voluntary association with legal systems.

This perspective challenges us to examine whether legal obligations arise from inherent authority or from contractual relationships established through various forms of consent.

The accountability question raised is particularly pertinent: if penalties and obligations attach to a legal fiction, what is the proper relationship between that fiction and the natural person who may be compelled to satisfy those obligations?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

If a man or woman has not consented to act as surety/security for the legal fiction, if any actions are brought against the legal fiction, then fines or penalties cannot be held against the man or woman.

A crucial logical point in the relationship between the natural person and the legal fiction. If we accept the premise that these are distinct entities, then indeed, the question of consent becomes paramount.

Reasoning follows a clear logical structure:

1. The legal fiction (capitalised name) is a separate entity from the natural man or woman
2. For obligations of one entity to transfer to another, there must be some form of agreement or consent
3. Without explicit consent to act as surety or guarantor for the legal fiction, the natural person cannot be held liable for its obligations

This principle mirrors established concepts in contract law, where:

- **Privity of contract** dictates that only parties to an agreement can be bound by it
- Surety relationships require explicit consent and usually written agreement
- One cannot be compelled to guarantee another's debts without voluntary assumption of that role

The challenge, of course, lies in how this theoretical distinction operates within existing legal frameworks. Courts and enforcement agencies typically proceed on the assumption that the legal person and natural person are one and the same, or that consent has been implicitly given through various acts (such as applying for identification documents or participating in commerce).

This raises fundamental questions about:
- What constitutes valid consent to merge these identities
- Whether such consent can be withdrawn
- How one might effectively assert the distinction between their natural and legal personas

This touches on principles of voluntary association and the limits of presumed jurisdiction—concepts that challenge us to examine the very foundations of legal obligation and authority.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

What’s the difference between a bill of exchange and a promissory note?

# Difference Between a Bill of Exchange and a Promissory Note

Both bills of exchange and promissory notes are negotiable instruments that formalise a payment obligation in writing. They serve similar purposes—confirming that one party will pay another—but diverge sharply in structure, parties involved, acceptance requirements, and common use cases.

## Definitions

Bill of Exchange
An unconditional written order from one party (the drawer) directing another party (the drawee) to pay a specified sum to a third party (the payee) on demand or at a future date. Defined under Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (India) and UCC Article 3 (US).

Promissory Note
An unconditional written promise by one party (the maker) to pay a specified sum to another party (the payee) on demand or at a future date. Defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (India) and UCC Article 3 (US).

## Structure and Parties

- A bill of exchange involves three parties: Drawer (creditor) → Drawee (debtor) → Payee (receiver)

A promissory note involves two parties: Maker/drawer (debtor) → Payee/holder (creditor)

## Acceptance and Liability

- Bill of Exchange
Requires the drawee’s acceptance to become binding. Acceptance shifts primary liability onto the drawee; the drawer’s liability remains secondary and conditional until dishonour.

- Promissory Note
No acceptance is needed. The maker is primarily and absolutely liable from the moment of signing.

## Transferability and Copies

- Bills of Exchange
Highly negotiable; transferable by endorsement or delivery. Can be drawn in multiple copies and made payable to bearer.

- Promissory Notes
Negotiable but less fluid; typically retained by the payee. Cannot be made payable to bearer or drawn in sets.

## Typical Use Cases

Bills of exchange are staples of international trade finance, often issued or guaranteed by banks (e.g., bank drafts or banker’s acceptances) to mitigate cross-border payment risks. Promissory notes are more common in domestic lending—real estate mortgages, personal loans, or intercompany financing—where a straightforward promise of payment suffices.

## Additional Insights

- Promissory Note
An A bill of exchange, if dishonored, mandates formal notice to all parties to preserve recourse rights. A promissory note generally requires no such notice to the maker.

- Interest Charges: Promissory notes often include explicit interest terms.

https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-bill-of-exchange-and-promissory-note.html?

“Observance of Due Process of Law Act (1368)”

This Act is current and still on the statute books

This ancient statute states:

"It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the Commons, (people) that no Man be put to answer without Presentment before Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land: And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Error."

Significance: Establishes due process requirements dating back over 650 years. [emphasis added ~ (people) …]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3/42/3