Transcript Document

The Grand Deceptions
By Veronica: of the Chapman family
(as commonly called)
Version 1.14 [April, 2011]
1
17/07/2015
Let’s start with one basic Truth:
THE UNIVERSE (whatever it is!) IS
THE TRUTH.

Now let’s add another Truth: Life exists within the
Universe

And another: Life exists, within the Universe, on
Planets (at the very least!)
Which is the same thing as saying: Life exists

Why is this important to consider?

where it can be supported by the Universe.
(AND NOT WHERE – OR IF - IT CAN’T!)
2
17/07/2015
There are 1.7 million examples of
SENTIENT Life on Planet Earth


Can these life forms exist without FULL Support from
Planet Earth?
What would happen if ANY ASPECT of this Full
Support did not exist?
3
17/07/2015
IF – ANYTHING – NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT A LIFE FORM, DOES NOT
EXIST WITHIN THE – BASIC RESOURCES PROVIDED BY PLANET
EARTH, THEN THAT LIFE FORM –
CANNOT – EXIST ON PLANET EARTH


Yes or No?
Would it ever get started? Would it survive if it did?
4
17/07/2015
Anything – NOT- provided by the
basic resources of Planet Earth is
supernumerary – i.e. inessential to
‘life’:

Money
Legalese
Religion
Politics

(Which, by the way, are all exactly the same thing)



5
17/07/2015
And, what is worse, is that THEY ARE
ALL DECEPTIONS.


They all thoroughly depend on “mis-placed faiths”
Resulting in nothing more than “mind prisons”
(David Icke’s description being ‘prisons-without-thebars’)
6
17/07/2015
Start in reverse order: Politics.
What is it?





“Faith placed in something” … or someone … your MP … your
‘Government’
Faith placed in SOMEONE ELSE to represent YOU
(On the gross assumption that you actually need
‘representing’, of course … i.e. that you are incapable of
representing yourself … yourself)
Is this faith placed correctly (reasonably), or mis-placed?
What do you think?
(After 800 years of ‘Parliament’, this sounds like a very – sick
– joke … to me)
7
17/07/2015
So what about the next one: Religion.
What is it?





“Faith placed in something” … or someone … your
Vicar … your Priest … an ‘Almighty’
Faith placed in SOMEONE ELSE to save YOU
(On the gross assumption that you actually need
‘saving’, of course … i.e. that you are incapable of
saving yourself … yourself)
Is this faith placed correctly (reasonably), or misplaced? What do you think?
“If one person has a delusion, it’s called ‘insanity’, if
billions have the same delusion, it’s called ‘religion’”
8
17/07/2015
The next one: Legalese.
What is it?




“Faith placed in something” … your
‘Parliament/Congress’ … to create Statutes
Faith placed in SOMEONE ELSE to represent YOU
(in Court, or in your daily affairs, etc)
(On the gross assumption that you actually need
‘representing’, of course … i.e. that you are
incapable of representing yourself … yourself)
Is this faith placed correctly (reasonably), or misplaced? What do you think?
9
17/07/2015
Well, that’s THREE “faiths mis-placed
in something”, so what about the last
one: Money?


Well, what IS Money?
No … it’s NOT “What we use to buy
things with”. “Buy” (and “sell”, and
“commerce”, etc.) equate to “money” …
so that definition is circular and eats its
own tail (whatever a Dictionary might
say!)
10
17/07/2015
“Money” = “Credit”
(See your Bank Statement!) .
What is “credit”?




OMG! “Faith placed in something”!
(I’ll fully explain this in later screens)
Is this faith placed correctly (reasonably), or misplaced? What do you think?
(I know what -I- think! “If one person has a
delusion, it’s called ‘insanity’, if billions have the
same delusion, it’s called ‘’money’”)
11
17/07/2015
Now please explain to me why we
need these “mis-placed faiths”?



Planet Earth does not provide them from its own
BASIC resources (Planet Earth is not that
stupid!)
No other life form (of the 1.7 million SENTIENT
life forms) recognises them – and manages to
survive quite happily without them
Could there be something that this 1.7 million is
missing? Or are we missing something? What do
you think?
12
17/07/2015
Could we be sufficiently far-sighted
such as to jettison
“Money”, “Legalese”, “Religion” &
“Politics”
… into the dustbin of history?




What do you think?
Should we do that?
Could we do that?
Or is it better to eat our own tails chasing ‘shiny
silver & gold-coloured & paper things’ endlessly?
13
17/07/2015
“Money” .vs. “Freedom”

It’s all very simple.

They are mutually exclusive



If you want “Money” … you can’t have “Freedom”
If you want “Freedom” … you can’t have “Money”
If you want both, you end up with what we
currently have … so we have the “Freedom”
to have this meeting, to discuss all our
“Money woes & lack of Freedoms”. Is that
what you want?

You need to get your head around this

(By “Money” I mean ‘a Monetary System’)
14
17/07/2015
Vic Beck points out the obvious …
DUE TO TAXATION, YOU CAN NEVER
AFFORD WHAT YOU, YOURSELF,
MADE





Your Employer says what you did was worth (say) £1,000 …
and pays you that
Thus, what you did is ‘worth’ £1,000
After Tax you only actually receive £750
So you will never physically receive enough ‘credits’ to buy
what you, yourself, created … because your £750 will not
‘buy’ something ‘worth’ £1,000
(Of course ‘worth’, ‘buy’, ‘money’ etc. are all imaginations
anyway!)
15
17/07/2015
“Legal” .vs. “Lawful”



Are you “law-abiding” … or “legalabiding” (or both)?
Do you know the difference?
There are THREE things we call “Law”.
What follows is a short analysis of them,
and their essential characteristics
16
17/07/2015
Laws of Nature (including Laws of
Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics,
etc), i.e. “lawful”:



a) Mankind does not make them. Mankind observes them and their
effects, then enumerates and evaluates them; in most cases being able
to devise mathematical formulae to express them, utilise them and interutilise i.e. apply them. Examples: The Law of Gravity (Newton’s Laws),
Boyle’s Law, Maxwell’s Laws, Charles’ Law, Ohm’s Law, etc.
b) They apply universally and unilaterally without fear or favour. No
‘Courts’ are required.
c) There is no penalty for breaking them because they cannot be broken.
17
17/07/2015
The Common Law i.e. The Law-ofthe-Land:



a) Mankind does make them, based entirely on Common
Sense. Thus they are universal and unchangeable. (What you
know to be right, fair, honourable and just, is what I know to
be right, fair, honourable and just. And will always be so).
b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de Jure (Courts
of Justice). A serious attempt at fairness of application is by
means of a Jury of 12.
c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they
can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.
18
17/07/2015
The Legislated Rules of Societies
(Statutes), i.e. “legal“, created by
Parliaments & Congresses:



a) Mankind does make them. Mankind changes them in accordance with
its own desires, wishes, needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal
them) at the stroke of a pen.
b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de Facto (Courts of
Arbitration or Tribunals, etc). They are not applied equally because they
always depend on ‘judgment’. It is often said “There is one law for the
rich and one law for the poor”. “One law for you and one law for us” is
generally achieved by decisions that emanate from One Highly-Paid
Psychopath (so-called Judge), or Three Gobsmakingly Naïve Plonkers (socalled Magistrates, generally led by a Minor Psychopath). These tyrannies
being precisely what the Magna Carta 1215 idea of a Common Law Jury
of 12 avoids – as best it can.
c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be
broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.
19
17/07/2015
Comparison between “Lawful” and
“Legal”






We can see that 2a is the same (to all intents and purposes) as 1a. And
that 2b attempts, as far as can reasonably be expected, to emulate 1b.
We can see that 2c is necessary in order to support 2a and 2b. Thus to
use the same word, “Law” to describe both Natural and Common Law is
more or less realistic.
However, from the foregoing, we can see that 3a, 3b and 3c are the exact
inverse of 1a, 1b & 1c. And yet the same word is used to describe them in
common parlance! This is surely totally unrealistic, however ingrained it
has become. It is similar to using the same word to describe both “fire”
and “water”.
The deception is that LEGAL and LAWFUL are the same thing.
They are not.
In point of fact, as shown previously, they are exact opposites.
Thus a “Law-abiding citizen” is actually a “Legal-abiding citizen”, which is
not the same thing at all.
20
17/07/2015
“Legal” operates, entirely via
paperwork, on “Names” (Legal Fiction
‘persons’)
“Lawful” operates naturally (Natural
Law), or on Humans (Common Law)



A Deed Poll can detach one “Name”, and associate a different
“Name”, but the Human Being remains exactly the same
In a Common Law Court (Court de Jure) a Witness will be
asked to indicate someone … irrespective of that Human’s
“Name” (Think: Identity Parade!)
The Deception is: To make you believe that YOU are YOUR
NAME … when you are NOT! YOUR NAME IS NOTHING
MORE THAN A FICTION … for the convenience of
“Legal”, to operate on you WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT
21
17/07/2015
Rough ‘Justice’?








Can you be jailed? (Yes)
Can your DNA be taken (Yes)
Can your Local Council, the Crown Prosecution Service, or a Utility
Company (etc) be jailed? (No)
Can your Local Council, the Crown Prosecution Service, or a Utility
Company (etc) have its DNA taken? (No)
How can any HONOURABLE ‘adjudication’ take place between these two
Parties … when you (a Human Being) have just about everything to
lose, and ‘they’ have virtually nothing to lose?
The ‘playing field’ is stacked VERTICALLY against you
“Sacrifice is the measure of credibility” – what have ‘they’ got to
sacrifice? What is their credibility? So-called ‘justice’? IT’S ABSURD!
The very fact that your DNA can be taken PROVES that YOU are NOT a
Legal Fiction … so when the Policymen take it, thank them for
proving YOUR point by forensic evidence! “My DNA was taken,
therefore I, the Human, CANNOT be their ‘Named Defendant’”
22
17/07/2015
What IS The Common Law?






No DELIBERATE harm to anyone else, and as much precaution
(as is reasonable) to prevent ACCIDENTAL harm from your
actions
No DELIBERATE loss to anyone else, and as much precaution
(as is reasonable) to prevent ACCIDENTAL loss from your
actions
No DELIBERATE breach of another’s peace, and as much
precaution (as is reasonable) to prevent ACCIDENTAL
breaches from your actions
No DELIBERATE deviousness or mischief in your PROMISES,
AGREEMENTS and ARRANGEMENTS , and as much precaution
(as is reasonable) to prevent ACCIDENTAL occurrences
Fundamentally: To ACT RESPONSIBLY TOWARDS ALL
OTHERS, and to be prepared to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ALL YOUR ACTIONS
In other words just plain, ordinary, Common Sense
23
17/07/2015
Where does The Common Law come
from?


Common Sense of Land-dwellers to live together
in peace
Our ancestors had exactly the same problems as
we all face today, and exactly the same degree
of Common Sense – particularly at times
when the alternative (barbarism) was
fairly rampant

(All power to them … to be able to still remain in
touch with their Common Sense … under those
conditions!)
24
17/07/2015
How is The (Common) Law made?





By the Verdicts of Juries of 12, after hearing the evidence from both
sides, which must be based on FIRST-HAND knowledge, and using their
Common Sense to try to put themselves in the same situation, and to
decide what they, themselves, would do in those circumstances
By UNREBUTTED(!) STATEMENTS OF TRUTH (Affidavits), based on
FIRST-HAND knowledge, and signed under penalty of perjury
That’s it! There is no other way, because FIRST-HAND evidence
is the only acceptable evidence while “All are equal under The
Law”
Note: It therefore takes Twelve Humans to ‘LAWFULLY overpower’ One
Human
THE BOTTOM LINE IS - ALWAYS - UNLESS THE
WARRANT OR ORDER STEMS FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID IN LAW.
25
17/07/2015
How do you know whether or not you
are abiding within the Common Law?


You ask yourself: “Would a Jury of 12
– APPRAISED OF ALL THE FACTS,
AND ALL THE TRUTH - agree with
me, or not?”
(“Do I feel that my actions are
HONOURABLE?”)
26
17/07/2015
What is the hierarchy on Planet
Earth?



1) The planet itself, including the resources it
provides to support all Life Forms.
2) NON-SENTIENT Life, i.e. plants, etc. – which
support all other Life Forms
3) SENTIENT Life, which comprises sub-categories
to consider:



3a) Humans
3b) All other animals, birds, fish, insect life.
3c) Other REAL entities such as germs, viruses, bacteria,
etc
27
17/07/2015
But what else have we got?
Well, we have the FICTIONAL
things, don’t we?
How about:



4) ‘Government’ i.e. “The Crown”
This requires Humans (3a) to
RECOGNISE it. If no-one recognised “The
Crown” it would not exist
(Are we back to “faiths placed or misplaced in things”?)
28
17/07/2015
And then, how about:

5) Sub-fictional and ‘role playing’ Entities




5a) CORPORATIONS
5b) Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers, Solicitors,
Politicians, Policymen, Bailiffs, etc.
Which require “The Crown” to recognise them
(via “legals” i.e. Statutes)
But – don’t forget – “The Crown” requires
Human recognition in the first place
29
17/07/2015
Finally, we come to the lowest of the
low:




6) Members of Staff (of CORPORATIONS) –
which require the CORPORATION to recognise
them … which requires “The Crown” to
recognise it … which requires Humans to
recognise “The Crown”
Oh boy! Just how low can you get?
So … when you get some arrogant demand
(letter) from a Member of Staff of a
CORPORATION, what is your appropriate
reaction? What do you think?
Let’s face it, this Member of Staff sits at (6),
when even plants reside at (2) … or germs
reside at (3c) in the overall hierarchy
30
17/07/2015
In point of fact … since EVERYTHING
is CORPORATIONS …
… INCLUDING Members of
Parliament, The Ministry of Justice
and the Policy Forces, etc:



Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers, Solicitors,
Politicians, Policymen, Bailiffs, etc. are merely
Members of Staff of CORPORATIONS, and reside
at (6) … not (5b)!
They are Public SERVANTS and – as a Member
of the Public – you are their MASTER/MISTRESS
… they are there to do what YOU tell THEM …
not the other way round … otherwise the tail
wags the dog
As a Human Being, you are SOVEREIGN!
31
17/07/2015
A Society. What is it?




“A group of like-minded people who come
together to deliberate, determine, and act
towards common goals”
Q: How do they know whether or not they are ‘like minded’?
 A: By inspecting the published ‘common goals’
Q: What IS ‘a group of like-minded people’?
 A: A Membership. A Society has Members, WHO JOIN – OF THEIR
OWN FREE WILL – after inspecting the published ‘common goals’,
and deciding that they agree with them
Q: What happens if, after a period of time, a Member decides that the
direction the Society has subsequently taken is not what he or she can
agree with?

A: They can resign of their own free will (without recriminations!)
32
17/07/2015
What is a Statute?








“The Legislated Rule of a Society” i.e. the ‘legals’ deliberated,
determined, and acted upon (Acts …) by the Legislative Body of the
Society (… Parliament/Congress, etc.)
Members CONSENT to these rules by JOINING
Non-Members are unaffected
Your Doctor does not need to obey the Legislated Rules (Statutes) of the
Law Society
Your Solicitor does not need to obey the Hippocratic Oath and the
Legislated Rules (Statutes) of the British (or American, etc.) Medical
Association
Your Postman does not need to obey either sets of Legislated Rules
(Statutes)
Did you CONSENT to become a Member of the Society whose Legislated
Rules (Statutes) your Parliament/Congress ‘acts’? When was that?
Parliamentary/Congressional Statutes = (nothing more than) Company
Policy (THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CORPORATION, to be exact) … hence
the term “Policymen” to refer to the enforcers of it … on NON-MEMBERS
33
17/07/2015
Here’s a picture of a £10 note:

What does it say (under “Bank of England”)?
34
17/07/2015
It says: “I PROMISE TO PAY THE
BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF
TEN POUNDS”


Have you ever SEEN “THE SUM OF TEN
POUNDS” …
… or have you only ever seen notes like
this, PROMISING “THE SUM OF TEN
POUNDS” ?
35
17/07/2015
It was a Promissory Note … in other
words an IOU … from the Bank of
England




Gosh … just think how many “SUMS OF
TEN POUNDS” the Bank of England has
agreed that it OWES!
Which it NEVER actually PAYS (does it?)
It is promising the “pot of gold at the end
of the rainbow”
Do we need it? That’s the question,
surely?
36
17/07/2015
The First Quarterly Bulletin, from the
Bank of England in 2008, Page 103
(PDF Page 105, bottom/left
paragraph):




"...banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing
customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever
the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That
is, banks extend credit by creating money."
Translation of ‘writing a cheque on itself’. is: MONEY IS CREATED
OUT OF THIN AIR (by means of a Human’s Signature)
I guess that includes the Bank of England, since all it has ever done, since
1694, is to promise the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow
NOTICE: How it talks about “the borrowing customer’s account” &
“the borrower”!? THEY CREATE ‘MONEY’ OUT OF THIN AIR, AND CALL
YOU ‘THE BORROWER OF IT’! (Talk about sleight-of-hand! It’s
WONDERFUL what words can do, isn’t it!?))
37
17/07/2015
Montagu Norman, Governor of The
Bank Of England, addressing the United
States Bankers' Association, NYC 1924





“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and
legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as
possible.
“When, through process of law [he meant “legal”], the common people lose
their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed
through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of
wealth under leading financiers.
“These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now
engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the
voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their
energies in fighting for questions of no importance.
“It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has
been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.“
NB: This quotation was reprinted in the Idaho Leader, USA, on 26th August
1924, and has been read into the Australian Federal Hansard twice: by John
Evans MP, in 1926, and by MD Cowan MP, in the session of 1930-31.
38
17/07/2015
If you don’t pay a ‘demand’, a Court
de Facto will consider you to be
‘depriving’ whoever makes the
demand




We have already seen that “Money”, Legalese”,
“Religion” & “Politics” are the same thing,
namely “faith placed in something”
Can you deprive someone of their ‘beliefs’?
Can you deprive someone of (say) their
‘Religious beliefs’? (It’s not easy to deprive a
Jesus freak of their belief in Jesus. You are
welcome to try)
So how can you ‘deprive’ someone (or
something) of their ‘Money belief’’?
39
17/07/2015
The Signature (Mark) made by a
Human Being




Starts the “money out of thin air” creation process
Along with a Date and an Amount, creates an IOU/Promissory
Note
Financial Institutions will take this note and (upon the
successful completion of “credit checks”) will “monetise” it …
which comprises typing numbers into a computer database
(these days), or – formerly – writing numbers onto a paper
accounting ledger
The Title (Mortgage) Deed PLUS Mortgage Acceptance pages
comprise a Promissory Note – WHICH – MUST – PAY IN FULL
– for the property right at the start of the purchasing-
via-a-mortgage process
40
17/07/2015
Mortgages: One of the biggest SCAMS
of all time! (1)






A Title (Mortgage) Deed is YOUR authorisation to hand
possession of something YOU FULLY OWN to some other
entity (Financial Institution)
The Land Registry will accept this authorisation, and will
lodge the Charge against the property
CAN YOU AUTHORISE POSSESSION – TO SOMEONE ELSE –
OF SOMETHING YOU DO – NOT – YOURSELF - OWN?
(Do not own OUTRIGHT?)
“No” is the answer! You can only do what you like with YOUR
OWN PROPERTY – OWNED OUTRIGHT!!
You NEVER have the RIGHT to do this with SOMEONE ELSE’S
property (if you are a joint-holder, you have to get agreement
from the other joint-holders)
41
17/07/2015
Mortgages: One of the biggest SCAMS
of all time! (2)








NOTHING will happen until you sign the Title (Mortgage) Deed
BUT YOU ARE TOLD –NOT- TO DATE IT
Thus it is not a valid Promissory Note when you send it back
BUT: They have your signature on the Deed … and filling in the date is easypeasy in order to create a true Promissory Note
So, all they have to do is to “monetise” your Promissory Note – WHICH PAYS FOR
THE PROPERTY IN FULL – and means that YOU ARE THE SOLE OWNER, WITH
FULL TITLE – and the date can be added to the Deed (by them). This can then be
sent to the Land Registry, who will apply the Charge in favour of the Financial
Institution (and they have you by the short & curlys!)
But – if you HAVE FULL TITLE, AND HAVE PAID IN FULL (via your Promissory
Note) (AND YOU MUST HAVE DONE THAT, IN ORDER TO GAIN FULL TITLE, since
no-one has the right to authorise a Charge on anything which they do NOT own),
why do you need to make REPAYMENTS, and why is there any need for the
Charge?
There is no need for either … IT’S A SCAM!
What would be ‘fair’, would be to pay the Financial Instruction a reasonable fee (a
couple of £grand) for the facility of “monetising” your Promissory Note … and that
should be that!
42
17/07/2015
Any so-called ‘debt’: If all else fails
… (use some Tesco Value paper, and)
write a Promissory Note!




You can make it a bit fancy (with a ‘Spirograph’ graphic around the edges, for
example)
Write the Amount in words and Numbers
For the Date, you can say: “On the date that a sum, paid by the Bank of
England to the bearer on demand, is shown to have taken place in real
terms”
Get it Notarised (costs £40 - £50) by signing it in front of a Notary Public

Send it to whoever is making the demand, pointing out in covering letter, that:
 1. The Statutory Definition of a Promissory Note is “Cash” … it has to be in order
to make banknotes “cash”! (Obvious!)
 2. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 says that “If payment is tendered, but is
rejected, then that debt no longer exists” (Obvious!)

Can we get away with it? That’s not the point! People outside the Freedom
Movement (and many inside, as well!) think ‘we are trying to get away with
something’. WE NOT TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING! We are trying to
PREVENT THEM from ‘getting away’ with their blackmails & extortions & frauds &
deceptions, etc. Writing a Promissory Note brings the deception of IOUs to the
forefront (“legal tender” .vs. “lawful tender”!)
17/07/2015
The objective is to become FREE … not to ‘get rich’!
43

The Court System … choc full of
‘problems’




Largely because people do not know the roles
that Judges & Magistrates have agreed to play
via their SOLEMNLY-SWORN Oaths of Office
Added to this, the fact that Grand Juries were
abolished in 1931
Plus the role allocated to the Crown Prosecution
Service
The ‘system’ is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, and
irretrievably ‘broken’ – such that ‘tinkering with
it’ only makes things worse (as far as true,
honourable, - real unbiased - justice is
concerned!)
44
17/07/2015
The solutions?




Bring Judges back to their Oaths of Office, and
don’t let them extend their so-called ‘authority’
past this Oath. This would limit them SOLELY to
running Courts de Jure (and no further Statutes
would be required. EC Regulations would also be
redundant)
Abolish Magistrates and the Crown Prosecution
Service, and re-convene Grand Juries
Abolish “Politics”, “Religion”, “Legalese” and
“Money (especially “Money” … which takes all the
others with it!) into the dustbin of history
(Then, suitably enlightened) Establish
SOVEREIGN Republics for England, Wales and
Scotland? And possibly Northern Ireland
(however it might be better to give that back to
the Irish? After all, it IS theirs)
45
17/07/2015
How do you bring a Judge or
Magistrate back to their Oath of
Office?


By reminding them of it
By asking, up front – before answering any questions
whatsoever – “Are you prepared to act under your Oath
of Office … AT THIS TIME?”


The results of asking this question can only be described as
‘spectacular’. It will create either ‘pregnant silence’ – or a very
loud, enraged, rant
Note: A Judge will have ‘legal’ knowledge. If he or she
has any knowledge of LAW, they will invariably not let
on (unless seriously ‘pushed’). (A so-called Judge has
been heard to say: “Judges make the Common Law”, which –
or course – is patent nonsense … he was making it up as he
went along)
46
17/07/2015
The Judge’s and Magistrate’s Oaths of
Office




1. "I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I
will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and
successors, according to law.”
So that means they are bound by the Queen’s Coronation
Oath (“Under God … so help me God …”)
2. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I
will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen
Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ ,
and I will do right to all manner of people after the
laws and usages of this realm, without fear or
favour, affection or ill will."
So that means that they are BOUND to “do right to all
manner of PEOPLE” … i.e. Humans … NOT
CORPORATIONS!
47
17/07/2015
Judges don’t even ‘hear’ Civil Disputes
in COURTROOMS!







Civil Disputes are the vast majority of Court de Facto
Hearings (e.g. Mortgage Possessions?)
They take place in a small-ish room – WHICH IS ACTUALLY
JUDGE’S CHAMBER! (Rented for the day!?)
(But they don’t tell you that!)
So … even ‘Court Rules’ (if they meant anything!) don’t
apply!
“A table at McDonald’s” would do just as well
Neither side is required to take an Oath (“To tell the truth,
the whole truth, etc”)
ALL ‘evidence’, presented against you, is HEARSAY – and the
so-called Judge will accept it – EVEN IF IT IS ILLEGIBLE!
48
17/07/2015
Oaths: BE VERY CAREFUL!
Don’t be fobbed off!





Asking a Judge or Magistrate “If they have taken an Oath” is absurd …
of course they have!
Asking the Courts Service “If Judges and Magistrates take Oaths” is
absurd … of course they do!
… to say: “Of course they do!” is one of the major ways they like to use
in order to fob you off … because these are NOT the questions
THE QUESTION IS: ARE THEY ACTING UNDER IT – AT THE TIME
OF THE HEARING/LISTENING/CONSIDERING/MAKING AN
ORDER?
VERY SIMPLY BECAUSE – IF THEY WERE – THEY COULD –NEVER- DO
WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO … namely to ‘find in favour’ of a mindless,
soulless, corrupt (e.g. Social Services), compassionless, incompetentoften-to-the-point-of-imbecilic (e.g. Department of Work and Pensions,
Department of the Environment) CORPORATION, based entirely on
computerised HEARSAY EVIDENCE (Garbage Out = Garbage In) … as
opposed to FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE directly from the Mind
Recall of a Human Being, who knows EXACTLY what happened,
and will swear to it on penalty of perjury
!
49
17/07/2015
Why are these Oaths so important?





Because they derive from the British Constitution … which
means that only a Court de Jure, with a Jury of 12, is a
CONSTITUTIONAL kind of Court
Thus, when attempting to run a Court de Facto, they
CANNOT be acting under a CONSTITUTIONAL Oath of
Office!
In point of FACT, Courts de Facto are ENTIRELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL (they have been plucked out of the
Judiciary’s arseholes), and consequently they actually
amount to TREASON (against the British Constitution, and
hence you & I, The People) …
… particularly if run under a Constitutional Oath!
IF – ANYONE – EVER - ATTEMPTS TO RUN A COURT
WITHOUT A JURY, THEY ARE COMMITTING TREASON
50
17/07/2015
What do you do if a Judge, Magistrate,
Policyman, Bailiff says “Yes, I’m acting
under my Oath of Office”?





What do you think?
It was SOLEMLY-SWORN. It should be ingrained on their soul!
TELL THEM TO REPEAT IT – HERE AND NOW – FROM
MEMORY – VERBATIM!
If they can do that, then ask them to explain what it means
If (AS NORMAL) they can’t – or they fluff their lines,
hesitate, etc – tell them if they can’t even remember it, then
they can’t possibly be acting under it. AND THEY LIED TO
YOUR FACE.
51
17/07/2015
Stone’s Justice’s Manual,
Section 1-382 (Magistrate’s
Court Jurisdiction)




(a) to try any summary offence. (Council Tax is not a summary offence,
e.g. Common Assault).
(b) as examining justices over any offence committed by a person who
appears or is brought before the court. (In the case of Council Tax, no
offence has been committed; it's a liability hearing).
(c) subject to SS 18-22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, to try
summarily any offence which is try-able either way. (Council Tax is not a
summary offence).
(d) in the exercise of its powers under s 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act
1980 to try summarily an indictable offence. (Council Tax is a Civil
Dispute, not an indictable offence e.g. GBH, dangerous driving, rape,
etc).
52
17/07/2015
What are Magistrates, and what is the
Crown Prosecution Service, anyway?





Along with the Crown Prosecution Service, Magistrates are a cost-cutting
attempt to provide the functionality of a Grand Jury, and to dispense socalled ‘justice’ on the cheap (and not ‘cheerful’)
But Grand Juries do not decide the outcome, they only decide whether
or not a prima facie case has been made, such that a Full Trial is
warranted
At such a Trial, the Trial Jury (of 12 ‘impartials’) decide the outcome
(“Guilty” or “Not Guilty”)
Magistrates attempt to be a “Jury of three” … which is NOTHING LIKE
GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVEN BASIC JUSTICE … and simply provides the
opportunity for up to three would-be tyrants a platform for their ‘sadistic
pleasures’
The CPS, acting as ‘paid, so-called professional, individuals’ (and thus
with an axe to grind), cannot possibly do an impartial job to the standard
of unpaid, volunteering, impartial, Grand Jury Members who have
absolutely no axe to grind
53
17/07/2015
YOU ARE NOT ALONE!




























(see 3rd line from the bottom!)
Subject: FW: Online Enquiry from the Magistrates' Association website
From:"Leora Ronel" <[email protected]>
Date:Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:24:01 +0100
To:<[email protected]>
CC:"Barbara Tetteh" <[email protected]>
Dear John,
The oath of office is as follows:
I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do
right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the realm without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
If you need more information, you may like to look at our website page about becoming a magistrate which has further
facts.
http://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/whybecome.php
kind regards
Leora Ronel
Membership Communications Officer
________________________________
The Magistrates’ Association
28 Fitzroy Square
London W1T 6DD
T 020 7383 3146 (direct)
T 020 7387 2353 (switchboard)
[email protected]
-----Original Message----From: Barbara Tetteh
Sent: 23 September 2010 09:49
To: Leora Ronel
Subject: FW: Online Enquiry from the Magistrates' Association website
And another...........
Barbara Tetteh
Records Administrator
17/07/2015
54
Court Procedure (based on
Birkenhead, Hereford, etc)








Small, dedicated, disciplined, peaceful group (10 or so … absolutely no more than
20)
One is a “Negotiator” … someone who understands the situation inside out, and is
prepared to ‘negotiate’ with the Policymen (could be whoever has been
‘summonsed’)
No-one else in the group ever speaks, but they always do what the Negotiator
requests, quietly, calmly, peacefully
When the Judge/Magistrates are told they are under Citizen’s Arrest (for not
acknowledging their Oath of Office), the Negotiator explains the position to the
Policymen
He or she explains that is is NOT THEIR JOB to decide that the Judge/Magistrates
are innocent – and thus ‘rescue’ them – but to carry through the arrest, take
statements from everyone – AND LET A FUTURE COURT DECIDE ON THE
GUILT/INNOCENCE
That is their ‘standard procedure’, and that’s the way THE LAW works … Courts
ALWAYS decide on guilt/innocence … NOT Policymen
If, after all ‘negotiation’ has been exhausted, the Policymen WILL STILL NOT do
their job, everyone leaves peacefully at the Negotiator’s request
The amount of time this will take will leave the Court & Policymen in the position
of NOT wanting it to happen regularly
55
17/07/2015
HMCS Flagship:
The Northampton Bulk Clearing
Centre





More ‘justice on the cheap’
Unpaid Demands from Utility Companies, Policymen, and Local
Authorities are sent there to be rubber-stamped into Warrants … by
Deputy District Judges.
A Deputy District Judge is a SOLICITOR … who ‘performs the rubberstamping role’ between 5 and 15 days per year
They will rubber-stamp ANYTHING … including typographical errors, and
errors of substance. There are many examples. It is quite obvious that
they don’t read, nor do they consider (let’s face it, they are only
Solicitors, after all!), ANYTHING. (Hence it is a waste of time arguing
with them)
Their so-called Warrants amount to nothing more than toilet paper. If a
Bailiff calls he will almost certainly be wielding one of these toilet paper
Warrants. Tell him to go and get signed confirmation that the Signatory
Judge was “acting under their Oath of Office at the time”
56
17/07/2015
Orders. What are they?



In case you don't 'get it' ... Judges & Magistrates are CONTINUALLY
Arbitrating WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, applying STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
on you, when you have not agreed or promised to be bound by them, and
expecting you to SERVICE their ORDERS for free ... when no business
supplies its major products for free. If they want to consider you to be a
Legal Fiction 'Person' i.e. a SMALL CORPORATION, then they should expect
a bill from that CORPORATION for servicing any Orders they issue. Like
all other businesses. No? I think: "Yes". If a Court orders stationery, it
expects to pay the Suppliers, doesn't it? And who sets the amount to
charge? The SUPPLIER sets the amount ... and the Court Staff shop
around for the cheapest. That's normal (honourable) business practice.
Anything else is either: Blackmail, Extortion, Racketeering, Fraud, or just
plain ole Theft ... or whatever you want call it.
Policymen, Servicemen, and Members of Staff all get paid – VIA THEIR
WAGES/SALARIES – for servicing Orders
NO-ONE services Orders for free – but Judges & Magistrates expect YOU
to, and they have no right to expect that
57
17/07/2015
What do you do with a Bailiff?




Well, they are morons and thugs, so the question is:
“What do you do with a moron who is also a thug?”
Never, EVER, open the door under any
circumstances.
Tell him he is a Public SERVANT, and that – as a
Member of the Public – and therefore his
MASTER/MISTRESS - you don’t require his
SERVICES. And – if he thought you did, then he is
sacked.
(As previously noted) Tell him to go away and get
the Signatory Judge to confirm, in writing, that
they were “Acting under their Oath of Office at the
time of signing the Warrant”)
58
17/07/2015
What do you do if a Bailiff threatens
to return with a Policyman?


Tell him the Policyman will also be a Public
SERVANT, and that you will still remain the
MASTER/MISTRESS, and will be perfectly happy
– and perfectly within your RIGHTS - to
sack the Policyman as well. (And keep sacking
them until one does the job he or she is paid
for! Say you will demand to speak to ‘superiors’
until this happens)
All of this does tend to confuse (to some extent)
a moron/thug
59
17/07/2015
If you get to “Bailiffs knocking” …


It’s a good idea to have a NOTICE OF
REMOVAL OF IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCESS
on your front door. This applies to both Bailiffs
and Policymen (and TV Licence as well, btw)
You can also post up the Policyman’s Oath. And
have a copy on the inside as well. Thus, if the
Bailiff actually manages to return with a
Policyman, you can say (through the door):
“Your Oath of Office is posted on the door.
This is what you SOLEMNLY SWORE to do
in order to obtain your Warrant Card. READ
IT CAREFULLY … and re-consider it
carefully … especially the bit about
‘fundamental human rights’ …and then
you will realise that you should not be
60
here”
17/07/2015
The Policyman’s Oath




"I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and
affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in
the office of constable, with fairness, integrity,
diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental
human rights and according equal respect to all
people; and that I will, to the best of my power,
cause the peace to be kept and preserved and
prevent all offences against people and property;
and that while I continue to hold the said office I
will to the best of my skill and knowledge
discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according
to law.“
Get the Policyman to read it out loud. Repeat “fairness,
integrity, diligence, impartiality” a few times.
Stress the word “fundamental” in “fundamental human
rights” … which does NOT mean (therefore) any Human
Rights Act … but means “indefeasible”
Tell him that “according to law” means “read the whole
paragraph and think about it”
61
17/07/2015
Notice of Removal of Implied Right of
Access (1)
To all that it concerns
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO
PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES
Notice of Removal of Implied Right of
Access
You are advised to read the following notice thoroughly and carefully. It is
a lawful notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
I hereby give notice that the implied right of access to the property known
as <address> [<postcode>], and surrounding areas, has been removed,
along with all associated property including, but not limited to, any private
conveyance in respect of the following:
62
17/07/2015
Notice of Removal of Implied Right of
Access (2)
1) ANY employee, principal, agent, third party or representative or any other
person acting on behalf of or under the instruction of HER MAJESTYS
COURT SERVICE, or any other CORPORATE BODY (i.e. Company)
howsoever named and,
2) ANY POLICE OFFICER who is acting for the CORPORATE POLICE and NOT
acting as a Constable for and on behalf of Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II and her people as expressed in the Oath of Office of
all POLICE men and women, that is as Public Servants, upon your Oath
of Office to serve "with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality,
upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all
people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be
kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"
63
17/07/2015
Notice of Removal of Implied Right of
Access (3)
COMMON LAW JURISDICTION APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY
Please also take notice that the land known as England is a Common Law
jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according
to Common Law. Any and all access to the above mentioned properties
shall be by strict invitation only and shall be subject to terms and
conditions, available by written request.
We do not have, and have never had, a contract. And any permission that
you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe
that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired,
and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is
hereby withdrawn. If you feel so inclined as to enforce statutes as a
consequence of this matter I will report your conduct to ALL relevant
bodies and will pursue Proof of Claim in affidavit form, under your full
commercial liability and under the penalty of perjury.
64
17/07/2015
Notice of Removal of Implied Right of
Access (4)
You are deemed to have been served this notice with immediate effect.
In sincerity and honour, without ill-will, frivolity, or vexation,
Veronica: of the Chapman family(*), as commonly called, English
Sovereign.
Without any admission of any liability whosoever, and with all Indefeasible
Rights reserved.
(* Obviously substitute your own common calling!)
65
17/07/2015
Common Assault



Occurs if you ever “Feel that your personal safety is
under threat”
It does NOT have the be PHYSICAL … it can be MENTAL
Thus, if someone else is in the house, when a Bailiff or
Policyman threatens to break down the door, that ‘someone
else’ HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A COMMON ASSAULT.
And, in these circumstances, it is a good idea to point it out.
(A Policyman MAY, possibly, understand)

After all, a bashed-in door would leave other occupants
UNPROTECTED … especially if it is pointed out to the
Policyman: “Listen, mate, this is not your fight … is it?
Your DUTY is to KEEP THE PEACE … not to conspire
to breach it. You are well out of your solemn duty &
jurisdiction. Unless, of course, you are prepared to
guard the door until it is replaced”66
17/07/2015
“Policyman-on-doorstep” Routine

“Do you have reason to suspect that there is a wanted person
on these premises, and have you obtained a LAWFUL Warrant of
Entry in order to arrest that person?”


“Do you have reason to suspect that there are stolen goods on
these premises, and have you obtained a LAWFUL Warrant of
Entry in order to search for them?”


“No”
“Do you hear a fracas going on – such as to give you cause to
believe that someone’s life or limb may be in danger?”


“No”
“Do you have reason to suspect that there are illicit drugs on
these premises, and have you obtained a LAWFUL Warrant of
Entry in order to search for them?”


“No”
“No”
“Then your sole point in being here is to prevent breaches of the
peace … MY PEACE INCLUDED! You do that by arresting the
Bailiff for UNLAWFULLY breaching my peace”
67
17/07/2015
Debt Collectors & Bailiffs (1)



The first thing you receive is a Demand
“acting on behalf of someone else” (often
accompanied by a toilet paper Warrant,
rubber-stamped by a Deputy District
Judge at the Northampton Bulk Clearing
Centre (already discussed)
But … what’s the REAL situation?
As a Human Being, IN (COMMON) LAW,
you are bound only (in honour) by
obligations to which you have
SPECIFICALLY agreed
68
17/07/2015
Debt Collectors & Bailiffs (2)




Did you SPECIFICALLY agree to deal with the Debt
Collectors or Bailiffs?
No? Then what right do they have to bother you?
Answer: No right whatsoever
If someone pays off a debt on your behalf, they
would be stupid not to have contacted you first, in
order to agree (specifically):


(a) That you agreed that you actually owed the debt
(b) That, if they paid it off on your behalf, you would pay
them back … and thus create an obligation on your
part
69
17/07/2015
Debt Collectors & Bailiffs (3)






But they don’t do that, do they? They just waltz in, buy up
the debt, and then start making demands with menaces.
Utterly DIShonourable, of course … but they have no other
choice … if they contacted you first, you would tell them to
keep their noses out of your PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS
So they are steeped in DIShonour from the word “Go”
And you can tell them that
And, if you do that long enough, and hard enough, they
generally give up (which often means selling it on to another
firm. You just have to apply the same techniques with all of
them)
(Selling it on twice more, seems to be the limit for them)
70
17/07/2015
Debt Collectors & Bailiffs (4)

If they say “They are acting as Agents” (normal!), you
can say “I don’t deal with Agents. I’ll deal with the
Organ Grinder, not the Monkey. Go back to
whoever you are Agents for, and tell them that’s
the situation. Now get off my doorstep, you have
no right to be here”




There are ongoing ‘moves’ to use the fact that they are
eventually forced to give up … to say that their original
claims were – therefore – fraudulent … including those
of the Originator
And to use this to create Statutory Demands for
compensation due to their frauds/blackmails/extortion
attempts/racketeering
(Being arrogant) Debt Collection Agencies ignore the
Statutory Demands … which leaves their firms wide open
to being Wound Up as insolvent.
They have got away with all of this for far too long … it’s
long past time to take back our own Country
71
17/07/2015
Debt Collectors & Bailiffs (5)




Even the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 says (the
obvious) “Once a debt has been paid, that debt is
extinguished”
So, when a firm of Debt Collectors/Bailiffs buys a
debt … it’s PAID OFF … EXTINGUISHED …
according to the BoE Act 1882! (THEY PAID IT OFF
FOR YOU!)
Which is why it would be CRUCIAL for them to
contact you first, and to establish an obligation to
pay them back (i.e. create a NEW debt agreement
specifically with you)
And you can tell them so
72
17/07/2015
Stopped/Arrested by the Policymen
(NON-COMMON LAW only i.e. for
Statute violations ONLY!)

You have two options (depends on your circumstances):


1. (If you can afford the time … to spend in the cells!) DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR NAME,
under any circumstances (say "I haven't got one!") (doesn't matter even if you have
ID on you & get searched … FOR THEIR PURPOSES YOU STILL HAVE TO ADMIT TO
YOUR NAME)
2. If you DO give them your Name (in order to get out of their clutches as soon as
possible), then you'll need to sign something. After your Signature, write "signed under
force & duress, so does not count IN LAW". They won't like this, but they will have
to accept it (compromise?). DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, say anything, or
admit to anything. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ‘make a Statement’!
 "Have you arrested me, yes or no?“ … ("Yes“)
 "Have you cautioned me, yes or no?“ … ("Yes“)
 "Have you charged me, yes or no?“ … ("Yes“)


"Then you have reached the limits of your function. I do NOT propose to
enter into a Pre-Trial Trial with you. You are not a qualified Judge or
Magistrate, are you? I will say anything I need to say in Court“
(In Court, it is: “Are you acting under your Oath of Office at this time?”)
73
17/07/2015
That’ll do (for now … well almost)






In order to be free, you have to think “free” 24/7/365 … and act free
24/7/365
And no-one else can do that for you
You have to question EVERTHING (yes … including what I’ve said!), and
think it through for yourself
You have to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for EVERTHING you do,
and to point out to everyone else that they need to do the same (that
their ‘office or uniform’ does not protect them … any more than “Only
obeying orders” protected Nazis, at Nuremberg, after WWII. Pilots,
spraying us with Chemtrails, have no excuse in Law. They should have
found out exactly what they were spraying … before doing it … and
refused)
EVERYONE’S responsibility – as one SOVEREIGN Human - to any other
SOVEREIGN Human - is UNLIMITED!
Currently we are working on the Commercial Lien process in order to
utilise the foregoing statements to create Common Law protections.
There are (pretty good) reasons to believe that a Commercial Lien is our
ultimate defensive ‘clout’ … while ‘they’, and the system, still remain
under the sad illusion/delusion of “money”
74
17/07/2015
Finally … in conclusion …




There is a lot more to this, of course
One major thing is to keep it out of Court, if possible. By means of writing
letters, which cause the Protagonists to think twice about taking the
matter that far
Particularly in the cases of demands emanating from Financial Institutions
To this end the DebtBust Application was written … available via …
debtbust.fmotl.com


… this application will write the letters for you.
There are now THOUSANDS doing this in the UK alone. There is every
reason to suspect that (NOW!) when a DCA receives one of our letters,
they groan “Oh no! Not ANOTHER one!” … and put it to one side … being
unable to deal with it
WE HAVE –NEVER- HAD ONE REPLY – FROM ANYONE – THAT
ACTUALLY MADE SENSE
75
17/07/2015
Handy links?








They all end in fmotl.com (and note lowercase!)
reality.
forum.
radio.
debtbust.
freedom.
lien.
contempt.



(… for a link to enable this Presentation to be downloaded)
And, obviously, lots more detail in my book “Freedom Is More Than Just A
Seven-Letter Word” (available via Amazon (Google finds it) … or any
Bookshop via its ISBN 978-1-906169-67-1 (now in its 2nd Edition)
Good luck. But remember: DO NOT DO ANYTHING TO ENGAGE
ANY OF THIS UNTIL YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT YOU HAVE
OBTAINED THE CORRECT MINDSET, AND CAN WORK OUT ALL
THE ANSWERS YOU MAY EVER NEED (WHICH IS SOMETHING
THAT COMES TOGETHER WITH THE MINDSET)
76
17/07/2015