+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: The Concept of Legal Person

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default The Concept of Legal Person

    United Kingdom Corporation LTD
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater


    Its proven that this COUNTRY is a CORPORATION (ref: dnb.co.uk), which means it operates as a business, being a CORPORATION means it has to have EMPLOYEES to keep the CORPORATION running

    It seems those with NATIONAL INSURANCE NUMBER are the EMPLOYEES of this CORPORATION, its not just CIVAL SERVANTS that becomes the EMPLOYEE, but EVERYONE

    As a CORPORATION, there has to be COMPANY POLICIES, which in this CORPORATION requires us to pay, TAX and follow LEGISLATIVE POLICY RULES of that CORPORATION, the LEGISLATIVE POLICY RULES in this CORPORATION are called STATUTES

    note: STATUTES are not LAW, they are COMPANY POLICIES, not LAW of the LAND

    Definition of STATUTE: a LEGISLATIVE RULE of SOCIETY given the FORCE of LAW, by the CONSENT of the GOVERNED(you), a RULE of a CORPORATION

    So what are the DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES of this COMPANY?
    DISCIPLINERY PROCEDURES:

    The POLICE believe it or not are ALL COMPANIES for PROFIT (ref:dnb.co.uk)

    They are CORPORATION POLICY ENFORCMENT OFFICERS, their job is to ENFORCE the RULES and POLICIES of the CORPORATION not actual LAW (common law)

    Note: There are two types of LAW in this country: COMMON LAW(law of justice) and MARITINE LAW(law of money/business)

    than you have COMPANY RULES called ACTS & STATUTES, which is not actual LAW

    The COURTS are ALL COMPANIES run for PROFIT (ref:dnb.co.uk)

    If we break the RULES and POLICIES of this COPORATION, we will get SUMMONED to their place of BUSINUESS to discuss punishment

    Note: SUMMOMS=INVITATION

    The COURTS and the whole CORPORTION speak a language that we think we understand, this language is called LEGALESE

    Some words have VERY different MEANINGS

    So to OVERSTAND the way they speak, we need to learn LEGALESE, its a LANGUAGE created purposely to mislead persons into giving their consent unknowingly

    So what is a PERSON ?

    The Person

    Lets look at the definition of the word PERSON

    PERSON = A HUMAN BEING is not a PERSON because he is a HUMAN BEING, but because RIGHTS and DUTIES have been ascribed to him, specifically that PERSON is LEGAL SUBJECT (legal fiction) or SUBSTANCE of which the RIGHTS and DUTIES are attributes, BUT not all HUMAN BEINGS are PERSONS, as was the case in OLD ENGLAND when there were slaves

    So how did we transform from being a HUMAN BEING to becoming a PERSON (Legal fiction)?
    It all started in the 1800s, that’s when the BIRTH CERTIFICATE SCHEME was put into play, those of us who have a BIRTH CERTIFICATE are actually PERSONS if you CHOOSE to represent yourself via the BIRTH CERTIFICATE which is also known as your STRAWMAN

    Our PERSONS become LEGAL FICTION, and so COMPANY POLICY don’t apply to us as HUMAN BEINGS, they only apply to us as PERSONS
    There is a difference between a police MAN (Common Law) and a police OFFICER (Acts/Statutes) the difference being LEGAL FICTION
    LEGAL FICTION is the title given to you to represent you (Persons) but not to represent the real you (Human Being)

    MR, MISS, MS, MISSES, MASTER, SIR: These are all forms of LEGAL FICTION, we wasn't born into LEGAL FICTION, we jus adopted it down the line as NORMAL...
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  2. The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (27th October 2014), betoobig (27th October 2014), bruno dante (6th August 2015), eaglespirit (26th October 2014), East Sun (20th June 2021), Ewan (24th October 2015), genevieve (27th October 2014), gripreaper (2nd November 2014), grizzzly (27th October 2014), jerry (11th November 2014), jjjones (27th October 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), Maia Gabrial (20th November 2014), markoid (27th October 2014), Michael Moewes (27th October 2014), naste.de.lumina (27th October 2014), Nasu (27th October 2014), ponda (27th October 2014), Sebastion (27th October 2014), shijo (11th November 2016), Stephanie (10th February 2015), vje2 (10th February 2015), Zampano (27th October 2014)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Avalon Member eaglespirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2010
    Posts
    2,720
    Thanks
    50,159
    Thanked 25,179 times in 2,653 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    ..and so it is

    the "living" man and woman become the 'walking dead' in the legal fiction arena.

    And as Sigma and Others here have shown in the past...the only way out is in through forthright sovereignty in action, "The Federal Truth in Lending Act"

    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE...-ADVENTURE.pdf
    ...excerpt from "The Great American Adventure":
    CITATIONS
    The CITATION process can be handled much easier; through
    the mail. When a Police Officer issues you a CITATION, he is
    actually requesting you to CONTRACT with him! He is alleging
    that you violated a corporate regulation in writing, which you
    have accepted by signing and thus requires you to respond.
    The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is
    merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the
    CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the
    Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this
    offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT;
    PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and
    the case!
    You can cancel that CONTRACT however by rescinding your
    CONSENT. The Federal Truth in Lending Act provides that
    any party to a CONTRACT may rescind his CONSENT, within
    three business days of entering into such a CONTRACT. So
    across the face of the CITATION you should print or type in
    large print, the following words:
    I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT
    and
    I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
    Use blue ink [for admiralty] or purple ink [for royalty].
    Admiralty is the Court and Royalty represents your Sovereignty.
    Either way is appropriate. Sign your signature underneath in
    blue or purple ink and in front of a Notary and under your
    signature type: Without prejudice, UCC 1-308. This is another
    way to declare that you may not be held responsible for this
    Contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code.
    Serve Cancelled Citation back it on the Clerk / Court, along with
    a Certificate of Service, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
    Requested. This kills the CITATION; removes your CONSENT
    and removes the JURISDICTION of the Court, all at the same
    time. It really is that simple!
    NOTE: A Certificate of Service is a letter that first identifies the
    Citation and then defines how and when you returned the document to the Court and is signed. If not denied, it becomes
    a truth in commerce by Tacit Procuration.
    Remember to keep a copy of everything, in case the Clerk
    attempts to trash your response, which certainly will not happen
    with a Certificate of Service or if it is mailed back by the Notary.
    The Notary is actually a Deputy Secretary of State and is more
    powerful than the Court Clerk!
    Public Notaries originate from the time of the Egyptian and
    Roman Scribes who were the purveyors of certified documents,
    which are sworn affidavits. Certified documents and sworn
    affidavits are truth in commerce. [e.g.] Birth Certificates are
    certified documents on bonded paper. The word bonded is
    derived from bondage as in slavery, which makes all of us Bond
    Slaves to whoever retains custody of our original Birth
    Certificates. I bet you believed that the Emancipation
    Proclamation freed the slaves and it did for a short time and
    then the Birth Certificate and the 14th Amendment enslaved us
    all!
    SUMMONS and LAWSUITS
    The SUMMONS process, weather it is defined a Civil or Criminal
    Action, is once again an offer to CONTRACT, despite what
    words are used to command your appearance or response. It
    too can be cancelled just by following the same procedure as the
    CITATION process above. A million dollar lawsuit is no
    different than a CITATION and both can be cancelled! Hard to
    believe, isn’t it?
    Does your lawyer know about this? You bet he does but he is
    not permitted to embarrass the Court and besides, Court is
    where he makes his money!
    NOTE: How many of you have ever attempted to avoid Jury
    Duty? All you had to do was cancel the SUMMONS [OFFER to
    CONTRACT]; Notarize it and mail it back to the Jury
    Commissioner. Don’t worry, they won’t bother you because you
    are obviously too smart and may influence their Jury! The Jury
    [controls] the Court and not the Prosecutor and Judge and if you
    know that, they lose and the defendant wins, which is why they
    prefer only the dumbed down candidates to serve on a Jury.

  4. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to eaglespirit For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (2nd November 2014), betoobig (27th October 2014), gripreaper (2nd November 2014), jjjones (27th October 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), markoid (27th October 2014), naste.de.lumina (27th October 2014), Nasu (27th October 2014), ponda (27th October 2014), Sebastion (27th October 2014), sigma6 (26th October 2014), Stephanie (10th February 2015), wegge (27th October 2021), Wide-Eyed (6th August 2015)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    or accept your use of the NAME without claiming "ownership" and only use for the benefit of the "subscriber" (in this context this means the party issuing the "subscription") which it has been described as.

    A "subscription" is an offer which bestows the authority of the subscriber onto the "recipient" of the "subscription" One of the conditions of the subscription in this case is that it be "used for the benefit of the "subscriber" (again this refers to the party offering the "subscription") In practice this means not claiming ownership for your own personal use...

    and fully supports s.336 in the Criminal Code which indirectly recognizes that there are two different ways for a trustee to hold trust property, which the BC has been assessed as being in other sections of this forum...

    (Pocket Criminal Code 2009,, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) (R.S., c. C-34, s. 297)

    Quote Criminal breach of trust:

    336. Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 296.
    If there are at least two different ways that the government recognizes how trustees can hold property, then it can also be deduced that there is more than one way to "use" the B.C. NAME, registered organization, sole corporation, etc. keep in mind the word "use" is a trust term, as defined in legal dictionaries...

    We can use "for the use and benefit of another person" or "for a public purpose". If the offer of the "subscription" was used for the "benefit of another person", this would be consistent with the "user" claiming ownership and being the "beneficial owner"... But if used for a public purpose, this would be consistent with NOT claiming ownership and also fit the subscriber/subscription model where one of the conditions of the "offer of subscription" is that it be used for the "benefit of the subscriber" (the issuer) ...in this alternative understanding, if properly translated into application, would be a powerful game changer in the whole interpretation of one's relationship (who you are) to the NAME...

    When we claim ownership we become the "beneficial owner" which implies public legal obligation for liabilities in the public (including taxes) This is the price of stepping out of the private and joining the NAME in the public, and taking on the surety for the NAME...

    Whereas there is an interpretation and an option where we use things in trust... we are not claiming ownership, and also recognizing another party is holding legal title, and by using it for the benefit of the subscriber, we are maintaining the "beneficial ownership" liabilities on the "subscriber" (the issuer) (avoiding a constructive trust interpretation [punishment, loss of control]) (see "de son tort trustee" definition)

    This is why trust is just as much a transformation of your thinking, before you can really act on it and take advantage of what it has to offer...

    "own nothing, control everything" - Rockefeller


    I will add more on the concept of subscriber/subscription when I can find the article...
    Last edited by sigma6; 27th October 2014 at 00:52. Reason: rephrased wording, incorrectly explained... :(
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  6. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (2nd November 2014), betoobig (27th October 2014), eaglespirit (27th October 2014), gripreaper (2nd November 2014), jjjones (27th October 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), markoid (27th October 2014), naste.de.lumina (27th October 2014), ponda (27th October 2014), Sebastion (27th October 2014), Wide-Eyed (10th August 2015)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Spain Avalon Member betoobig's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2014
    Location
    Burgos, Spain
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,901
    Thanks
    25,622
    Thanked 10,993 times in 1,795 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    does anyone knows if it works the same way in other countries, for example, Spain????
    Thanks and Love

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to betoobig For This Post:

    eaglespirit (31st October 2014)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Fundamentally yes, if they are operating a fiat currency (check!) issue birth certificates (check), and operate a probate court system, (i.e. administrative trusteeship over the abandoned "Persons" (dead legal fiction, entity)) i.e. does your court claim jurisdiction over "you"? then they are operating on the "Person". All governments (and banks) are really acting corporate trustees. Especially countries under the Commonwealth, that have courts of common law/equity And recognize Admiralty Law. Does your country have a "constitution"? Does it recognize the rules of commerce that go back to the Romans, like Admiralty Law? The law of the sea? or as Jordan Maxwell said, "...the Law of the Planet" (when it comes to Commerce). UCC, (universal Commercial Code, etc. things to look for... Do they collect taxes? Do they issue tickets, fines, and charge for everything under the sun? Then you are operating a similar system...
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  10. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (2nd November 2014), betoobig (4th November 2014), eaglespirit (31st October 2014), gripreaper (2nd November 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), Maia Gabrial (20th November 2014), naste.de.lumina (31st October 2014), Sebastion (30th October 2014), yuhui (23rd November 2014)

  11. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Member Sebastion's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th December 2010
    Age
    72
    Posts
    667
    Thanks
    10,481
    Thanked 4,066 times in 640 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    I want to thank you Sigma6 for your posts regarding all of this legal stuff! I read and re-read everything you post and am learning to grasp the "language" of the law from your every posting. My sincere gratitude to you. Please continue!

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Sebastion For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), betoobig (4th November 2014), eaglespirit (31st October 2014), gripreaper (2nd November 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), naste.de.lumina (31st October 2014), sigma6 (31st October 2014), Wide-Eyed (10th August 2015)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Quote Posted by Sebastion (here)
    I want to thank you Sigma6 for your posts regarding all of this legal stuff! I read and re-read everything you post and am learning to grasp the "language" of the law from your every posting. My sincere gratitude to you. Please continue!
    I pulled up a link that connects a bunch of posts I strung together... thanks for the compliment and reminder what I consider my more important messages... cheers
    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post595931
    Last edited by sigma6; 24th April 2016 at 17:06.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (2nd November 2014), betoobig (4th November 2014), eaglespirit (31st October 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), naste.de.lumina (31st October 2014), Reinhard (2nd November 2014), Sebastion (31st October 2014)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Did a promo interview for a friend and fellow truth seeker, he takes a very statutory approach in my opinion, but I can't deny his knowledge and research on the subject of how the Queen and the Bible ties into Canadian Law, one of the very first researchers to focus on the complexity surrounding the concept of "legal Person"...

    I have a new found respect for all the interviewers out there... it's harder than it looks!!! But this was tough because his knowledge is so far advanced than my own on this particular subject, such as court process, rules and procedures, etc, which is definitely where I can learn tons of insights from him. I tried as hard as I could to tone down my trust interpretation... since this was about his views and his webinar... ';0 but did take the opportunity that was of common interest to us both, and that is the nature of the "legal person" ...


    Listen or download David Kevin Lindsay Interview
    http://www.4shared.com/mp3/6kh0FBaRb..._Upcoming.html

    We discuss the history of taxation, the Queen as a legal entity, Sole Corporation,
    Different takes on "What is the Person" and highlights on his upcoming webinar -
    And how can we use this information to protect ourselves and hold our public servants accountable... plus contact information and how to get his latest info product: How to lay criminal charges when the police will not "cooperate"...

    David’s upcoming webinar -
    The Premiere of his Live Weekend Webinar with interactive Q&A
    based on hundreds of court experiences and over two decades of legal research!
    www.WeBookYourShow.com/WEBINAR-Pre-Sale.html

    David’s email contact Information:
    clear@clearfreedom.org







    For people new to 4shared:
    may vary slightly as 4 shared is constantly updating, but the basics
    are still the same... have these instructions handy BEFORE you go to page!
    http://www.4shared.com/dir/vo3VIWx9/Trust.html (example link)
    (Warning! - 4Shared "pop up" windows and fake “download” buttons = advertisements)
    (i.e. follow CAREFULLY to bypass ALL advertising)


    (1) To Start: click 4shared link provided ... (add password if requested)
    - folder or files will display (click on files or folders ONLY)
    - window will "refresh" displaying file selected for download and/or play (file may start playing)
    note: a "pop up" window now appears - close and GO BACK to page
    - LOOK FOR 3 buttons below (side by side)
    "Download" "Share" and "Add to my account"
    (note: everything else will sidetrack you into advertising)

    (2) Select "Download"
    a "pop-up window" will appear in front - it's advertising!
    (CLOSE "pop-up window" - go back to original page!
    - look for these 2 buttons...
    "4 PRIORITY DOWNLOAD" and "FREE DOWNLOAD"

    (3) Select "FREE DOWNLOAD" (with "20 seconds" in box)
    Sign-in 'box' will appear...
    Look for 4shared account access at bottom (in fine print)
    - Sign Up (left) - or Log-In (right)
    Don’t download anything to sign up...
    (by-pass "social media" signup - requires additional info)

    (4) Login: (username, password)
    - "download, save, save as, etc" should appear
    a count timer will appear (wait 20 seconds)
    if another pop up window appears - close it AGAIN
    Last edited by sigma6; 31st October 2014 at 05:56.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (2nd November 2014), betoobig (4th November 2014), eaglespirit (31st October 2014), naste.de.lumina (3rd November 2014), Sebastion (31st October 2014)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Once I had a judge say "I don't see a bond here, this isn't a bond..." etc.. and she was right, it's a certificate to a security, evidence of interest, more accurately ...

    DEFINITIONS RELATED TO LEGAL PERSON



    (S.2 Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
    "property" includes
    (a) real and personal property of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods.



    http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/T/Title.aspx
    Title:
    "Title refers to the legal ownership of a property interest so that one having title to a property interest can withstand the assertion of others claiming a right to that ownership.
    (tells me that we don't want to compete with them in the statutory public as a citizen, unless you are a masochist... since they hold legal title to original signature CofLB, which itself being a form of legal property, if you really think about it long and hard, is the actual registered owner of all property registered in the public. )


    (INTERPRETATION; Definitions - Securities Act R.S.O. 1990, c. S-5)
    1. (1) In this Act, "security" includes,
    (a) any document, instrument or writing commonly known as a security,
    (b) any document constituting evidence of title to or interest in the capital, assets, property, profits, earnings or royalties of any person or company,
    (c) any document constituting evidence of an interest in an association of legatees or heirs,
    (d) any document constituting evidence of an option, subscription or other interest in or to a security,



    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/subscription
    Subscription;
    "The act of writing one’s name under a written instrument; the affixing of one’s signature to any document, whether for the purpose of authenticating or attesting it, of adopting its terms as one’s own expressions, or of binding one’s self by an engagement which it contains".

    "State law determines the enforceability of oral and written subscriptions. Courts have regarded subscriptions that are not supported by some consideration as mere offers that become legally binding when accepted or when the recipient of the promise has acted in reliance on the offers. The promise that forms the subscription need not be to pay money but might be for the performance of other acts, such as to convey land or provide labor for construction".

    The offered subscription must be accepted if it is to legally bind the subscriber. It is essential that acceptance occur within a reasonable time, since, as an offer, the subscription can be revoked any time prior to its acceptance. A subscription is also revocable upon notice given by the subscriber if a condition upon which it is based has not been performed. A subscriber may be prevented from claiming revocation in situations where it would be contrary to the interests of justice.

    "note: in the case of the BC, for the promise to be binding, the subscriber must receive the benefit".
    (as in "transfer" of beneficial ownership!)



    (Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
    "valuable security"
    includes
    (a) an order, exchequer acquittance or other security that entitles or evidences the title of any person
    (i) to a share or interest in a public stock or fund or in any fund of a body corporate, company or society, or
    (ii) to a deposit in a financial institution,
    (b) any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, warrant, order or other security for money or for payment of money,



    Certificate:
    A ticket:
    A warrant:
    A written assurance: of official representation that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with
    A written assurance made or issuing from some court, and designed as a notice of things done therein, or as a warrant or authority, to some other court, judge or officer.
    A statement of some fact in writing signed by the party certifying.



    (Vital Statistics Act (VSA) Ontario,RSO 1990, Ch V.4)
    Admissibility of Certificates, etc.
    46. (1) A certificate purporting to be issued under section 44 or a certified copy of a registration purporting to be issued under section 45 signed by the Registrar General or Deputy Registrar General or on which the signature of either of them is reproduced by any method is admissible in any court in Ontario as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified, and it is not necessary to prove the signature or official position of the person by whom the certificate or certified copy purports to be signed.



    BC/SoB is a certificate, containing dates, registration, certificate and file numbers which are evidence of title. A manifest of cargo, registration of property.


    (Change of Name Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7)
    http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/sta...c07_e.htm#s2s1
    "child" means a person under the age of eighteen years; ("infant")

    Person’s name
    2. (1) For all purposes of Ontario law,
    (a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person’s birth certificate or change of name certificate, unless clause (c) applies;
    implies an authorization to contract in the public, "right to use" (which is a definition of property)


    ...and let's not forget what a "Person" is...
    (Pocket Criminal Code 2009 - Section 2 Definitions, pg 6)
    "every one", "person" and "owner", and similar expressions, (note: words defined)
    include Her Majesty and an organization; (definition)

    (note: do not be confused by this 6 word definition of "person")

    ... more evidence..
    (Police Officer’s Manual)
    also The Canadian Dictionary of Law:
    PERSON. "persons are of two classes only---natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being that has capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality with capacity for rights and duties. The Only legal person known to our law is the corporation----the body corporate"



    (S.2 Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
    "property" includes
    (a) real and personal property of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods.

    (we have property rights within the context of a trust since someone else is "holding" legal title, if this isn't incorporated into your understanding, you will always be in breach in the public... (=taxed, and fined) If you recognize the trust and f*** it up, a worse crime (breach of trust) and you go to jail) So you are either "taxed" or jailed... or you educate yourself until you know how to operate the trust side of it yourself... it's all about who has control of the "Person")

    Now the question remains HOW you use it...

    (Notice written on Birth Certificates in the UK)
    "This extract is evidence of an event recorded in a register of births. It is not evidence of the identity of the person presenting it"


    This tells me a few things, it validates other research that it was actually recommended by the Deputy Registrar herself (whose signature is on the BC... see definition of subscription) that we SHOULD NOT use it as "identification"... and secondly that it is understood that there are clearly contexts where it can be PRESENTED...

    (an anvil should be hitting you on the head...right about..... NOW!)

    ....in any event... how that is done, is the subject of much research and conjecture... Rod Class apparently has recently been taken into custody... and he was clearly moving towards an interpretation based on trust, equity
    Here's a link to the Sep 28, 2014 Private Call on "The Constitution, Equity and Trusts"
    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-902772.mp3 54 min
    This may give you some background on what strategy Rod was using.

    And also note the similarity to the attack on Dean Clifford, same thing, as soon as he started to move toward an interpretation on trust and equity...


    I have a fair idea of what may have happened, but getting a hold of these people is difficult given their current state, and getting them to hear me is another issue. And sadly, Karen Hudes was on Rod's show... she could help him in a snap... but I don't think that is going to happen for a number of reasons...


    and lastly (not to be cryptic, but it is such a monstrously HUGE list of definitions...) But "ownership" is NOTHING what you think it is...




    Links for my own reference:


    Previous:
    DHS Funded Report: Sovereign Citizens Greatest Threat To U.S.:
    EXAMPLES OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION ARE COMING OUT

    Following:
    TITLE OF THREAD GOES HERE:
    TITLE OF POST GOES HERE
    Last edited by sigma6; 5th November 2014 at 03:34.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (2nd November 2014), gripreaper (2nd November 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), naste.de.lumina (3rd November 2014)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th August 2014
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked 240 times in 86 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    I would step away from this statutes are not law free man on the land etc theories they are based on sketchy interpretations of the law pretty much useless in practice. The legal definition of 'person' is a human being or bodies corporate which is a business that has been incorporated under the relevant companies act. If an act of parliament is not law it certainly has the effect of being law whilst the courts are enforcing them. Playing this game of trying to find common law theory loop holes is playing by their rules, a better idea would be to codify a real constitution with a court having the power to back it up (along with removal of the hereditary head of state)

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to BF88 For This Post:

    Mike Gorman (4th November 2014)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Quote Posted by BF88 (here)
    I would step away from this statutes are not law free man on the land etc theories they are based on sketchy interpretations of the law pretty much useless in practice. The legal definition of 'person' is a human being or bodies corporate which is a business that has been incorporated under the relevant companies act. If an act of parliament is not law it certainly has the effect of being law whilst the courts are enforcing them. Playing this game of trying to find common law theory loop holes is playing by their rules, a better idea would be to codify a real constitution with a court having the power to back it up (along with removal of the hereditary head of state)
    Jumbling together "statutes, free man (which was never mentioned) theories based on "sketchy" is pretty much useless... blah blah...

    I don't doubt the great majority are completely ignorant, as you are suggesting, no disrespect... but ignorance of something isn't an excuse to persist in your ignorance. If it is "sketchy" to you, that is an accurate reflection of where your understanding lies... I am sure the English language is "sketchy" to 2 or 3 year olds... but that doesn't quite equate to the suggestion that they shouldn't bother spending the rest of their life learning how to say their ABC's and then spell 3 letter words and then make sentences....

    An act of parliament is "law" is a statutory law, an oxymoronic concept, kind of like artificial gold plated plastic, (I will give you the benefit of a doubt, but as usual it's clear you haven't read anything I posted... and are speaking quite accurately from yet another position of self imposed ignorance... (and correct me if you have read anything I posted yet... )

    And again coming up with the supposition that I am making reference to "common law" when I made reference to trust interpretation is another one of the results of your "sketchy" understanding... another stupid assumption is "loopholes" This isn't about loopholes, it's quite the opposite (you're not even close) If you had any inkling, it's about literally sitting on your arse thinking all the crap they are pouring down your throat is the law... when it's just a desperate measure by desperate despots, who are already applying countermeasures (a sign we are starting to affect them) i.e. precisely because people like Rod and Dean are even "considering" trying to educate themselves.

    The reality is THEY ARE OPERATING ON LOOPHOLES! One of the biggest "loopholes" is getting away with all this as a DIRECT result of the IGNORANCE of the general public... they have jurisdiction over "Persons"... You think the concept of "Person" is easy to understand? If you do, then at best you are kidding yourself, at worse you are hopelessly out of your element, stick to something you actually know something about...

    Dude, there are no short cuts, no magic pill substitute for educating yourself, the mistake was, your parents didn't think it was important, like feeding you, and clothing you and sending you to the "public fool system"... not their fault, because their parents did the same...

    On the other hand awareness of your ignorance, isn't a solution, it's just awareness. Your ignorance is not a reference point of judgement, and attacking other people who learn by making mistakes, is also not a credit to you... Go back to start, don't collect $200, and try again... Time to wake up, not take another sip of kool aid... to put it "politely"


    update: I would add, all the current "philosophies" interpretations, etc... ALL point to one common denominator, the system is "corrupt" only to the degree that the general public it was intended for is too ignorant to operate within it "effectively"... WHY that is , and whose fault are side issues, the point is this is where we stand today... If you allow your servants to cook your food, do your shopping, cut your lawn, then massage you, burp you, and put you to bed, then you suggest they should look after your finances and accounting and even make decisions in your absence... given human nature the results are going to be predictable... you are going to wake up, and find out you have been transferred from your queen size bed to a giant crib with bars... (for your own benefit) Your servants are now your trustees... and you are incompetent...
    Last edited by sigma6; 2nd November 2014 at 06:56.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    alh02 (2nd November 2014), Anchor (2nd November 2014), genevieve (3rd November 2014), gripreaper (2nd November 2014), haibane (2nd November 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), naste.de.lumina (3rd November 2014), Sebastion (2nd November 2014)

  23. Link to Post #12
    Australia Avalon Member Anchor's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th February 2010
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    60
    Posts
    4,600
    Thanks
    11,209
    Thanked 25,814 times in 3,730 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    I appreciate this thread and all those like it.

    They always attract a good measure of criticism, but it seems to me that it is usually coming from a place that has not really grasped the enormity of the deception we are subject to and that is OK really because it is not easy to do that unless you spend a bit of time with it.

    What I see on threads like this one, is not the secret formula for how to get off parking tickets or other such shenanigans that enable for example bad actors to get away crimes, exploit loopholes, or otherwise get off lightly when "transgressing" some part of the system. If you look hard enough there are indeed places on the web which do try to do that, some seem pretty good and some seem like they have been set up as a deliberate trap to make people look foolish and discredited by those who control. (I think the "freeman on the land" groups are particularly vulnerable to this). I don't think it applies here on Avalon though in the same way that we don't expect to see the work of paid shills last too long on the forum.

    Would those techniques result in chaos if more widely used? Probably !

    Is it not, more simply in fact, an attempt to show the devious and subtle ways that we have been deceived?

    Most are conditioned and schooled to accept from birth by a system of deception that does not just need beating in my opinion, but ultimately complete destruction.

    For many though the system works and coddles people sufficiently that they do not want to give it up either and fear any alternative. This applies to both the governors and the governed alike - but the system busters will keep working on it because that is what they are here for, nothing less than the wielding of the sword of truth.

    I usually tell people that the key to solving any problem is first to define it completely - usually the solution is found in the process of doing that. This is a bit like the process I see happening here. It is a long slog, but it is work that needs to be done.

    The veils of deception need to be lifted or cut through; either approach works for me!
    -- Let the truth be known by all, let the truth be known by all, let the truth be known by all --

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Anchor For This Post:

    haibane (2nd November 2014), Krist (4th November 2014), naste.de.lumina (3rd November 2014), Reinhard (2nd November 2014), sigma6 (3rd November 2014)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Australia Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th October 2014
    Posts
    276
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 2,748 times in 261 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    I wish I had the time and energy to really study and use this information safely . But perhaps the best advice ever given to me by a very wise friend of mine was this . The best way to protect yourself and those you love is to be aware . Sounds overly simplistic in a way but somehow the choice to be aware and on the look out makes predation a lot harder for the parasites . They prefer to prey on the weak and ignorant .That said I still think this is vital info and I greatly appreciate the efforts of those who study and share what they know . Thank you .

  26. Link to Post #14
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th August 2014
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked 240 times in 86 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Wow now billy don't have a heart attack....
    Quote Posted by sigma6 (here)

    The reality is THEY ARE OPERATING ON LOOPHOLES! One of the biggest "loopholes" is getting away with all this as a DIRECT result of the IGNORANCE of the general public... they have jurisdiction over "Persons"... You think the concept of "Person" is easy to understand? If you do, then at best you are kidding yourself, at worse you are hopelessly out of your element, stick to something you actually know something about...

    Dude, there are no short cuts, no magic pill substitute for educating yourself, the mistake was, your parents didn't think it was important, like feeding you, and clothing you and sending you to the "public fool system"... not their fault, because their parents did the same...
    I mean by a sketchy understanding as an understanding of how a court interprets an act of parliament to provide a remedy for whatever dispute happens to be before them on that day. My understanding of this from an English/EU law perspective is about as accurate as you can get, it is rather a basic concept.
    I am reasonably well educated in law so your assumption there (of needing to educate myself) was as baseless as my own assumption that you were referring to the free man theories of common law etc. Why i mentioned common law (as in interpretation of statutes/creating arbitrary legal rules seemingly out of nowhere) was this is how the loop holes are created. What kind of crap are you referring to that is being poured down our throat? If you want to disobey the system do it in its entirety rather than fighting it using its own rules. If you play the game you will always lose, it is designed that way. Law, after all, is made up and only perpetuated because people feel bound by it either through warped or force fed morals or because they fear the consequences of what would happen if they disobey. Think of it as a matter of perception, if you think oh no they have me by the balls because a piece of paper has my name written in capitals or the legal system is corrupt then you are playing the game (poorly). If you start by changing your perception to one that allows you to not feel bound by made up rules you are on the right track although it could land you in trouble it is a question of how far are you willing to take it.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BF88 For This Post:

    Anchor (2nd November 2014), maurice (2nd November 2014)

  28. Link to Post #15
    Australia Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th October 2014
    Posts
    276
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 2,748 times in 261 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    When I lived in the states I signed my drivers licence without prejudice . They did not like it at the licence registration place and tried to get me to redo it three times before caving in .The excuse was the photo was not coming out . Tried using the argument once in court on a minor speeding infraction. BUT because I was not well enough informed the judge let me off points on my licence but I got to pay the fine . I went in there without any real desire to get all ' I know my rights bitches' . Just wanted to see what actually happens when you reserve your rights and try to get some feedback . What it really needs for things to change is wide community outrage at injustice . Then the bastards will have to sit up and take notice . Otherwise it seems to me its a very brave and well informed student who takes these guys on single handed . Kinda like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

  29. Link to Post #16
    Czech Republic Avalon Member haibane's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2010
    Location
    Right behind you XD
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    900
    Thanked 372 times in 128 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Quote Posted by betoobig (here)
    does anyone knows if it works the same way in other countries, for example, Spain????
    Thanks and Love
    I've researched this a few years back in relation to my country (Czech Republic), and the answer would be yes, to certain extent - you will have to do more research within the Spanish resources. This mostly applies in countries where English is the official language and the Black's Law Dictionary applies. The fundamentals (as mentioned by sigma6 at #5) mostly apply, but for example there's no such thing as 'common law' in my country's legal system - there's civic law, penal law, corporate law and military law, all codified in print, but particular laws only come in effect when an implementing decree is issued (which can take years) and upheld at will by the courts. I think it's about the same or worse in Spain.

    Also my country is land-locked, so no maritime law (there are some international treaties signed though as my country used to have a commercial maritime fleet until recently). Common law gets barely mentioned in academic papers when referring to the UK legal system. You're pretty much on your own in this research as most native English speakers around here and even in dedicated discussion forums have very little insight and experience when it comes to non-English speaking countries' law (they usually make uninformed assumptions though). Also the thing about constitution is how it's upheld, how easy is it to make changes and amendments to it and who has the power to do it - in my country it's in the parliament's hands and they do pretty much whatever they want without referendum.

    If you do undertake the research however, it would be great if you could come back and report what you found out :-)

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to haibane For This Post:

    betoobig (4th November 2014), BF88 (3rd November 2014), naste.de.lumina (3rd November 2014)

  31. Link to Post #17
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th August 2014
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked 240 times in 86 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Quote Posted by haibane (here)
    Quote Posted by betoobig (here)
    does anyone knows if it works the same way in other countries, for example, Spain????
    Thanks and Love
    I've researched this a few years back in relation to my country (Czech Republic), and the answer would be yes, to certain extent - you will have to do more research within the Spanish resources. This mostly applies in countries where English is the official language and the Black's Law Dictionary applies. The fundamentals (as mentioned by sigma6 at #5) mostly apply, but for example there's no such thing as 'common law' in my country's legal system - there's civic law, penal law, corporate law and military law, all codified in print, but particular laws only come in effect when an implementing decree is issued (which can take years) and upheld at will by the courts. I think it's about the same or worse in Spain.

    Also my country is land-locked, so no maritime law (there are some international treaties signed though as my country used to have a commercial maritime fleet until recently). Common law gets barely mentioned in academic papers when referring to the UK legal system. You're pretty much on your own in this research as most native English speakers around here and even in dedicated discussion forums have very little insight and experience when it comes to non-English speaking countries' law (they usually make uninformed assumptions though). Also the thing about constitution is how it's upheld, how easy is it to make changes and amendments to it and who has the power to do it - in my country it's in the parliament's hands and they do pretty much whatever they want without referendum.

    If you do undertake the research however, it would be great if you could come back and report what you found out :-)
    Most European countries have the civil law system opposed to common law, it is something to do with the Roman empire.

    It is countries based on the English common law system which are basically the old colonies of America Canada Australia. As the English parliament is 'supreme' or 'sovereign' in its law making abilities (Has no one to answer to or tell them how to behave) it basically created the other countries constitutions through acts of parliament which made them in a constitutional sense inferior, for want of a better term, in its law making abilities (until they grow a pair and tell the UK to get lost that is!)

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to BF88 For This Post:

    betoobig (4th November 2014)

  33. Link to Post #18
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Quote Posted by BF88 (here)
    Wow now billy don't have a heart attack....
    Quote Posted by sigma6 (here)

    The reality is THEY ARE OPERATING ON LOOPHOLES! One of the biggest "loopholes" is getting away with all this as a DIRECT result of the IGNORANCE of the general public... they have jurisdiction over "Persons"... You think the concept of "Person" is easy to understand? If you do, then at best you are kidding yourself, at worse you are hopelessly out of your element, stick to something you actually know something about...

    Dude, there are no short cuts, no magic pill substitute for educating yourself, the mistake was, your parents didn't think it was important, like feeding you, and clothing you and sending you to the "public fool system"... not their fault, because their parents did the same...
    I mean by a sketchy understanding as an understanding of how a court interprets an act of parliament to provide a remedy for whatever dispute happens to be before them on that day. My understanding of this from an English/EU law perspective is about as accurate as you can get, it is rather a basic concept.
    I am reasonably well educated in law so your assumption there (of needing to educate myself) was as baseless as my own assumption that you were referring to the free man theories of common law etc. Why i mentioned common law (as in interpretation of statutes/creating arbitrary legal rules seemingly out of nowhere) was this is how the loop holes are created. What kind of crap are you referring to that is being poured down our throat? If you want to disobey the system do it in its entirety rather than fighting it using its own rules. If you play the game you will always lose, it is designed that way. Law, after all, is made up and only perpetuated because people feel bound by it either through warped or force fed morals or because they fear the consequences of what would happen if they disobey. Think of it as a matter of perception, if you think oh no they have me by the balls because a piece of paper has my name written in capitals or the legal system is corrupt then you are playing the game (poorly). If you start by changing your perception to one that allows you to not feel bound by made up rules you are on the right track although it could land you in trouble it is a question of how far are you willing to take it.
    Baseless? haha nice try... more vaguerisms... and you are flipping the loopholes around, my statement still is the opposite of what you said and stands as perfectly valid, if anything you are now agreeing with my point... (did you study politics too?) And if you did study law, which I am not gathering from the depth or detail of your posts, but I can see this... and I have had this of discussion so often, that maybe I take it for granted, although I think there are some posts from Paul on a similar tack... (if anyone wants to verify... i.e. this so old that it could be a personal "maxim" by now... and there's a concept worth contemplating... :-) i.e. to suggest one just lie down and roll over, because you can't beat the system... and "fighting it in it's entirety" could be misleading to people... literally going out and rebelling against it would make you a sitting duck and is the most foolish information you could suggest, but then it is such a vague statement I can expect your next response will be a "correction" again... But then in your round about way, while you are pretending to reprimand my point of view, but you are essentially sneaking in that you are agreeing with it by rephrasing the same thing.. and if I had to guess at your ambiguity, it appears you are basically agreeing that it is nothing more than a dog and pony show. Which is exactly what I said what STATUTORY LAW IS... It is LITERALLY NOTHING MORE THAN CORPORATE POLICIES FOR EMPLOYEES OF THAT PARTICULAR CORPORATION.

    Once it is understood that STATUTORY LAW is NOTHING MORE THEN CORPORATE POLICY APPLIED TO EMPLOYEES OF A CORPORATION, which in fact was only originally meant to be applied to the EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT. It exposes the deception lies in the fact, that by altering and massaging the definitions of their own corporate policies, and applying the fraud in areas where it is very difficult to catch them at it... They have created the misleading contractual interpretation within their Corporate "Contract" That ALL CITIZENS are also to be treated as GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES... Maybe you could have pointed up this issue... AND this is only one issue, if you studied "Law" (which is not what I consider Law at all...) You are probably completely oblivious to deeper and more fundamental interpretations of TRUST INTERPRETATION... which statutory law is designed to be superimposed over and hide/mislead the public away from...

    If common people honestly and fully understood this, there would be riots... WE will uncover all these focus points, and we will eventually know how to safely and effectively apply the proper protections... That this is the case as I have stated and which you are obviously not disagreeing by your fencepost splitting "technical agreements" with a connotation of reproval (LOL...) If you really studied law, and wanted to give honest insight, you might have mentioned an inkling of this...

    We are coming to a time where a lot of the crap has been milled out, and we are getting to the heart of the matter, and it lies in Jurisdiction, awareness of what is Statutory law, which begs the question, then what is the REAL LAW?... other issues that need "awareness" are INALIENABLE RIGHTS vs BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES... REAL LAW turns out to have more philosophical and biblical origin then most people can imagine in the WEST, which would also partly explain the pre-meditated self destruction of the "PERCEPTION" of "Religion" in the public media btw... I see this a long term legal strategy that is specifically designed to associate Corporate Religious institutions (like the Vatican) with more fundamental spiritual values (which it is almost becoming antithetical to... i.e. it is satanic, and corrupted

    Statutory law is based on RATIONALIZATION (which is NOT the same as rational or what a rationale is...) controlled by an elite inner group of secret society members (begs more questions doesn't it?) and separate and apart from more FUNDAMENTAL LAW systems. The occultism runs so deep it's mind boggling...

    The argument you pose is the same argument that all Lawyer pose... and the reason is because they are basing it (whether consciously aware or not depending on their education, experience and years of their own personal research...) and that is, once you are inside a contract and agree to all the terms to that contract, then by definition all the rules are now treated as "LAW" This is as old as time... And just another example of the level of the depth of the deception... as if this was truly laid in a manner that was properly understood, NO ONE would consent to it... NO ONE.

    What you hinted at is technically correct... But "they" have made it so convoluted and twisted... i.e. "how to get out" of such contractual consent of jurisdiction (ie. employment within a corporation, managing your energy) When it is understood fully and completely in such way, that we don't have to fear the use cheap and technically misleading interpretations currently used to "jail" and fine and economically destroy truthseekers... I have no doubt it will be so retardedly simple as to make everyone laugh... (ok, not that simple, but I know in principle, it will be something that CAN be easily taught and shared... it is more hidden, secret and subtle than it is complicated, after all their ranks aren't that smart on their side either... just willing suck ups)

    Also and finally it is not so much about attacking the existing system, if people had the right knowledge and awareness, they would simply have the CHOICE of how they wanted to live... Living outside the statutory system is actually living according to a higher standard of value and principles... You would certainly have to be more mature, more responsible, BUT you would also have MORE FREEDOMS. And with that freedom, you would NOT need a license to do what is already a God given right such as driving, growing and sharing your own food, choosing not to vaccinate your children by corporations, exempt of all liability, You could choose not to pay taxes for a Corporation that is killing people living under other Corporations. You could choose not to pay charges to a "for profit" corporation (as listed in Dunn & Bradstreet) such as the Police force and the court systems and the municipalities themselves...

    There is a way to do this and it would bring these out of control corrupted, trusteeship based corporations to their knees and expose the hidden organized crime syndicates they attract. This obviously can't be done acting as an employee for a corporation... in that you are correct. The only way to bring any corporation to it's knees is to redirect your monetary funds away from it... i.e. quitting the corporation and exercising your already existing, inalienable rights and choosing how to manage the corporation that literally has YOUR NAME on it, and voting with how you want that portion of the debt (which is what they use to create securities, bonds, financing... imagine that... because that is a REAL POSSIBILITY regardless how remote it may seem today... This is our birthright, the birthright of every living man and woman living today.

    And that is where the TRUST INTERPRETATION issues come in... ';-)



    Quote Most European countries have the civil law system opposed to common law, it is something to do with the Roman empire.
    Civil Law is statutory in a nature, in the Canadian Constitution and in the British system (hidden behind the statutory system) Is something that will never be taken away... It was created in direct opposition to the "Roman Empire" exactly, because it was well know the Vatican was and still is the "Roman Empire" a totally irreligious institution, having hijacked Christianity, institutionalizing it for the sole purpose of creating a satanic version of it...

    Getting back to the Canadian system which come from the the UK system which is based on a "Kingdom", that is supposed to be a trustee of a higher institution...

    God is the ultimate arbiter of all things on this planet, then MAN, and then the government, on the most foundational principle that the created is not more powerful then the creator (as in Man created the corporation, and the government... That's why they are called Government SERVANTS) although people's knee jerk reaction is to cower (they are thinking of organized religion again... it's truly about the inalienable rights of MAN... Biblical law is clear, NO MAN has dominion over any other MAN. Period... You are free to have dominion over the earth and everything in it, and free to live in compliance with certain values, which include not violating the same rights given other men. If there was any "slavery" in that time it was by CONSENT. It was and is exactly what today is called "employment".

    Where as civil law is the opposite "GOVERNMENT" than "Person" (Does that kinda sound like "Corporation" and "Employee"? because that is all it is...) i.e. Person is "superimposed" over MAN... or "Man under contract". I'm sure the principle of Man is still somewhere behind the Civil System, and just like in our dual system, not in the Civil System itself... in a "Civil Court" you are seen as a "Person" maybe brighteyes can shed some light on his knowledge of the "legal system" and tell us what he knows about the concept of "Person" vs "Man" ??
    Last edited by sigma6; 4th November 2014 at 04:32.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    Ahnung-quay (4th November 2014), betoobig (4th November 2014), naste.de.lumina (4th November 2014)

  35. Link to Post #19
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th August 2014
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked 240 times in 86 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    I'm not even reading it, have a nice day.

  36. Link to Post #20
    UK Avalon Member Mike Gorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    65
    Posts
    1,868
    Thanks
    5,830
    Thanked 13,989 times in 1,749 posts

    Default Re: The Concept of Legal Person

    Quote Posted by BF88 (here)
    I would step away from this statutes are not law free man on the land etc theories they are based on sketchy interpretations of the law pretty much useless in practice. The legal definition of 'person' is a human being or bodies corporate which is a business that has been incorporated under the relevant companies act. If an act of parliament is not law it certainly has the effect of being law whilst the courts are enforcing them. Playing this game of trying to find common law theory loop holes is playing by their rules, a better idea would be to codify a real constitution with a court having the power to back it up (along with removal of the hereditary head of state)
    Agreed, and this strange idea that 'Common Law' is somehow a kind of natural justice that harks back to a time pre-dating this phony 'corporate statute'- Hmm Common Law is simply the law of precedent, which means if a case came up in 1537 where Mr James Bumface argued a case against Cedric Bottompincher about a contract they had, and James won that case it was then entered into the legal lexicon and remains as a reference case- it is common law, 'Law' is that which is tabled into legislation, whether it be statute or criminal code or whatever - there is no weird upper case 'Person' that is dead - Maritime law does not apply, Jordan Maxwell is misguided (Docs and births notwithstanding) there is no bond being sold on the stock exchange attached to your birth certificate. YES we are all collateral for national debts and the financial system is rotten to the core and YES we are slaves and indentured to the various states we are born into - but this common law internet mythology put forward by Mary Croft is full of half truths and hyperbole. You can get yourself into a lot of serious bother if you try and apply a lot of it, i recommend deep study before you yahoo and try and stick it to the system. I have never seen a generation of atheists embrace the idea of 'God' so readily and rapidly as when it is suggested God is behind the natural rights of man, and that this civil 'phony statute' law does not include the creator's plan for man - really, I'll see you in church Sunday and we can discuss the sermon-meanwhile the authority of any law comes from where it has always emanated from: the wielders of power in society. Such pious concern for God's law, I'm impressed.
    Last edited by Mike Gorman; 4th November 2014 at 13:51.

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mike Gorman For This Post:

    betoobig (4th November 2014), sigma6 (19th July 2015)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts