So, I decided to ask some questions...

[MorningStar]

Woot, LOL, and Ha Ha!!!

All seeing eye, you are a legend. That was the most uplifting read I have had in weeks. I hope they continue to ignore you, it could become very embarassing. Keep us posted. I'm off to ask them if I can de-register my birth, I wonder how they might reply. lol.

Kindest Regards

[nodigitsever]

de register brilliant as after all I was too young at the time to make my own decision!

[All Seeing Eye]

Thank you for your kind comments! I have been reading, learning and researching now for about three years and this was my second attempt at getting some sense out of them.

I didn't do it because I thought for one second that they would admit everything and that I would be 'off the hook' so to speak. That is almost irrelevant, although I do now have something that I can rely on should I ever need to, which feels kinda nice!

I did for the sport really. I do not give a s**t what they think. They have no power over me whatsoever and they never will have as long as I live.

I will be seeing my mum on Friday and I will let you know what happened when she truned up to collect our death certrificates!

Oh, and please, please do copy my wording/change my wording, whatever suits you, but do write to them and enjoy their response! ROTFLMAO!

[wat tyler]

I honestly believe the answer to this issue is already with us, and not with the 'system'. Since these beaurocrats are only pushing pens, assuming that 'everyone MUST register a birth'. When, in fact, as we know, such a belief is based only on Statute. So, in fact, there is NO law to make it compulsory and never has been.

At least, that is my view. But life is choice. So people usually choose to do what everyone else does.

Regards

[Evilbastardlawyer]

AllSeeingEye,

The reason Pam and her colleagues will have been foxed by your arument is that your understanding of certain legal terms and procedures (which is the understanding promulgated by the Lawful Rebellion movement) is, to put it bluntly, wrong. Your legal dictionary references are splendid, but you draw incorrect inferences from the terms you cite.

The law recognises two classes of persons: natural persons (i.e. people) and legal perons (.i.e. corporations). So far I imagine we are agreed. The problem is that, as I understand it, Lawful Rebellion adherents think that the law only has power only over legal persons. (Do correct me if I've misunderstood.) This is wrong. It has power over all persons. Now I'm happy to have a philosophical discussion with you about whether that should be the case, but that's a quite different question. I'm also happy for you to refute me by referring me to relevant points of English legal history, or to relevant laws.

You may have noticed my tongue-in-cheek screen-name. Yes, I am a lawyer. Yet somehow, until I met a fan of this website, I'd never heard of this "birth certificates are a bond which create a legal corporation that is different from you, the natural person, and the law can only act against the legal person" malarkey. It wasn't taught me when I was studying law. Nor have I come across it in the decade since I qualified and have been practising and continuing to study law. And nor have any lawyers I know ever heard of it.

You are welcome to believe that I really am an evil bastard lawyer who knows that you are right but am lying because I'm part of the wicked regime that is seeking to oppress you. Equally, you're welcome to believe that I am telling the truth, but that universities and law schools across the country are keeping this information to themselves, and that - despite having (and making use of) comprehensive access to laws, court decisions, legal history and legal analysis - neither I nor any of my colleagues have encountered the arguments and interpretation that the Lawful Rebellion movement makes. Or you might just consider that law is a deep subject, that you've looked at a few legal definitions and old documents and got the wrong end of the stick.

Like I say, happy to be refuted. Bring on the flaming!

[Star-Child]

Hello, evilbastardlawyer, welcome

Can you define, factually speaking person as defined in the Interpretation Act 1978


“Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [1889]

Now can you define the word aslo "Includes" and what source you use? In this Act this is defining what a person is you see, its the definitive definition isn't it ? I do not see any reference to individual real life men or women being included, do you ?


Unless otherwise specified, this definition of person i.e. "body of persons corporate or unincorporate." is to be used throughout all statutes . Again I am not a body of persons corporate or unicorporate.

Link to Interpretation Act
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... Id=1838190

Every word needs to be defined .

The law recognises two classes of persons: natural persons

Well law is OPINION isn't it ? Can you expand on "The Law recognises" is that Crown reps recognise ? All courts are officers of the Crown ?

My affidavit of truth and standing recognises "me"" myself" " I" as a real life man of man kind, I do not understand the person apart from it being a body of persons corporate or unicorporate.

Also what does "In right of the crown" mean, factually speaking, and what is it ?

Oh also, what proof of claim is there that individuals are "citizens" or "subjects of the Crown ?" Who presumes this ? and does the Crown, claim property rights or authority over such ? Who is making that claim ?

Should individuals recognise or understand The Crown ? Is there a contract between the 2 separate legal entities ? What is the legal status of the Crown ? Is it an " incorporated entity" ? when was it BORN or incorporated into being ?

Questions, questions questions........ of course you need not reply but, something to think about, and for the people to have disclosed in all matters on record ehh ?

In right of the Crown V In right of the individual

Now, do you believe the rights of individuals are given / granted to them by The Crown ? Why ?

Crikey more,

Statutes are NOT self interpreting ! Their meaning will not be known until a judicial decision has been made in every single case put before a court of law! So law is opinion, you see? All statutes are theory !

Perverse jury verdicts demonstrate the limitation of (and demonstrate they are not self interpreting) statutes, as juries have the power to impose a verdict according to the FACTS as they perceive them to be.

[NAME.To.Name]

You are welcome to believe that I really am an evil bastard lawyer who knows that you are right but am lying because I'm part of the wicked regime that is seeking to oppress you. Equally, you're welcome to believe that I am telling the truth, but that universities and law schools across the country are keeping this information to themselves, and that - despite having (and making use of) comprehensive access to laws, court decisions, legal history and legal analysis - neither I nor any of my colleagues have encountered the arguments and interpretation that the Lawful Rebellion movement makes. Or you might just consider that law is a deep subject, that you've looked at a few legal definitions and old documents and got the wrong end of the stick.

I have been looking at this movement for a few years now. First in the US, then recently in Canada, and now here in the UK. I have to say that things seem to be a lot clearer in the US and it is clear that treason was committed during the US civil war and that there are two statuses, one sovereign, and one a slave, the US citizen. In Canada, I am not sure about, as here in the UK. What I am sure about, and something that has concerned me all my life is: I was born, and then others tell me how I must behave and what I can and can't do to myself and on my property. That has always been unacceptable to me. The concept of doing no harm to others is the one I have always lived by and the laws that come from a universal need, like no killing, no stealing etc, that everyone agrees with. When you get to the point that a local authority (I never gave them authority over me) has the power to dictate to me whether I can build an extension to the house, there is something seriously wrong when it is only the business of the people living to my right or left. So it really doesn't matter that there may not be any previous cases in law that say otherwise because people may not have understood that there is another possibility. Now personally, I am pleased that you are here on the forum because you can actually be of some help to us all in understanding what is going on and making sure it doesn't continue. Things are still at the very early stages in the UK. I'm sure there were lawyers in the US that had the same argument as yourself ten or more years ago. Fortunately, time has shown that they were wrong.

[Malcolm Ramsay]

The problem is that, as I understand it, Lawful Rebellion adherents think that the law only has power only over legal persons. (Do correct me if I've misunderstood.)

Welcome aboard Evilbastard - have you ever fought the Hydra?

There's quite a range of beliefs on this site, coming from two distinct angles I think - Lawful Rebellion and Freeman-on-the-land. I'd say most of the 'techniques' being suggested come from the Freeman side, rather than Lawful Rebellion.

You say none of your colleagues have come across the idea before; there are no surprises in it, but you might be interested in a Canadian case that someone posted recently: MNR v Stanchfield

[Evilbastardlawyer]

Thanks for the welcome and for your replies so far. I'll have to confine myself to English law, as I'm not qualified to comment on the US and Canada. I'm also likely to take on your replies one at a time, for time-saving purposes.

I'm glad you haven't already written me off as evil. Well, I think you haven't...

[Evilbastardlawyer]

The problem is that, as I understand it, Lawful Rebellion adherents think that the law only has power only over legal persons. (Do correct me if I've misunderstood.)

Welcome aboard Evilbastard - have you ever fought the Hydra?

There's quite a range of beliefs on this site, coming from two distinct angles I think - Lawful Rebellion and Freeman-on-the-land. I'd say most of the 'techniques' being suggested come from the Freeman side, rather than Lawful Rebellion.

You say none of your colleagues have come across the idea before; there are no surprises in it, but you might be interested in a Canadian case that someone posted recently: MNR v Stanchfield

Thanks for explaining the Lawful Rebellion v Freeman thing, Malcolm. I'll look at the case you linked to.