This is the way it is. Know Someone’s Status and you Know There Authority. Legal Notice to the Supreme Court Justice and Subsidiaries and officers, the Judiciary and all governing bodies. (Chance legal name of individual as appropriate and delete this text) What is it that we know as fact from the actions of due diligence and observation, which we can rely upon as fact? From the document from recognised official sauce, namely the office of the judiciary and duly recognised as a sub office of H.M. Parliaments and governments Plc. judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2fDocuments%2fSpeeches%2fbeatsonj040608.pdf The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA noted that “The 2003 changes and the new responsibilities given to the Lord Chief Justice necessitated a certain amount of re-examination of the relationship between the judiciary and the two stronger branches of the state --- the executive and the legislature. From this commentary by Sir Jack Beatson and considering his position of authority within that office called the “judiciary” it would be correct to observe that the man Jack Beatson who has achieved such a position within that office due to his understanding of the regulations and policies of that office” It would be correct to observe that the office of the judiciary is a sub office of the legislature, which is in turn a sub office of the office of the executive. The Chief Executive is notably the highest position but still subordinate to the State. In this context the state is the incorporated body, namely HM Parliaments and governments Plc. The sauce of information to validate this definition is philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/A%20Definition%20of%20the%20State.htm where it is stated! The aim of this paper is to try to offer a definition of the state that is sensitive to these difficulties. More particularly, it seeks to develop an account of the state that is not subject to the problems that beset alternative explanations that have been prominent in political theory. The main points it defends are these. 1) The state should not be viewed as a form of association that subsumes or subordinates all others. 2) The state is not an entity whose interests map closely onto the interests of the groups and individuals that fall under its authority, but has interests of its own. 3) The state is, to some extent at least, an alien power; though it is of human construction, it is not within human control. 4) The state is not there to secure people’s deepest interests, and it does not serve to unify them, reconcile them with one another, bring their competing interests into harmony, or realize any important good! Such as justice, freedom, or peace. While its power might be harnessed from time to time, that will serve the interests of some not the interests of all. 5) The state is thus an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power (though it is not the only such institution); but it is also an institution that exercises power over individuals and groups. 6) The state is, ultimately, an abstraction, for it has no existence as a material object, is not confined to a particular space, and is not embodied in any person or collection of persons. The state exists because certain relations obtain between people; but the outcome of these relations is an entity that has a life of its own, though it would be a mistake to think of it as entirely autonomous and to define the state is to try to account for the entity that exists through these relations. The concept of the state A state is a form of political association or polity that is distinguished by the fact that it is not itself incorporated into any other political associations, though it may incorporate other such associations. The state is thus a supreme corporate entity because it is not incorporated into any other entity, even though it might be subordinate to other powers (such as another state or an empire). One state is distinguished from another by its having its own independent structure of political authority, and an attachment to separate physical territories. The state is itself a political community, though not all political communities are states. A state is not a nation, or a people, though it may contain a single nation, parts of different nations, or a number of entire nations. A state arises out of society, but it does not contain or subsume society. A state will have a government, but the state is not simply a government, for there exist, many more governments than there are states. The state is a modern political construction that emerged in early modern Europe, but has been replicated in all other parts of the world. The most important aspect of the state that makes it a distinctive and new form of political association is its most abstract quality: it is a corporate entity. “HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC” is a recognised incorporation or legal embodiment by an act of registration and is recognised as the principal legal body with sub offices and officers. MR LEGAL PERSONis also a recognised legal embodiment, by an act of registration and is recognised as a legal embodiment by that act of registration by the name “MR LEGAL PERSON” and is also the principal of that legal embodiment. The status of principal embodiments are, equal as they were both created by the same act of registration as a legal embodiment. As all principal embodiments are recognised as equal in status, equal state, equal standing then, • The principal legal embodiment by the name “MR LEGAL PERSON” is equal to but not greater or less than an any other principal legal embodiment such as “HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC” • “MR LEGAL PERSON” is therefore not subordinate to “HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC” and “HM Parliaments and governments Plc” which has no recognisable authority over “MR LEGAL PERSON” MR LEGAL PERSONis therefore not legally subject to, or legally obliged to observe or recognise any policies held by any other principal legal embodiment unless there is an agreement in place, entered into under full disclosure between the two principal legal embodiments. As it is recognised that, the “Judiciary” is a sub office of “HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC” notably as separate principal legal embodiment from the principal legal embodiment of “MR LEGAL PERSON” Then it would also be correct to observe that, the principal legal embodiment “MR LEGAL PERSONis greater in status than the Judiciary and all its sub officers and officials. We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise any authority which we are not subject to, or have legally agreed to be subject to, or by oath. We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise any alleged authority imposed upon us by a subordinate office within a separate principal legal embodiment. We the principal legal embodiment, do not consent to pay demands for money imposed upon us by a separate principal legal embodiment or its subordinate office or officers, without a prearranged agreement or contract with full disclosure. We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise any pre existing obligations imposed upon us by a separate principal legal embodiment or its subordinate office or officers and any obligations which have been assumed without full disclosure are therefore and hereby rescinded with immediate effect add in perpetuity. We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise the principal legal embodiment “HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC” as a governing body, we have not agreed to be governed and we do not require there services. We are quite capable of governing ourselves. We do not know you, we do not care to know you, we find there are no redeemable qualities about you. You are a disgrace to this once great nation. A nation which you have financially raped and pillaged: You have no valid legal claim against us and we refuse to enter into Joinder with you. We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise the subordinate office of borough council as a governing body, we have not agreed to be governed and we do not require there services. We are quite capable of governing ourselves. We do not know you, we do not care to know you, and we find there are no redeemable qualities about you. You are a disgrace to this once great nation. A nation which you have financially raped and pillaged: You have no valid legal claim against us and we refuse to enter into Joinder with you. We the living “principal legal embodiment” do not recognise the subordinate office of the judiciary or ministry of justice or any subordinate judges, Magistrates, Bailiffs or Police. You have been observed to be nothing more than strong arm malicious, enforcement office without any regard for the truth or justice or the well being of this nation. We do not know you, we do not care to know you, and we find there are no redeemable qualities about you. We find you are a disgrace to this once great nation. A nation which you have financially raped and pillaged: You do not have any authority over us as you claim as you are a subordinate servant to another equal but not greater than “principal legal embodiment” which is recognised as dead. Any authority claimed by you is only as a sub officer or servant of another legal person that is dead. You have no authority over us and to claim such would be the actions of a clinically insane person. It is also duly recognised that you do not have the authority to sign any legal document against us, in the form of a warrant or an order. You do not have the authority it is not legal to sign the document and would create a reverse liability if you did so. To all let this be known. We will not allow further degradation of our lives and our freedoms. We will resist all infringements into our lives. We will protect the safety, the privacy and the sanctity of our family homes. We reserve the right to use extreme force to do so. This extreme force will be immediate as the peace keepers have failed in their duty of care to protect us. This is our inalienable right that is hereby claimed and we will maintain it at all costs. The Speech made by the Rt. Hon. Lord chief justice, Sir Jack Beatson FBA at the Nottingham Trent University on 16th of April 2008 was entitled “Judicial Independence and accountability: Pressures and Opportunities” If you have read the hole document, it is clear that the objective of the document/speech is to express the importance of maintaining an imaginary independence between the judiciary and the state in the minds of the public and to impress this importance of this to the young up and coming law students at Nottingham Trent University. These students are the countries next generation of Lawyers, Barristers, Clarks of the Justice and Judges. When you are a student of “Law” (Which isn’t actually Law, but the company policies, elevated to Act’s and statutes) at Nottingham Trent University and a man with the company status of Lord Chief Justice is delivering a lecture, then you had better take notice because if you don’t, then the future of you chosen career or policy enforcer officer for that company will be placed in jeopardy and your future competence to fleece a nation will be at risk. It is also clearly noted in this speech that the only accountability that the Judiciary (Posh title) has is to the company, HM Parliaments and governments PLC (posh company name) or the state/company. This is noted from the title. When you ask yourself the question “What is the Judiciary actually accountable to legally?” The answer to that question is quite clearly not the general public. No accountability to the general public what so ever. Only to the company! In this frame of context and taking another word or two from the title “Pressures and Opportunities” The pressure here clearly, is to keep the belief of independence between the Judiciary and the state, firmly in the minds of the public, where clearly none it exists. Then we come to the opportunities. These opportunities are quite clearly the future opportunity to explote by the company at the expense of the general public. All 63.5 million of us: Now let’s take another look at the first two words in the title in this same concept of understanding. Clearly there is independence from the remaining 63.5 million “Principal” legal embodiments in the country. That’s you and me or the legal personality or straw man. We are clearly legally independent from the subordinate sub office and officers of the judiciary. We are quite clearly a long way outside their jurisdiction. This gives us, all 63.5 million our own judicial independence from the judiciary. So what of our judicial independence, clearly we are independent as we are all “principal” legal embodiments in our own rite. So we are our own judiciary we are our own enforcement. The problem is we have no means to seek justice and enforcement of that Justice. We have no law courts; we have no means of enforcement without entering into their office and asking for judgement. Please sir can I have a judgment? In their office! Are we insane? As soon as we set foot in their office and request the service of a judgement, they are not legally obliged to do anything; there is no legal contract which can be given the force of law. So what is the answer? Are the 63.5 million of us totally screwed. Well NO. First thing to stop doing is to seek justice in the Dick Turpin Company office from the Dick Turpin officer. All these (posh titles) Politicians, Judges, Magistrates, Bailiffs, Policy enforcement officers are completely dependent on the illegal funds raised from there illegal taxes, that we the 63.5 million members of the general public are not legally obliges to pay. When did you sign the legal contract? When we stop paying them, what can they do? Nothing! Well they can make a big noise but that is all. What will happen? Another sub office or officer will make an “application” for a court order, to order you to pay. It is the “application” for the order that is granted at the court not the order. The court order, Warrant, is never signed by the judge, this is out of their jurisdiction and they know it. If this order was to be signed and made legal, then a legal liability will have been created in the reverse direction against the Judge, Magistrate and they know it. All they can do is keeping up the pretence and the deception in the minds of the 63.5 million general public. If the claim is made by a Dick Turpin Bailiff at your door then you want a certified copy of the court order or warrant signed by the judge and a sworn statement under penalty of perjury signed by the Clerk of the Justice that the court order or warrant has been signed by the Judge. You want both names clearly printed so that they can be properly identified and with this we go straight back to the county court and file criminal charges for fraud against the judge or the Magistrate because they have stepped outside their legal jurisdiction. It’s that simple they cannot transgress their own policies and they know it. It never happens. I’ve been to there company office and watched the dog and pony show, once you know what is going on it’s a clear as water. Our best offensive to this deception and fraud is to place this information in the public domain everywhere and keep it there. The second thing we can do is to make sure that the support infrastructure, the police, the councillors, the company licensed bailiffs, the Judges and the Magistrates are all aware that we know that they are dick Turpin bandits and we will not stand for this anymore. They are pen pushing thieves that do not contribute in any way to the infrastructure which we provide for them. When there is no money in their pot, then they will have to go home to the houses that we built for them and re-evaluate there miserable lives. If the local councils and central government want to be a business then they can, but there has to be accountability and disclosure like any other company in the world. We the general public want to know where every penny has been spent. All 63.5 million of us: We want legal contracts with full disclosure, forecasts on performance for the good of the people and if there is a shortfall there will have to be a financial forfeit, just like any other country. If this is too much trouble and not cost effective well they have the best economists from Cambridge and Eton Universities to get the job done and if it cannot be done then we are not paying for it. They will just have to tender for and service the contracts they win and pay for it themselves. The public pocket is not to be abused in the way it is today. Simple: We cannot afford to pay this rubbish any more. Go viral with this. This is the way it is. And if anybody says any different then who is paying them, where do their interests lie. Demand a sworn statement under penalty of perjury and then watch them run for the hills.
Posted on: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:26:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015