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
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
YouTube
The Real Face of the European Union
THE OFFICIAL SITE: Ten years after Phillip Day made The Real Face of the European Union, and it's all coming true.
The EU has been sold to Britain as our best hope for the future. But behind the scenes, has another, more unsettling agenda been unfolding?…
The EU has been sold to Britain as our best hope for the future. But behind the scenes, has another, more unsettling agenda been unfolding?…
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.
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.
👍2
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.
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.
👍2
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.
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.
👏3
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?
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?
👍1
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.
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.
⚡3❤🔥1👍1
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?
# 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?
👍1
“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
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
www.legislation.gov.uk
Observance of due Process of Law (1368)
A STATUTE MADE AT WESTMINSTER ON THE FIRST DAY OF MAY, IN THE FORTY-SECOND YEAR OF KING EDWARD III.
🔥4👍2
*“Statute of Monopolies Act 1623”.*
Section 1: Establishes: "All grants of penalty & dispensation are void for it is implied that the individual is acting under corporate or political instruction that 'are altogether contrary to the Lawes of this Realme, and so are... void.'"
This implies: Everyone, including but not limited to; the King, Judges, Magistrates, Clerks to the Justices, Barristers, Solicitors, Police Constables, Agents of the State/Crown; Traffic / Civil Enforcement Officers & Bailiff’s, stands equal before the law.
Proper & correct identification must be provided by Police Constables; including but not limited to; Agents of the State/Crown; Traffic / Civil Enforcement Officers & Bailiff’s
Without proper identification, all grants of penalty & dispensation are void…!!!
Examples: If a police constable fails to correctly identify themselves, provide warrant card; name & station (based); several legal & lawful procedural consequences may arise:
Challenges to Lawfulness of Actions: Arrests, searches, or penalties issued by an unidentified officer may be legally & lawfully challenged, potentially leading to cases being dismissed.
Wrongful Arrest & Detention: Mistaken identity or failure to properly identify suspects can result in wrongful arrests, which may lead to claims for compensation
Evidence Challenges: If identification procedures are not followed correctly, any evidence obtained may be challenged in court, potentially leading to cases being dismissed.
Human Rights Violations: Arresting or detaining someone without proper identification or justification can breach human rights laws, particularly under the ‘Human Rights Act 1998’
Civil Liability Risks: In cases where improper identification leads to harm or wrongful actions; Police Constabulary’s may face civil claims for damages.
Police Misconduct Investigations: Officers who fail to follow identification protocols may face disciplinary action or investigations by oversight bodies such as the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). (Good luck with that one; as they always have each others back)
Public Trust & Accountability Issues: Lack of transparency in police identification can erode public confidence (it already has) leading to scrutiny & reluctant policy changes.
Section 1: Establishes: "All grants of penalty & dispensation are void for it is implied that the individual is acting under corporate or political instruction that 'are altogether contrary to the Lawes of this Realme, and so are... void.'"
This implies: Everyone, including but not limited to; the King, Judges, Magistrates, Clerks to the Justices, Barristers, Solicitors, Police Constables, Agents of the State/Crown; Traffic / Civil Enforcement Officers & Bailiff’s, stands equal before the law.
Proper & correct identification must be provided by Police Constables; including but not limited to; Agents of the State/Crown; Traffic / Civil Enforcement Officers & Bailiff’s
Without proper identification, all grants of penalty & dispensation are void…!!!
Examples: If a police constable fails to correctly identify themselves, provide warrant card; name & station (based); several legal & lawful procedural consequences may arise:
Challenges to Lawfulness of Actions: Arrests, searches, or penalties issued by an unidentified officer may be legally & lawfully challenged, potentially leading to cases being dismissed.
Wrongful Arrest & Detention: Mistaken identity or failure to properly identify suspects can result in wrongful arrests, which may lead to claims for compensation
Evidence Challenges: If identification procedures are not followed correctly, any evidence obtained may be challenged in court, potentially leading to cases being dismissed.
Human Rights Violations: Arresting or detaining someone without proper identification or justification can breach human rights laws, particularly under the ‘Human Rights Act 1998’
Civil Liability Risks: In cases where improper identification leads to harm or wrongful actions; Police Constabulary’s may face civil claims for damages.
Police Misconduct Investigations: Officers who fail to follow identification protocols may face disciplinary action or investigations by oversight bodies such as the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). (Good luck with that one; as they always have each others back)
Public Trust & Accountability Issues: Lack of transparency in police identification can erode public confidence (it already has) leading to scrutiny & reluctant policy changes.
🔥5👍1
‘Absolute Rights’
"As regards right to interfere with contractual obligations of another, 'absolute rights' which individual may exercise without reference to motive are rights incident to ownership of property, rights growing out of contractual relations, and right to enter or refuse to enter contractual relations.
"By the 'absolute rights' of individuals is meant those which are in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to them merely in a state of nature, and which every man & woman is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.
The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organised.
These are what are termed the 'absolute rights' of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect."
“Words & Phrases, Volume 1, 1968 West Publishing Company
ia902300.us.archive.org
"As regards right to interfere with contractual obligations of another, 'absolute rights' which individual may exercise without reference to motive are rights incident to ownership of property, rights growing out of contractual relations, and right to enter or refuse to enter contractual relations.
"By the 'absolute rights' of individuals is meant those which are in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to them merely in a state of nature, and which every man & woman is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.
The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organised.
These are what are termed the 'absolute rights' of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect."
“Words & Phrases, Volume 1, 1968 West Publishing Company
ia902300.us.archive.org
🔥5🙏3
Capitis Dimiutio - Status in Law
The following points stand as fact in law unless rebutted with evidence:
Roman Law Foundation: The principle of Capitis Diminutio as defined in Roman law remains applicable in modern legal systems, whereby the use of CAPITALISATION denotes a change in status (Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1968).
Four Degrees of Status:
1. Capitis Dimutio Maxima (ALL CAPITALS: JOHN HENRY DOE) represents maximum loss of status
2. Capitis Dimutio Media (Mixed: John Henry DOE) represents medium loss of status
3. Capitis Dimutio Minima (Proper Case: John Henry Doe) represents minimal loss of status
4. Unicasus (lower case: john henry: of the family doe) represents no loss of status. unicasus (from "unus" meaning one + "casus" meaning case)
The Case Law That Cages Legal Fictions:
1. Gasque v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1940] 2 KB 80 - Established that legal fictions created by statute have limited application and cannot extend beyond their statutory purpose and must be strictly limited to their statutory purpose. Lord Justice Lawrence held: "The fiction must be limited to the purpose for which it was created and cannot be extended beyond its proper statutory bounds."
Brief Summary: Mr Gasque, a US citizen residing in England, challenged the Inland Revenue's attempt to extend statutory definitions beyond their intended scope. The Revenue tried to apply broad interpretations of statutory terms to capture more taxpayers. The Court rejected this, establishing that when statutes create legal fictions (like deeming someone a "resident" for tax purposes), these fictions must be strictly limited to their specific statutory purpose and cannot be extended by implication or presumption.
2. Why This Matters & Protects i:
* Birth registration creates a legal fiction for RECORDING births
* It CANNOT be extended to create surety obligations
* No statute says birth registration makes you liable for the fiction
* Implications and presumptions are FORBIDDEN
1. The Statutory Challenge: "Show me the EXACT statute that says birth registration creates surety obligations. Gasque forbids implications."
2. This principle was reaffirmed in Marshall v Kerr [1995] 1 AC 148, where even tax fictions couldn't be extended beyond their specific purpose. Birth Registration serves to record births - it cannot be extended to create surety obligations without explicit statutory authority, which does not exist.
The Roman Law Foundation - The Name & Status Distinction
The following points stand as fact in law unless rebutted with evidence:
1. Capitis Diminutio - The Hidden Name Game: According to Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition) and Roman law principles. The Romans knew changing how a name is written changes legal status. Capitalisation of names indicates legal status through the doctrine of Capitis Diminutio.
1. Names in all capitals represent maximum status loss - effectively slavery status.
2.This reveals why legal documents address ‘JOHN DOE’ (fiction) rather than ‘john of the family doe’ (living man).
a) JOHN HENRY DOE (Maxima) = Maximum status loss (slave)
b) John H DOE (Media) = Medium status loss
c) John Henry Doe (Minima) = Minimal status change
d) john henry: doe (Unicasus) = No status lost. unicasus (from "unus" meaning one + "casus" meaning case)
The following points stand as fact in law unless rebutted with evidence:
Roman Law Foundation: The principle of Capitis Diminutio as defined in Roman law remains applicable in modern legal systems, whereby the use of CAPITALISATION denotes a change in status (Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1968).
Four Degrees of Status:
1. Capitis Dimutio Maxima (ALL CAPITALS: JOHN HENRY DOE) represents maximum loss of status
2. Capitis Dimutio Media (Mixed: John Henry DOE) represents medium loss of status
3. Capitis Dimutio Minima (Proper Case: John Henry Doe) represents minimal loss of status
4. Unicasus (lower case: john henry: of the family doe) represents no loss of status. unicasus (from "unus" meaning one + "casus" meaning case)
The Case Law That Cages Legal Fictions:
1. Gasque v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1940] 2 KB 80 - Established that legal fictions created by statute have limited application and cannot extend beyond their statutory purpose and must be strictly limited to their statutory purpose. Lord Justice Lawrence held: "The fiction must be limited to the purpose for which it was created and cannot be extended beyond its proper statutory bounds."
Brief Summary: Mr Gasque, a US citizen residing in England, challenged the Inland Revenue's attempt to extend statutory definitions beyond their intended scope. The Revenue tried to apply broad interpretations of statutory terms to capture more taxpayers. The Court rejected this, establishing that when statutes create legal fictions (like deeming someone a "resident" for tax purposes), these fictions must be strictly limited to their specific statutory purpose and cannot be extended by implication or presumption.
2. Why This Matters & Protects i:
* Birth registration creates a legal fiction for RECORDING births
* It CANNOT be extended to create surety obligations
* No statute says birth registration makes you liable for the fiction
* Implications and presumptions are FORBIDDEN
1. The Statutory Challenge: "Show me the EXACT statute that says birth registration creates surety obligations. Gasque forbids implications."
2. This principle was reaffirmed in Marshall v Kerr [1995] 1 AC 148, where even tax fictions couldn't be extended beyond their specific purpose. Birth Registration serves to record births - it cannot be extended to create surety obligations without explicit statutory authority, which does not exist.
The Roman Law Foundation - The Name & Status Distinction
The following points stand as fact in law unless rebutted with evidence:
1. Capitis Diminutio - The Hidden Name Game: According to Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition) and Roman law principles. The Romans knew changing how a name is written changes legal status. Capitalisation of names indicates legal status through the doctrine of Capitis Diminutio.
1. Names in all capitals represent maximum status loss - effectively slavery status.
2.This reveals why legal documents address ‘JOHN DOE’ (fiction) rather than ‘john of the family doe’ (living man).
a) JOHN HENRY DOE (Maxima) = Maximum status loss (slave)
b) John H DOE (Media) = Medium status loss
c) John Henry Doe (Minima) = Minimal status change
d) john henry: doe (Unicasus) = No status lost. unicasus (from "unus" meaning one + "casus" meaning case)
🔥8👍5❤🔥4🙏1
‘Parking Tickets are unenforceable’…
The assertion that parking tickets are unenforceable, being categorised as contractual and civil rather than criminal matters, has been brought to light through a correspondence from a Member of Parliament (MP) to a constituent. This correspondence has led to discussions regarding the potential for drivers across the nation to legally disregard parking restrictions, according to remarks made by a leading traffic attorney, Nick Freeman, widely known as "Mr. Loophole."
Mr. Freeman posits that all drivers need to do when parking in council-operated car parks or on public roads with established parking regulations is to display a clearly visible sign within their vehicle, communicating that they are parking illegally and do not intend to enter into a contractual agreement.
The context for Mr. Freeman's comments stems from a letter written by Bromsgrove MP Sajid Javid, who was inquired by a constituent about the penalties being issued to individuals residing in caravans at a car park on Stourbridge Road. Mr. Javid, now positioned in a newly appointed Cabinet role following a recent reshuffle, explained in his correspondence:
"There appears to be some confusion regarding the basis upon which the individuals were situated in the car park in question. The standard understanding for typical users of the car park is that, by entering and parking their vehicle, they engage in a contractual agreement with the Council, which requires them to remit a payment in exchange for the ability to leave their vehicle for a defined duration. Should the vehicle exceed the paid duration, remain unpaid, or fail to comply with parking regulations, this constitutes a breach of contract, thereby entitling the Council to impose a penalty charge.
Conversely, in the case of the individuals residing in caravans, their presence in the car park can be deemed as illegal occupation, and thus, there exists no contractual relationship with them, as their occupation was without permission. Under these circumstances, the more appropriate response is not one of breach of contract but rather one concerning illegal occupation."
Mr Freeman commented further, stating, "If the situation is as described, then motorists using public car parks, where fees are enforced, may rightfully place a notice on their vehicle stating: 'I am parked here illegally, I am not entering into a contract, and I do not accept your terms and conditions.' From a legal standpoint, the authority may find itself constrained due to the lack of an agreement that establishes a contract.”
He added, “It is imperative that the motorist clearly indicates that he or she does not wish to enter into any contractual obligation, whether expressed or implied, and therefore does not consent to any terms and conditions, with the notice being prominently displayed."
The assertion that parking tickets are unenforceable, being categorised as contractual and civil rather than criminal matters, has been brought to light through a correspondence from a Member of Parliament (MP) to a constituent. This correspondence has led to discussions regarding the potential for drivers across the nation to legally disregard parking restrictions, according to remarks made by a leading traffic attorney, Nick Freeman, widely known as "Mr. Loophole."
Mr. Freeman posits that all drivers need to do when parking in council-operated car parks or on public roads with established parking regulations is to display a clearly visible sign within their vehicle, communicating that they are parking illegally and do not intend to enter into a contractual agreement.
The context for Mr. Freeman's comments stems from a letter written by Bromsgrove MP Sajid Javid, who was inquired by a constituent about the penalties being issued to individuals residing in caravans at a car park on Stourbridge Road. Mr. Javid, now positioned in a newly appointed Cabinet role following a recent reshuffle, explained in his correspondence:
"There appears to be some confusion regarding the basis upon which the individuals were situated in the car park in question. The standard understanding for typical users of the car park is that, by entering and parking their vehicle, they engage in a contractual agreement with the Council, which requires them to remit a payment in exchange for the ability to leave their vehicle for a defined duration. Should the vehicle exceed the paid duration, remain unpaid, or fail to comply with parking regulations, this constitutes a breach of contract, thereby entitling the Council to impose a penalty charge.
Conversely, in the case of the individuals residing in caravans, their presence in the car park can be deemed as illegal occupation, and thus, there exists no contractual relationship with them, as their occupation was without permission. Under these circumstances, the more appropriate response is not one of breach of contract but rather one concerning illegal occupation."
Mr Freeman commented further, stating, "If the situation is as described, then motorists using public car parks, where fees are enforced, may rightfully place a notice on their vehicle stating: 'I am parked here illegally, I am not entering into a contract, and I do not accept your terms and conditions.' From a legal standpoint, the authority may find itself constrained due to the lack of an agreement that establishes a contract.”
He added, “It is imperative that the motorist clearly indicates that he or she does not wish to enter into any contractual obligation, whether expressed or implied, and therefore does not consent to any terms and conditions, with the notice being prominently displayed."
👏4🔥2👍1
A Short Constitutional History of England.pdf
21.6 MB
“A Short Constitutional History of England” ~ PDF
@everyone
In the forthcoming days, weeks, and months, we will be uploading an extensive collection of literature & PDF books centred on legal & lawful principles & practices, and relevant pertinent critical issues, that have been gathered over several years…
Our objective is to furnish you with resources that will enhance your understanding and empower you in the ongoing endeavor to address the corruption that pervades our judicial system and has done for centuries…
It is imperative to recognise that the system itself is not inherently flawed; rather, the integrity & honour of certain individuals operating within it, is compromised…
Therefore, to effectively combat this corruption and ensure accountability among these individuals, it is essential to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the very ‘Acts and Statutes’… they utilise—the same mechanisms and frameworks that are employed against us as living men & women.
@everyone
In the forthcoming days, weeks, and months, we will be uploading an extensive collection of literature & PDF books centred on legal & lawful principles & practices, and relevant pertinent critical issues, that have been gathered over several years…
Our objective is to furnish you with resources that will enhance your understanding and empower you in the ongoing endeavor to address the corruption that pervades our judicial system and has done for centuries…
It is imperative to recognise that the system itself is not inherently flawed; rather, the integrity & honour of certain individuals operating within it, is compromised…
Therefore, to effectively combat this corruption and ensure accountability among these individuals, it is essential to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the very ‘Acts and Statutes’… they utilise—the same mechanisms and frameworks that are employed against us as living men & women.
🙏8🔥4👌2💯1
Laws & Remedy.pdf
354.6 KB
A very useful and insightful document… a short read however it’s packed with very useful links & information…! Please share far & wide…!
🔥6🙏1
Lawfully Yours.pdf
1.2 MB
Another very useful and practical document… packed with very useful links & information…! Please share far & wide…!
🔥2🙏1
Is Silence Truely Acquiesence.pdf
61.8 KB
The title speaks for itself, only six pages, but very insightful… make up your own mind…
🔥2👍1🙏1
Letter of Clarity by David Robinson - Original Founder of ‘Lawful Dissent’ ~ October 20, 2016
·
Good evening constittuional protectors...
This is a (not so) brief explanation of why the remedy we use works, or has worked for us in the past.
Thanks to the committee of the barons for invoking article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, we have a lawful, peaceful remedy to tackle the injustices of the state in a peaceful manner, we don't take to the streets.
We Only deal with evidential facts and nothing more and we ONLY use English constitutional tenets in our arguments.
This is because anyone who opposing our standing will also be opposing the English Constitution which is tantamount to TREASON AT COMMON LAW. By the way...Blair did NOT legally repeal the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious practices Act when he brought in the Crime and disorder Act in 1998 (Chapter 36) like the imposters within government say. Of course, naturally you will need to check that constitutional law (common law) is a higher jurisdiction in the realm than the corporate rules being flung about by imposters and crooks within the establishment today, to be confident with the law to use it properly.
Please don't just believe what we state check it all out for yourselves but remember, the internet is awash with disinformation, just search for English constitution and see how many posts say that 'Britain' doesn't have one.
The argument they use is almost laughable, they say that we don't have a written, codified constitution like the USA (who incidentally took their constitution from ours) when evidently we DO have a written constitution that (has a system of protocols) is codified. It was created by the people over hundreds of years through revolutions and tyrannical regimes before this one. The constitution, when being fully observed supplies a good system of application of itself, therefore it is 'codified'.
The law… ‘IS OF THE PEOPLE’...which is why we are policed by consent in England. We all surely consent to the constitution as it protects the people and ensures justice is seen to be done. Unlike today in their corporate arenas, where deception and unaware peoples is a profitable practice indeed..
So... to the point. The regime works on presumption, they presume that you consent (and indeed you do if you comply with a summons of your own free will, or ignore their notices and letters). They presume that you are the corporate body and that you understand legalese and stand under their presumed (illegal) authority.
We remove all presumptions and provide evidence of article 61's invocation (Daily Telegraph report) plus other evidence (which can be seen in some of the processes we have succeeded with, in the files).
We state that we do not consent as the law FORBIDS us to do so at this time. We conditionally accept all demands on proof that they have the authority to make those demands since ‘Article 61's… invocation. The crown has NO authority whatsoever so neither do the so called courts, policy enforcers, councils etc.
‘Article 61’… is a royal command, it is commanded that we distress the Crown and the illegal regime by seizing castles, land etc, we all have LAWFUL: EXCUSE to do this and distress the regime in any way we see fit peacefully though, whilst also enjoying the freedom that 'duress of circumstances' provides us. Under duress you can comply with the regime if you rely on a car or whatever for example do not de-register the car or tax on it... you are also entitled to all your entitlements, it would be theft and coercion to aid and abet a treasonous regime to deny you them.
So... we go after every individual as a man/woman who makes any demands on us. We must compel them to stand under ‘Article 61’ too by law... everyone has the duty to do that whilst in lawful rebellion... this is apart of its strategy... only a united people can defeat treason from within. Unify under the common law which is common sense and just, is all we need to do.
·
Good evening constittuional protectors...
This is a (not so) brief explanation of why the remedy we use works, or has worked for us in the past.
Thanks to the committee of the barons for invoking article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, we have a lawful, peaceful remedy to tackle the injustices of the state in a peaceful manner, we don't take to the streets.
We Only deal with evidential facts and nothing more and we ONLY use English constitutional tenets in our arguments.
This is because anyone who opposing our standing will also be opposing the English Constitution which is tantamount to TREASON AT COMMON LAW. By the way...Blair did NOT legally repeal the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious practices Act when he brought in the Crime and disorder Act in 1998 (Chapter 36) like the imposters within government say. Of course, naturally you will need to check that constitutional law (common law) is a higher jurisdiction in the realm than the corporate rules being flung about by imposters and crooks within the establishment today, to be confident with the law to use it properly.
Please don't just believe what we state check it all out for yourselves but remember, the internet is awash with disinformation, just search for English constitution and see how many posts say that 'Britain' doesn't have one.
The argument they use is almost laughable, they say that we don't have a written, codified constitution like the USA (who incidentally took their constitution from ours) when evidently we DO have a written constitution that (has a system of protocols) is codified. It was created by the people over hundreds of years through revolutions and tyrannical regimes before this one. The constitution, when being fully observed supplies a good system of application of itself, therefore it is 'codified'.
The law… ‘IS OF THE PEOPLE’...which is why we are policed by consent in England. We all surely consent to the constitution as it protects the people and ensures justice is seen to be done. Unlike today in their corporate arenas, where deception and unaware peoples is a profitable practice indeed..
So... to the point. The regime works on presumption, they presume that you consent (and indeed you do if you comply with a summons of your own free will, or ignore their notices and letters). They presume that you are the corporate body and that you understand legalese and stand under their presumed (illegal) authority.
We remove all presumptions and provide evidence of article 61's invocation (Daily Telegraph report) plus other evidence (which can be seen in some of the processes we have succeeded with, in the files).
We state that we do not consent as the law FORBIDS us to do so at this time. We conditionally accept all demands on proof that they have the authority to make those demands since ‘Article 61's… invocation. The crown has NO authority whatsoever so neither do the so called courts, policy enforcers, councils etc.
‘Article 61’… is a royal command, it is commanded that we distress the Crown and the illegal regime by seizing castles, land etc, we all have LAWFUL: EXCUSE to do this and distress the regime in any way we see fit peacefully though, whilst also enjoying the freedom that 'duress of circumstances' provides us. Under duress you can comply with the regime if you rely on a car or whatever for example do not de-register the car or tax on it... you are also entitled to all your entitlements, it would be theft and coercion to aid and abet a treasonous regime to deny you them.
So... we go after every individual as a man/woman who makes any demands on us. We must compel them to stand under ‘Article 61’ too by law... everyone has the duty to do that whilst in lawful rebellion... this is apart of its strategy... only a united people can defeat treason from within. Unify under the common law which is common sense and just, is all we need to do.
👍2