Which Act? Which warrant? Can I see it?
(1) No clear statutory authority + no warrant = they should not be talking about forced entry.
(2) Council tax enforcement / enforcement agents
For council tax and most civil debts: Certificated enforcement agents (bailiffs) can usually only enter your home peaceably – through an unlocked door, with your consent, etc.
They cannot normally force entry for council tax alone unless: they have already been in before and taken control of goods, and they are re-entering to inspect/remove those goods under specific regulations.
Even then, it is heavily regulated, and they still need to act reasonably.
Emmanuel backs the argument that: Courts cannot grant “extra” forced-entry powers for civil debt through clever use of enforcement rules;
Any suggestion that a judge has given general “break-in” powers just by “enforcing the debt” is suspect unless backed by a very clear statute.
Always: ask them to identify the law that allows them to force entry; check what type of debt it is; get urgent advice from Citizens Advice, National Debtline, StepChange etc if in doubt.
(3) Private debt collectors
Private debt collectors (for credit cards, loans, catalogues, etc) have no rights of entry at all.
They are just ordinary civilians.
They cannot: push past you; put a foot in the door; threaten to “force entry” or “call a locksmith” to break in.
If they do, Emmanuel’s core message reinforces that there is no general civil court power they can hide behind. Without a specific warrant of entry based on a statute, they are basically bluffing.
What you can say when someone at the door waves “court powers” at you
You can keep it calm and simple: “You’re talking about forcing entry. Please tell me exactly which law and which warrant you say allows that. The County Court in Southern Housing v Emmanuel [2025] EWCC 58 has said judges cannot just make up forced-entry powers for civil matters. Unless Parliament has clearly given you that right, you don’t have it.”
Then: Do not physically obstruct them – that can put you at risk.
Ask them to push any paperwork through the letterbox or email it.
Take photos / video of their ID and behaviour if safe.
Get immediate advice from a proper debt/housing charity or solicitor.
5. Important cautions
Criminal warrants (police search warrants, HMRC warrants, etc) are a different world – those are based on specific statutes and can lawfully allow forced entry.
Some enforcement, like unpaid Magistrates’ Court fines or criminal confiscation, also comes with stronger entry powers.
Emmanuel does not let anyone ignore criminal warrants.
The value of Emmanuel is that it slams the door on a dangerous trend in the civil system: utility providers, landlords, councils and others asking judges to “top up” their powers and authorise forced entry just because someone hasn’t cooperated.
Judge Cridge’s answer was:
“No judge can give you that kind of power. If Parliament wants that, Parliament must say so.”
6. Why this matters
In a cost-of-living crisis, more people face: arrears on energy bills, council tax debts, pressure from debt collectors.
Threats of “we’ll get the court to let us break in” are powerful tools of intimidation.
Southern Housing v Emmanuel is a reminder that: civil judges are not supposed to be rubber-stamping break-ins; statute, not bluff, decides when your front door can be forced; you are entitled to demand a clear legal basis, not just vague references to “court orders” and “enforcement powers”.
Share this so people know they can ask the right questions – and so that companies think twice before threatening powers they simply do not have.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Southern-Housing-v-James-Emmanuel.pdf
(1) No clear statutory authority + no warrant = they should not be talking about forced entry.
(2) Council tax enforcement / enforcement agents
For council tax and most civil debts: Certificated enforcement agents (bailiffs) can usually only enter your home peaceably – through an unlocked door, with your consent, etc.
They cannot normally force entry for council tax alone unless: they have already been in before and taken control of goods, and they are re-entering to inspect/remove those goods under specific regulations.
Even then, it is heavily regulated, and they still need to act reasonably.
Emmanuel backs the argument that: Courts cannot grant “extra” forced-entry powers for civil debt through clever use of enforcement rules;
Any suggestion that a judge has given general “break-in” powers just by “enforcing the debt” is suspect unless backed by a very clear statute.
Always: ask them to identify the law that allows them to force entry; check what type of debt it is; get urgent advice from Citizens Advice, National Debtline, StepChange etc if in doubt.
(3) Private debt collectors
Private debt collectors (for credit cards, loans, catalogues, etc) have no rights of entry at all.
They are just ordinary civilians.
They cannot: push past you; put a foot in the door; threaten to “force entry” or “call a locksmith” to break in.
If they do, Emmanuel’s core message reinforces that there is no general civil court power they can hide behind. Without a specific warrant of entry based on a statute, they are basically bluffing.
What you can say when someone at the door waves “court powers” at you
You can keep it calm and simple: “You’re talking about forcing entry. Please tell me exactly which law and which warrant you say allows that. The County Court in Southern Housing v Emmanuel [2025] EWCC 58 has said judges cannot just make up forced-entry powers for civil matters. Unless Parliament has clearly given you that right, you don’t have it.”
Then: Do not physically obstruct them – that can put you at risk.
Ask them to push any paperwork through the letterbox or email it.
Take photos / video of their ID and behaviour if safe.
Get immediate advice from a proper debt/housing charity or solicitor.
5. Important cautions
Criminal warrants (police search warrants, HMRC warrants, etc) are a different world – those are based on specific statutes and can lawfully allow forced entry.
Some enforcement, like unpaid Magistrates’ Court fines or criminal confiscation, also comes with stronger entry powers.
Emmanuel does not let anyone ignore criminal warrants.
The value of Emmanuel is that it slams the door on a dangerous trend in the civil system: utility providers, landlords, councils and others asking judges to “top up” their powers and authorise forced entry just because someone hasn’t cooperated.
Judge Cridge’s answer was:
“No judge can give you that kind of power. If Parliament wants that, Parliament must say so.”
6. Why this matters
In a cost-of-living crisis, more people face: arrears on energy bills, council tax debts, pressure from debt collectors.
Threats of “we’ll get the court to let us break in” are powerful tools of intimidation.
Southern Housing v Emmanuel is a reminder that: civil judges are not supposed to be rubber-stamping break-ins; statute, not bluff, decides when your front door can be forced; you are entitled to demand a clear legal basis, not just vague references to “court orders” and “enforcement powers”.
Share this so people know they can ask the right questions – and so that companies think twice before threatening powers they simply do not have.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Southern-Housing-v-James-Emmanuel.pdf
🔥2🙏2❤🔥1
Forced Entry and the Sanctity of the HOME v 1.0.pdf
301.9 KB
Forced Entry 🪓 and the Sanctity of the Home: The Law After ~ ‘Southern Housing v Emmanuel’
Civil courts in England and Wales cannot authorise forced entry to a tenant’s home without express statutory authority…
That is the core holding of ‘Southern Housing v James Emmanuel’ [2025] EWCC 58, a reserved judgment handed down on 27 October 2025 by District Judge Cridge at Bromley County Court.
The decision draws on over four centuries of common law to establish that the Civil Procedure Rules — procedural instruments made under delegated authority — cannot override the fundamental right to quiet possession of a dwelling.
The judgment has immediate implications for social landlords, enforcement agents and debtors alike, reaffirming that Parliament alone can create powers of forced
entry, and that courts must not fill legislative gaps through creative procedural interpretation.
Please feel free to share with everyone ::PEACE:: 🕊️ 🌈
Civil courts in England and Wales cannot authorise forced entry to a tenant’s home without express statutory authority…
That is the core holding of ‘Southern Housing v James Emmanuel’ [2025] EWCC 58, a reserved judgment handed down on 27 October 2025 by District Judge Cridge at Bromley County Court.
The decision draws on over four centuries of common law to establish that the Civil Procedure Rules — procedural instruments made under delegated authority — cannot override the fundamental right to quiet possession of a dwelling.
The judgment has immediate implications for social landlords, enforcement agents and debtors alike, reaffirming that Parliament alone can create powers of forced
entry, and that courts must not fill legislative gaps through creative procedural interpretation.
Please feel free to share with everyone ::PEACE:: 🕊️ 🌈
🙏5💯4
🚨BARRISTERS READY TO “BRING COURTS TO THEIR KNEES” OVER LAMMY’S PLAN TO SCRAP JURY TRIALS
David Lammy’s plans to scrap jury trials has triggered open revolt inside the legal profession.
Senior barristers are now preparing strike action to collapse the court system if #Labour pushes ahead with plans to slash jury trials.
🔴 Prosecutors will refuse CPS work for the first time in history
🔴 Profession warns of a “total meltdown” of the justice system
🔴 Barristers vow to destroy Lammy’s proposals to remove jury protections
🔴 One insider: “This won’t end well for Lammy… people want this destroyed.”
This is unprecedented - legal professionals threatening walkouts not for pay, but to defend Britain’s most fundamental democratic safeguard: trial by jury.
David Lammy’s plans to scrap jury trials has triggered open revolt inside the legal profession.
Senior barristers are now preparing strike action to collapse the court system if #Labour pushes ahead with plans to slash jury trials.
🔴 Prosecutors will refuse CPS work for the first time in history
🔴 Profession warns of a “total meltdown” of the justice system
🔴 Barristers vow to destroy Lammy’s proposals to remove jury protections
🔴 One insider: “This won’t end well for Lammy… people want this destroyed.”
This is unprecedented - legal professionals threatening walkouts not for pay, but to defend Britain’s most fundamental democratic safeguard: trial by jury.
🔥7👍2💯2
If these insane ‘Fabian’ measures aren’t kicked all the way the fuck out… Our Country and our Way of Life is Totally FUCKED…!
The removal of trial by jury would mark one of the darkest and most serious constitutional erosions in our nation’s history. Trial by jury is not a procedural convenience but an ancient and unalienable safeguard, secured by Article 39 of Magna Carta in 1215 and reaffirmed by the Bill of Rights in 1689, by which no free man or woman may be condemned save by the lawful judgment of their peers.
To remove it is to remove the people themselves from the administration of justice and to place that power wholly into the hands of the State and its appointed ‘Fabian’ judges.
The jury stands as the final shield between the ordinary man and woman and the overreach of Government; it is the body that can acquit against an unjust law, refuse to convict where conscience forbids, and hold prosecutorial power to account through the verdict of the community itself.
Strip away the jury, and what remains is judgment by State officials alone, a system in which the accused faces the full machinery of Government without the protection of twelve of their own.
The implications are grave: a weakening of the presumption of innocence, the loss of jury nullification as a check upon tyrannical legislation, and the quiet transfer of sovereign authority from the people to the State.
Those who would dismantle this safeguard, however practical their stated reasons, ought to remember that the jury was won with the blood and sacrifice of our forebears, and once surrendered, such liberties are seldom restored.
“The continuation of this Treasonous Government represents a Clear and Present Danger… to the people and peace of this nation!” ~ Oliver Cromwell
The removal of trial by jury would mark one of the darkest and most serious constitutional erosions in our nation’s history. Trial by jury is not a procedural convenience but an ancient and unalienable safeguard, secured by Article 39 of Magna Carta in 1215 and reaffirmed by the Bill of Rights in 1689, by which no free man or woman may be condemned save by the lawful judgment of their peers.
To remove it is to remove the people themselves from the administration of justice and to place that power wholly into the hands of the State and its appointed ‘Fabian’ judges.
The jury stands as the final shield between the ordinary man and woman and the overreach of Government; it is the body that can acquit against an unjust law, refuse to convict where conscience forbids, and hold prosecutorial power to account through the verdict of the community itself.
Strip away the jury, and what remains is judgment by State officials alone, a system in which the accused faces the full machinery of Government without the protection of twelve of their own.
The implications are grave: a weakening of the presumption of innocence, the loss of jury nullification as a check upon tyrannical legislation, and the quiet transfer of sovereign authority from the people to the State.
Those who would dismantle this safeguard, however practical their stated reasons, ought to remember that the jury was won with the blood and sacrifice of our forebears, and once surrendered, such liberties are seldom restored.
“The continuation of this Treasonous Government represents a Clear and Present Danger… to the people and peace of this nation!” ~ Oliver Cromwell
💯10👏1
This video is a very worthwhile watch..!
All about why you should not speak to the police. This is delivered by a lawyer and everything the lawyer says is then backed up by a police officer.
It is important to remember that this video is American so they mention the constitution there, however, most countries will have an equivalent right to remain silent in their law.
Check out the video here:
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=2V-6tjiZ1y9TQoua
All about why you should not speak to the police. This is delivered by a lawyer and everything the lawyer says is then backed up by a police officer.
It is important to remember that this video is American so they mention the constitution there, however, most countries will have an equivalent right to remain silent in their law.
Check out the video here:
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=2V-6tjiZ1y9TQoua
YouTube
Don't Talk to the Police
Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials. Download his article on the topic at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119.…
🔥5
Re: MESSAGE FROM
WAYNE LEIGHTON
KB-2024-002975
The Royal Courts of Justice,
The Strand, London
1-2 July 2026
ASK EVERYONE TO SHARE!
An Important message from Wayne 'Child' Leighton (the council tax case)
Hello lovely people,
On the 1st and 2nd, JULY 2026 the High Court council tax trial is finally among us. They have delayed, ignored and tried to shut it down on technicalities, all of which have failed. Now they have to give judgment on the merits, which is a problem for them as it exposes the scandal as a 17-year enforcement fraud.
Apart from the overwhelming case law, statutes, and other material that establish they need a warrant, just on the Hansard Parliamentary records alone the case is already proven.
The government argued that paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 removed the requirement for consent to enter people's home and gave them a statutory right of entry. However, I have the official record from Parliament that states the exact opposite, that paragraph 14 does not remove the common law requirement for consent, and entry under paragraph 14 requires consent of the occupier. It is literally checkmate just on this point alone.
At the case management hearing I asked Judge Obi if she had read this document and she denied it. Plainly she was lying as the court had allocated a full pre-day’s reading time and she knew all details of the case so there is no way that was the first time she had heard of that document as it is the predominant submission of mine in the papers. She just did not dare address it.
The next webinar session was supposed to be on 1 July but has now had to be moved to 19 July because of the clash. However, I encourage everyone to attend the trial as you will learn far more from observing this than you will from the webinar. You will see I drink my own portion of what I teach in the webinars live in action. You will also see the lies the government will be making to try and assert they have authority to enter people's homes when it simply does not exist. It is one of the best ways you can learn. The case needs support as people watching scares them and they are attempting to overturn a 500-year common law protection to keep their revenue racketeering model alive.
There is no substitute to being in person for the experience, but if you cannot make the trip and want to observe online, you will need to register with the High Court. Send an email to
kbjudgeslistingoffice@justice.gov.uk
with your name and email address as if you do not, they will use this as a reason to not allow you to observe. Put the subject KB-2024-002975 and say you would like to register for access to observe the trial.
The case is the biggest ruling on the protections rights to enter someone home since Entick v. Carrington 1765. But it goes deeper than that. It also exposes the fraudulent enforcement and judicial system we currently operate in as a whole. Watch history unfold on 1-2 July 2026 as the only way they cannot declare this is fraud is by lying about the facts, which we all know they are very capable of doing!
This is a golden opportunity to learn the system and a rare opportunity to watch something unfold of this nature. Come and support a case which is cumulatively a decade in the making.
Best regards,
Wayne 'Child' Leighton.”
WAYNE LEIGHTON
KB-2024-002975
The Royal Courts of Justice,
The Strand, London
1-2 July 2026
ASK EVERYONE TO SHARE!
An Important message from Wayne 'Child' Leighton (the council tax case)
Hello lovely people,
On the 1st and 2nd, JULY 2026 the High Court council tax trial is finally among us. They have delayed, ignored and tried to shut it down on technicalities, all of which have failed. Now they have to give judgment on the merits, which is a problem for them as it exposes the scandal as a 17-year enforcement fraud.
Apart from the overwhelming case law, statutes, and other material that establish they need a warrant, just on the Hansard Parliamentary records alone the case is already proven.
The government argued that paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 removed the requirement for consent to enter people's home and gave them a statutory right of entry. However, I have the official record from Parliament that states the exact opposite, that paragraph 14 does not remove the common law requirement for consent, and entry under paragraph 14 requires consent of the occupier. It is literally checkmate just on this point alone.
At the case management hearing I asked Judge Obi if she had read this document and she denied it. Plainly she was lying as the court had allocated a full pre-day’s reading time and she knew all details of the case so there is no way that was the first time she had heard of that document as it is the predominant submission of mine in the papers. She just did not dare address it.
The next webinar session was supposed to be on 1 July but has now had to be moved to 19 July because of the clash. However, I encourage everyone to attend the trial as you will learn far more from observing this than you will from the webinar. You will see I drink my own portion of what I teach in the webinars live in action. You will also see the lies the government will be making to try and assert they have authority to enter people's homes when it simply does not exist. It is one of the best ways you can learn. The case needs support as people watching scares them and they are attempting to overturn a 500-year common law protection to keep their revenue racketeering model alive.
There is no substitute to being in person for the experience, but if you cannot make the trip and want to observe online, you will need to register with the High Court. Send an email to
kbjudgeslistingoffice@justice.gov.uk
with your name and email address as if you do not, they will use this as a reason to not allow you to observe. Put the subject KB-2024-002975 and say you would like to register for access to observe the trial.
The case is the biggest ruling on the protections rights to enter someone home since Entick v. Carrington 1765. But it goes deeper than that. It also exposes the fraudulent enforcement and judicial system we currently operate in as a whole. Watch history unfold on 1-2 July 2026 as the only way they cannot declare this is fraud is by lying about the facts, which we all know they are very capable of doing!
This is a golden opportunity to learn the system and a rare opportunity to watch something unfold of this nature. Come and support a case which is cumulatively a decade in the making.
Best regards,
Wayne 'Child' Leighton.”
🔥8🙏4👍3❤🔥2👏1
‘Lawyers… in Amsterdam Bioweapon Trial ~ Arrested’
“The Flack is Always the Thickest When You Are Right Over The Target”…!!!
Attorney Peter Stassen is representing people injured by the bioweapons at the Amsterdam Court Of Appeal in the Netherlands.
The courtroom in Leeuwarden was under blackout. No major network will broadcast it. Search engines are scrubbing terms. Fact-checkers are mobilizing disinformation alerts before the trial even begins. Why?
Because the media wasn’t just complicit — it was operational. They helped install the fear. They shielded the perpetrators. They buried the dead behind algorithms and slogans.
Stassen was arrested last week before the hearing “with considerable force,” as ‘part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement* with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state’.
Meaning that the Justice department couldn’t find something real to arrest him for. All the other ‘suspects’ in this case have been released, except Van Kessel who remains confined in a high-security prison.
Stassen was going to present the case together with his colleague, Arno van Kessel. On the 11th of June, the day after having submitted documents to do with the initial proceedings, Van Kessel was arrested and taken away blindfolded by a team of semi-military police and is being kept in the Netherlands’ highest secured prison, far away from his family, at least for another three months. The actual charge is unknown – most likely because the State Prosecution is still trying to find a criminal act.
The case brings 146 explosive documents to the table — including internal Pfizer communications, EU procurement fraud, suppressed pathology reports, and damning evidence of psychological warfare used to coerce entire populations into blind compliance.
If Van Kessel’s arrest was meant to intimidate Stassen, it did the opposite. As if he felt he had nothing left to lose, Stassen did all but mince his words the horns and named the defendants crimes for what they are: biowarfare, genocide, mass murder, deceit and assault.
Bill Gates, Albert Bourla (CEO of Pfizer), and Mark Rutte (former Dutch PM) along with 15 other defendants have been indicted for lying to the public about the convid vax.
https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2026/06/14/lawyers-in-amsterdam-bioweapon-trial-arrested
Read the Full Article here and please share far and wide..!
“The Flack is Always the Thickest When You Are Right Over The Target”…!!!
Attorney Peter Stassen is representing people injured by the bioweapons at the Amsterdam Court Of Appeal in the Netherlands.
The courtroom in Leeuwarden was under blackout. No major network will broadcast it. Search engines are scrubbing terms. Fact-checkers are mobilizing disinformation alerts before the trial even begins. Why?
Because the media wasn’t just complicit — it was operational. They helped install the fear. They shielded the perpetrators. They buried the dead behind algorithms and slogans.
Stassen was arrested last week before the hearing “with considerable force,” as ‘part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement* with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state’.
Meaning that the Justice department couldn’t find something real to arrest him for. All the other ‘suspects’ in this case have been released, except Van Kessel who remains confined in a high-security prison.
Stassen was going to present the case together with his colleague, Arno van Kessel. On the 11th of June, the day after having submitted documents to do with the initial proceedings, Van Kessel was arrested and taken away blindfolded by a team of semi-military police and is being kept in the Netherlands’ highest secured prison, far away from his family, at least for another three months. The actual charge is unknown – most likely because the State Prosecution is still trying to find a criminal act.
The case brings 146 explosive documents to the table — including internal Pfizer communications, EU procurement fraud, suppressed pathology reports, and damning evidence of psychological warfare used to coerce entire populations into blind compliance.
If Van Kessel’s arrest was meant to intimidate Stassen, it did the opposite. As if he felt he had nothing left to lose, Stassen did all but mince his words the horns and named the defendants crimes for what they are: biowarfare, genocide, mass murder, deceit and assault.
Bill Gates, Albert Bourla (CEO of Pfizer), and Mark Rutte (former Dutch PM) along with 15 other defendants have been indicted for lying to the public about the convid vax.
https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2026/06/14/lawyers-in-amsterdam-bioweapon-trial-arrested
Read the Full Article here and please share far and wide..!
Awakened England
Lawyers in Amsterdam Bioweapon Trial Arrested
Attorney Peter Stassen is representing people injured by the bioweapons at the Amsterdam Court Of Appeal in the Netherlands. The courtroom in Leeuwarden was under blackout. No major network will br…
https://youtu.be/RijoJM-Kp5E?is=h-NdHEHlglzfjshz
The importation of Migrants to the UK and the West as a whole, has been and still is a deliberate part of the Globalist 2030 Agenda to destabilise Western Society… across the Anglo-Saxon Nations… in Western Europe across the pond to North American Continent.
This isn't happening by accident. ‼️‼️‼️
✨Short 12-minute video worth watching… ✨
Please Share this with everyone you know…. We will not get a second chance… Act now before it’s to late to wake others up to what's really happening. Especially here in the UK…‼️‼️‼️
The importation of Migrants to the UK and the West as a whole, has been and still is a deliberate part of the Globalist 2030 Agenda to destabilise Western Society… across the Anglo-Saxon Nations… in Western Europe across the pond to North American Continent.
This isn't happening by accident. ‼️‼️‼️
✨Short 12-minute video worth watching… ✨
Please Share this with everyone you know…. We will not get a second chance… Act now before it’s to late to wake others up to what's really happening. Especially here in the UK…‼️‼️‼️
🔥7
How many people here believe we should establish for ‘We The People’ of Great Britain. A proper, formal written Constitution to safeguard all our inherent unalienable rights..?
Please show your support with a Thumbs up if you agree—it’s a good idea! 👍🏼
Please show your support with a Thumbs up if you agree—it’s a good idea! 👍🏼
👍46
The Word “Human”.pdf
165 KB
Ever been told that "human" secretly means "Hu-man" — colour plus man, a hidden mark of servitude?
It's a myth!
"Human" isn't two English words joined together; it comes into English whole, from a single Latin word — humanus — kin to homo (man) and humus (the earth). Its oldest sense is the earth-born mortal: the creature of the ground, set against the immortal gods.
There is no "colour" in it anywhere, and "hue" (colour) is an entirely separate word, of Germanic descent, that never once touched Latin.
The "Hu + man" split is folk etymology — the same error as claiming "history" comes from "his story" (it's really the Greek historia, "inquiry").
"Human" brands no one a servant or a slave. It means, quite simply, a living man or woman — a member of mankind. The word takes nothing from us..!
See the attached PDF for a fuller more in depth explanation.
It's a myth!
"Human" isn't two English words joined together; it comes into English whole, from a single Latin word — humanus — kin to homo (man) and humus (the earth). Its oldest sense is the earth-born mortal: the creature of the ground, set against the immortal gods.
There is no "colour" in it anywhere, and "hue" (colour) is an entirely separate word, of Germanic descent, that never once touched Latin.
The "Hu + man" split is folk etymology — the same error as claiming "history" comes from "his story" (it's really the Greek historia, "inquiry").
"Human" brands no one a servant or a slave. It means, quite simply, a living man or woman — a member of mankind. The word takes nothing from us..!
See the attached PDF for a fuller more in depth explanation.
👍5⚡4👏3🔥1
Evidence.pdf
193.4 KB
EVIDENCE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF — How much is simply asserted these days — and how little is ever proven?
Social media is crowded with confident statements offered without anything behind them. Such a statement may be called a bare assertion: a claim advanced on the speaker's say-so alone, with nothing produced that a listener or reader might examine. It can be made by anyone, about anything, in a moment, and at no cost. That cheapness is precisely the difficulty.
A claim that costs nothing to make, and offers nothing to inspect, gives a listener no reason to accept it over its opposite. Volume is not proof, and sincerity is not proof. The remedy is not a louder assertion in return, but evidence: material that can be inspected, weighed, and tested by someone who did not already believe.
📄 The full paper attached. Read it, and you'll never hear an argument the same way again.
Social media is crowded with confident statements offered without anything behind them. Such a statement may be called a bare assertion: a claim advanced on the speaker's say-so alone, with nothing produced that a listener or reader might examine. It can be made by anyone, about anything, in a moment, and at no cost. That cheapness is precisely the difficulty.
A claim that costs nothing to make, and offers nothing to inspect, gives a listener no reason to accept it over its opposite. Volume is not proof, and sincerity is not proof. The remedy is not a louder assertion in return, but evidence: material that can be inspected, weighed, and tested by someone who did not already believe.
📄 The full paper attached. Read it, and you'll never hear an argument the same way again.
The_Term_Person_A_Necessary_Correction_What_it_Actually_Means_in.pdf
1.5 MB
The Term "Person" — A Necessary Correction - What It Actually Means in Law
For over a decade, men and women were told that the word "person" makes them a corporation, and that refusing it places them outside the law. It does nothing of the kind. In law, "person" simply names a living man or woman — the bearer of unalienable rights and duties, the natural person. The real ground was never the word, but the distinction between ‘private ordering’ under the common law and public statutory jurisdiction.
Once you see it, you cannot un-see it..!
See the full paper 📄 attached for a more in depth explanation.
For over a decade, men and women were told that the word "person" makes them a corporation, and that refusing it places them outside the law. It does nothing of the kind. In law, "person" simply names a living man or woman — the bearer of unalienable rights and duties, the natural person. The real ground was never the word, but the distinction between ‘private ordering’ under the common law and public statutory jurisdiction.
Once you see it, you cannot un-see it..!
See the full paper 📄 attached for a more in depth explanation.
👍3🔥2⚡1🙏1