Law and our Rights

Established, Fundamental, Axioms

(As simplified, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and
(to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work,
tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute
fundamentals)

1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into
discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot
give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any
more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any
representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without -
necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be
as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment
to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4
majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy')

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The
powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken
away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role
players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission'

and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they
are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything
for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful
(otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely
no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the
act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable)
privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the

registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even
though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This
includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth
registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is
the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually
happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus
they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in
the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of
course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is -
ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law.
Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is,
in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal
fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are
not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE
TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound
by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become,
for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are
nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only
something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do
not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all
its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court de facto has any power over you as
a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!).
A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law,
and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by
demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their
'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of
your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you and your
fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before
potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before
they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your
countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it
is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and
act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound
to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One
way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that
only exists in Common Law jurisdiction.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT

BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must
comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you
should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of
making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of

the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both
parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other
party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties
agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written

SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99
times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of
1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest
way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16,
below)

15) Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could
result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the
sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first
place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of
Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place).
In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed
lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY.

Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take
place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your
agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that
any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no
CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever
applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16) "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing!
When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place.
YOU created the 'money' when YOU signed the Loan or Credit Application. By
doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed
this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a
damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this
confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU
ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(*) Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because
they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay
everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already
been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it
back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are
you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what
else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are
not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan
Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place!
Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17) 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only
SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something,
you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may
happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a
superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and
all those up the chain of command are considered ACCOMPLICES, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right
individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the
task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your
responsibility.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS
BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home
Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called
'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity,
tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless
waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish!
They should have been charged under Common Law)