24 Mar 2019

The European Union - A step towards or away from democracy?

In a genuine democracy, the People have proper control over the legislation and regulations which govern their way of life.  However, the larger a system of government becomes, the more it tends to shift away from democracy, lending itself towards increased bureaucracy, reduced accountability and corruption.

British government today is undeniably far from perfect, but the fact remains that the People of Britain currently have the right to elect and recall parliamentary representatives capable of initiating, amending and repealing legislation. Additionally, no legislation may bind successive British governments and no government may remain in power for more than five years without reelection by the People.

Nominally there are three decision-making bodies in the European Union. They are the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council of Ministers.  However, the real power rests completely within the European Commission, which is selected and issues its diktats in such a secretive and random manner that it draws strong comparisons with old Communist Russia.

This EU Commission comprises 28 member countries and is re-formed once every five years, within six months of elections for the European Parliament.  An essential point to be aware of is that the EU Commission is totally independent of all national governments.  Its sole purpose is to represent and uphold the interests of the entire EU as a single entity.  The main consequence of this is that the EU Commission is a law totally unto itself.  It is accountable to nobody and exercises its own absolute power.

The president of the Commission is elected not by the People but through secret deliberations between the governments of the member states. The Commission President is the single most powerful political position within the entire EU. He or she has vastly greater powers than any individual country’s President or Prime Minister.

You might imagine that there would be uproar if individual democratic nations like Britain, Spain, France or Germany selected their presidents and prime-ministers in such a manner. Not through proper elections, but by back-door horse-trading between political parties. Only the Soviet Russia of old, Communist China and other Communist countries like North Korea elect government in such a fashion.  Yet in the EU this is considered acceptable by all its member states.  This has given rise to a growth in anti-EU political movements who believe in transparent democracy and the importance of national sovereignty.

Once chosen, the President selects the other Commissioners, again through secret discussions with the member state governments.

It should be stressed that the EU President and its Commissioners are not MPs, MEPs, or democratically elected officials in any way. Most have never been elected to any office in their lives, yet they hold absolute and arbitrary power in the EU solely on the basis of having been secretly appointed to the Commission.

It is only then up to the European Parliament of elected MEPs to ‘approve’ the appointment of the proposed Commission members – not individually, but as a whole block of 28 people – amazingly by secret ballot and without debate.

With many MEPs being lackeys of the governments of member states – and with the secret ballot facilitating behind the scenes ‘influencing’ – this ‘approval’ is nothing more than a cynical ‘rubber stamp’.  It is done this way every time there is a new European Commission.

With arbitrary and unchecked power, the European Commission alone dictates what legislation to initiate, amend or repeal. Commission diktats (directives or regulations) are formulated, again, in covert negotiations with interest groups, advisory bodies, non-government organisations (NGOs) and other unelected ‘public service’ busybodies and power-brokers.  This offers obvious and serious potential for corruption and unacceptable influence without any form of counterbalance.

Once drafted through this process, any new legislation is presented to the European Parliament. It in turn assigns various Committees of MEPs to examine the detail. Yet even the make-up of these committees is determined indirectly by the Commission’s choice of which “competence” to use as its justification for the legislation in question.

One such committee is known as "COREPER" – the Committee of Permanent Representatives. 

"The core of the EU’s business is done through COREPER – the Committee of Permanent Representatives – a gathering of senior national officials which handles 90 per cent of EU legislation. Its proceedings are treated as state secrets, its documents usually classed as ‘non-papers’, which means they cannot be accessed by the press or the public despite the EU’s supposed open information rules." It's communiqué documents known as Council Conclusions "are a compact between leaders that overrides the relationship between voters and their governments’. This is a key point. " (Ref)

Again, those committees work through secretive deliberations with EU ministers and civil servants, who give directives to political groups in the European Parliament so as to ensure the passage of its proposals. Such laws are presented to the European Parliament only at the discretion of the European Commission.

The European parliament differs from the British parliament in that its representative members cannot initiate, amend or repeal legislation.  In the EU, legislation is exclusively handed down by edict from the European Commission.

As can be seen, the real power in the EU lies with the unelected Commissioners who create the legislation in secret meetings with other unelected bureaucrats, all beyond the reach of the People.  A Member of the European Parliament can only draft legislation proposed by the European Commission, not the other way around. If the European Commission does not want a law, it simply does not propose it. The unelected and unaccountable Commissioners will only present laws that their superiors deem appropriate and in keeping with the EU plan.
"Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services." - Barrister and Research Executive, Matthew Ellery.
A new piece of legislation is only presented for an up or down vote in a set-up where there is virtually no debate – MEPs are allowed to speak for at most one minute per person. As the actual EU legislative history shows, this ‘parliamentary ratification’ amounts to nothing more than the proverbial rubber stamp.

From the European Parliament website - "On certain questions (e.g. taxation) the European Parliament gives only an advisory opinion (the ‘consultation procedure’)."  The European Parliament has no say in how much tax citizens will pay. The unelected unaccountable leaders will decide that.

MEPs are nominated by political parties in various European countries, so they are not personally elected directly by voters. The EU parliamentary elections only decide how many seats will be allotted to each party. The actual choice of the MEPs is entirely up to the party, not the voters.

This naturally means that – except for a small number of anti-EU parties – MEPs are generally lackeys of the EU.  Under such circumstances there is no more opposition to the dictatorial Commission in the European Parliament than there was to Stalin in the Supreme Soviet.

The final decision-making body in this international democratic sham is the EU Council of Ministers.

Unsurprisingly the composition of this Council is also skewed. Member states assign to the Council those ministers who are most acquiescent to the EU and will most readily go along with any diktat from the European Commission. Again, the history of EU legislation demonstrates that the Council of Ministers lacks any real authority whatsoever.

Once EU laws are approved by the Council of Ministers and become European Law, they are presented to the British and other national parliaments. Here they can be debated and notes made of certain provisions.  However, this is pointless because the only effective response an elected parliament may have is to invoke its ‘national veto’.  Originally a ‘national veto’ was supposed to guarantee the sovereignty of each EU member state but, as it is virtually never used.

The final chilling note is that EU legislation is supreme to the member States’ legislation, superseding national statutory legislation, unlawfully giving no regard to Britain’s Common Law Constitution.  

Over the years, by ceding power to the EU, the British Government has broken its own statutory constitution - the 1689 Bill of Rights, which clearly states that no power of government can be surrendered to a foreign authority:
"I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God."
More importantly, the British Government has breached the Common Law Constitution (1215 Magna Carta) which defines the British People's authority under Common Law to control the laws and Statutes which govern their lives. 

If British sovereignty continues to be handed over to Brussels by a misleading and dishonest Establishment, future Britons will be subject to whatever legislation is imposed upon them by an undemocratic foreign system with unknown intentions. Intentions which are predictable based upon the nature of the true powers behind the birth and evolution of the EU.

A People without any real power to control the legislation which governs them cannot be truly free. This is an essential truth that is being masked and out-ranks all other arguments for or against the EU.

We need to keep government small, but we also need to keep the influence of big business small, and we need to keep the power in the hands of the people, where it belongs. Big government and big business are not the only two alternatives.  A return to the dominance of the People's Common Laws in Europe and true Common Law democracies throughout the civilized and beautifully diverse European Nation States should be our core focus.

14 Feb 2019

What sort of 'Person' are you?

The British government controls and regulates the members of its society with statutory 'laws'.  We are governed and policed through our presumed consent as members of this society.  The statutory system recognises its members as ‘subjects’, ‘citizens’ and ‘persons’.  It is valuable to try and understand the true definition of a ‘person’, from the State system’s perspective.  This may help in understanding how the State regards its subjects, what standing they have in that jurisdiction, and indeed if they lawfully belong there.

SUA CUIQUE PERSONA - “To each his own mask”.

The first word to consider when analyzing definitions of words, should really be the word ‘define’ or ‘definition’.  A definition is an exact statement of the exact meaning of a word. In defining a word, we are looking to narrow the scope for misinterpretation, to take a word from a potentially infinite range of meanings and get as close as possible to a finite meaning through a process we call definition.  This is an honest process with the intention of seeking clear meaning and avoiding misinterpretation.  A definition should provide an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.  The degree of definition of something relates to its clarity, the more highly defined something is the greater its clarity.  The more accurate we can be with our definitions of words or concepts, the better our clarity of meaning, therefore translating into a greater understanding of those words and concepts.

From my experience and research, the current statutory system can and will only deal with ‘persons’, but the type of person it will normally deal with, while not exactly synonymous with the flesh and blood, is always attached, for better or worse, to a man, woman or child.

In a Common Law situation, no use of deceptive or misleading language, words or symbols is permitted, only common English and a meeting of the minds for coherent communication of meanings and intentions.
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” – James Maddison
The statutory legal system requires “interpretation” by trained and licensed legal experts because it is communicated in an exclusive language called legalese.  Without being a fully trained expert in legalese it is impossible to know exactly what is being agreed to in this system of contractual regulation, which is in itself unlawful because authentic consent cannot be properly realised.

The definition of the word ‘person’ is an important example of the great potential of being mislead within the statutory legal system.  If the definition used in common language is different to the one used to enforce statute, then the public are at a distinct disadvantage and arguably may even be the victims of a deception and fraud, which at common law is a crime.

English dictionary definitions of ‘person’ mean what most people would expect from common English:

Oxford dictionary - "A human being regarded as an individual."

Collins dictionary - "A person is a man, woman, or child.

Macmillan dictionary – "An individual human, usually an adult."

Merriam-Webster – "Human, Individual."


The etymology of the word person is derived from the Latin word ‘persona’ means ‘actor's mask’.  There are several definitions of ‘person’ in Blacks Law Dictionary alone:
  • A human being.  [No further legal definition for ‘human being’ is given]
  • An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognised by law as having the rights & duties of a human being.
  • Artificial Person: An entity, such as a corporation, created by law.  Also termed a fictitious person; juristic person; legal person; moral person.
  • Natural Person: A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.
  • Personality – The legal status of one regarded by the law as a person; the legal conception by which the law regards a human being or an artificial entity as a person.
  • Also termed legal personality.

It can therefore be appreciated that in the legal language of ‘Legalese’ the definition of the word or title of ‘person’ has many different meanings and statuses.  It’s also worth noting that although Blacks Law Dictionary uses the description “human being” to define the person, it fails to define and recognise what a human being is in law.  Clarity on this issue is of paramount importance.

Many well researched individuals argue that, by legal definition, a ‘human-being’ is NOT a ‘legal person’, however a human-being may possess a ‘legal person’ that is created as a legal entity via the statutory legal system.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856. - Person –

In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms.”

In UK legislation, The Interpretation Act 1978 goes part of the way in defining a ‘person’:

In Schedule 1 – Definitions –

" British subject " and " Commonwealth citizen " have the same meaning, that is –

1948 c. 56. (a) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1948 is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in a country mentioned in section 1(3) of that Act is a citizen of that country ;”

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

1889 c.63 (5) includes this definition for "PERSON": 

“(5) The definition of "person ", so far as it includes bodies corporate, applies to any provision of an Act whenever passed relating to an offence punishable on indictment or on summary conviction.”

Both above definitions use the word "includes" but do not define "PERSON". 

The next logical question must be, “What is the legal definition of a ‘subject’ and a ‘citizen’?

By definition, as a noun, a ‘subject’ is someone who submits to the rule of another - “One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler.”

A citizen, by definition, “is a member of a jural society, (civitas), possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.” – 2nd Ed. Blacks.


It is worth repeating that 'subjects' and 'citizens' are subject to the jurisdiction of the State by consent, however the Government is subject to the jurisdiction of the Common Law of the People.

Jurisprudence, 1924.

In his award winning 1924 book, ‘Jurisprudence’ (7th Ed.) the British professor of law and Solicitor-General for New Zealand: Sir John Salmond states:

It is not permissible to adopt the simple device of saying that a person means a human being” - s.108, p.272.

“In the law there may be men who are not persons; slaves, for example, are destitute of legal personality in any system, which regards them as incapable of either rights or liabilities.  Like cattle, they are things and the object of rights; not persons and the subjects of them.” - s.108, p.272

“Conversely there are, in the law, persons who are not men. A joint-stock company or a municipal corporation is a person in legal contemplation.” - s.108, p.272

“Persons as so defined are of two kinds, distinguishable as natural and legal.” - s.108, p.272

“A natural person is a being to whom the law attributes personality in accordance with reality and truth. Legal persons are beings, real or imaginary, to whom the law attributes personality by way of fiction, when there is none in fact.”

“Natural persons are persons in fact as well as in law; legal persons are persons in law but not in fact.”

Of the two kinds of person, Prof. Salmond states that “The only natural persons are human beings.” - s109, p.273. 

"Persons,'" says Coke, "are of two sorts, persons natural created of God, and persons incorporate or politique created by the policy of man (and therefore they are called bodies politique;” (s.114, p.282)

Body Politic – “When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

“A legal person is any subject-matter to which the law attributes a merely legal or fictitious personality.”… “this recognition of persons who are not men, is one of the most noteworthy feats of the legal imagination”.

“Legal persons, being the arbitrary creations of the law, may be of as many kinds as the law pleases. Those which are actually recognised by our own system, however, all fall within a single class, namely corporations or bodies corporate.” (s.113, p.280)


The Person’s Case

The legal definition of the word ‘person’ made an internationally significant appearance in the courts in 1928, both in Canada and England in what became known as the ‘The Canadian Famous Five and the Person's Case’.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) guarantees that "every individual is equal before and under the law... without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability,".  Until 1929, women could not be appointed to the Senate or hold public office even if they were granted the right to vote in federal elections in 1918. In fact, one simple word denied women access to the Senate and public life. The word "persons" in the Canadian Constitution did not include women.

A group of dedicated female activists from Alberta, known as the "Famous Five," supported by various groups and associations in Canada, struggled vigorously to change the existing legal definition of a ‘person’. Using a section of the Supreme Court Act allowing constitutional change if petitioned by at least five citizens, these women requested an answer to the question about whether women could serve in the Canadian Senate. The Canadian Supreme Court denied their claim, stating that women were not classed as ‘persons’ in legislation.  The final and decisive response came from the Privy Council in England on October 18, 1929, which made a ruling that women were entitle to be regarded legally as ‘persons’.  Today Canada celebrates “Person’s Day” every October 18th in memory of this.


Summing up

The use of the term, name or title of ‘Person’ is in itself not negative, but we do need to be aware of the form and context in which it is used in the Statutory legal system. There are in effect three types of ‘person’ which in our own language are easily identified:

The first person – I, though, me, my, mine, myself, we, us, our, ours and ourselves.

The second person – you, yours, yourself and yourselves.

The third person – he, she, it, they, them, their, theirs and themselves.

In the Statutory system there are also types of person, identifications which are recognised and affected differently by statutes. The first person (man/woman) is regarded as the ‘Natural Person’, the 'propria persona' as Office of Man or Woman. The second person (Agent) is known as an ‘Artificial Person’ in 'sui juris' (“one’s own right”) as Agent of the Principal. The third person (Thing) is known as the ‘Legal Person’ or ‘Statutory Person’ or ‘Surrogate Person’ in 'alieni juris' (“under the control of another as ward, lunatic or infant”). In a Statutory court, unless you are able to prove your standing and capacity as a fully grown, informed and aware man/woman, the court will assume that you are a ward of the State, a ‘thing’ over which it claims absolute control and jurisdiction.

In the common language sense, by legal definition, only a “natural person” can be considered by the statutory legal system as a breathing, flesh and blood ‘human being’ with inalienable human-rights at Common Law.

The only other alternative within the statutory system is to be an ‘artificial person’: that is, an entity, such as a “persons incorporate or politique created by the policy of man, created by law” also called a ‘fictitious person’, ‘juristic person’ or ‘legal person’.

If dealing with the statutory legal system in any way, it is worth knowing which status of person you are being classed as:  a ‘natural person’ with Common Law rights, or an ‘artificial person’, a legal fiction without human rights or Common Law rights.

If the statutory system operates upon assumption and presumption of your awareness and knowledge, which it apparently does, it is in the defendant’s best interest to seek clarity and definition from the outset. 

The legal person is the title of the contract - the agreement where you consented, through the signature of registration of birth, to enter into the statutory jurisdiction of the Crown Corporation.  It is this contract which is in fact the real fiction of the whole system, because it's simply fraudulent.  It’s all based on a ‘beneficial claim’ standpoint.  The jurisdiction of the State is in effect claiming that the members of its society have voluntarily agreed and consented to give over beneficial use of themselves and their efforts, some call this ‘sweat equity’, to the benefit of the State, in return for the ‘privileges’ of citizenship.  Registering into the jurisdiction of the State in return for protections or privileges of some kind which come with agreed obligations, such as adhering to State policies - statutes.




The fraud which makes the contract a fiction centers around the fact that you never knowing consented to enter into a contract with this society, with the 'State', with the Crown Corporation of London.  The system appears to have bypassed the essential formality of full and proper contractual disclosure and is operating under the presumption and assumption that you know what your parents registered you into, even though they had no idea themselves.

This claim of a fraud must be addressed by the courts. It is fair to say that the registration into this society was uninformed, deceitful and that you are a victim of infancy as you were signed into this without your consent as a baby.  The State must then rebut this claim by producing proof that this contract was fully informed and legitimately consented to.  The Crown Corporation is fraudulently staking a claim as a false beneficiary of your estate.  Your estate includes all property, and property includes your rights.


Meet your Stawman:


The Hidden Power of the Private (Natural) Person:

5 Feb 2019

The Real Powers Behind the Creation of the European Union

In 1921, Socialist politician and financial adviser to the European 'Banking Elite', Walter Rathenau, writing in the Wiener Press on 24 December said:
 “Only 300 men, each of whom knows all others govern the fate of Europe. They select their successors from their own entourage. These men have the means in their hands of putting an end to the form of State which they find unreasonable.” 
Exactly six months after publication, Rathenau was assassinated.



Looking at the trail of evidence today, it's clearly the case that Rathenau's statement was no exaggeration and offers a clue to the reality of the who are the real shakers and movers behind the creation of the European Union.  Preparations were being made long before the 1970s to create a federal United States of Europe, ruled by the long-standing 'Crypto-Elite'.

Although a foreign concept to most of the political class today, truth must always be the cornerstone of any honorable and healthy society.  Unfortunately, as you are about to see, the EU has been founded from its very beginnings upon provable dishonesty and deceit, all necessary as part of aged plans for it to morph surreptitiously, through a process known as 'Gradualism', into an increasingly undemocratic 'Super-State'.

After 1929 British Prime Minister Winston Churchill spoke openly of a "United States of Europe".  Prior to this time Churchill had very different views and was outspoken on the threats posed by Maxist Globalism.  Churchill enjoyed a very lavish lifestyle and following the 1929 stock market crash and the 'Great Depression', he went bankrupt and was struggling to finance his luxury lifestyle, he was also on the brink of losing Chartwell, his staffed luxury family home.  Alas, between 1930 and 1939 Churchill was bailed out as he became financed by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the Focus.  British historian David Irving investigated this matter.  In his book on Churchill, “Churchill’s War” he details who the Focus group were and their arrangement with Churchill.  After this point Churchill turned full circle and teamed up with those that he'd previously been highly critical of.

As early as 1930, the American weekly magazine Saturday Evening Post published an article by Winston Churchill under the title "The United States of Europe". In 1942, Churchill, then the prime minister of Britain, stated: "I am looking forward to a United States of Europe." 



 In his famous Zurich speech of 1946, Churchill said:
“We must build a kind of United States of Europe. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. […] If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.”

In Paris, in 1948, he stressed that his aim was to establish the United States of Europe, which would be governed by one government, one parliament, one court of justice and one economic council. In May 1948, the Movement for a United Europe held their European congress. Its leading advocate was once again Winston Churchill. One of seven resolutions of the congress read: "The creation of a United Europe has to be regarded as a crucial step towards the creation of a united world."

Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, said in 1952: 
“Europe’s Nations should be guided towards the Superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to Federation.”

The French statesman Jean Monnet, (1888 - 1979), who in 1956 was appointed president of the "Action Committee for the United States of Europe"





A shorter quote attributed to Monnet was referenced by Vaclav Klaus in the book ‘Europe: The Shattering of Illusions’:
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the Superstate without their people understanding what is happening.”
Monnet met secretly with Heath and Macmillan on innumerable occasions to facilitate British entry. Indeed, he was informed before the British Parliament of the terms in which the British approach to Europe would be framed.



In the early 1960s, despite advice from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, that British membership would mean the end of parliamentary sovereignty, Macmillan deliberately misled the House of Commons — and practically everyone else, from Commonwealth statesmen to cabinet colleagues and the public — that merely minor commercial negotiations were involved. He even tried to deceive De Gaulle that he was an anti-federalist and a close friend who would arrange for France, like Britain, to receive Polaris missiles from the Americans. De Gaulle saw completely through him and vetoed the British bid to enter.

Macmillan left Edward Heath to take matters forward, and Heath, along with Douglas Hurd, arranged — according to the Monnet's papers — for the Tory Party to become a (secret) corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe.

According to Monnet’s chief aide and biographer, Francois Duchene, both the Labour and Liberal Parties later did the same. Meanwhile the Earl of Gosford, one of Macmillan’s foreign policy ministers in the House of Lords, actually informed the House that the aim of the government’s foreign policy was World Government.

Monnet’s Action Committee was also given financial backing by the CIA and the US State Department. The Anglo-American establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal United States of Europe.

There has been for some considerable length of time an undeniable secretive global cooperation between hidden-Elite groups who wish to control the direction of the World and their rule over it.  Its now very well known that the global elite operate very much in the shadows through a complex network of exclusive so-called ‘think-tanks’, such as the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Round Table and many others.


In the UK, one of the more well-known sub-groups is the Fabian Society.  In 1884 the Fabian Society was formed by a faction of this group, with the intent of engineering change through Gradualism - a policy of gradual reform from within a system rather than sudden change or violent revolution. This would become the basis for what is today called Fabian Socialism.

The word Fabian derives from the Roman general Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemy over an extended period of time. This is similar to the way Fabian Socialism works to implement its agenda of a one world state. It’s no coincidence that the international symbol for Fabianism is the slow-moving turtle with the motto "When I strike I strike hard", this replaced their older shield which gave their game away displaying a wolf in sheep’s clothing.





Researcher and author, Ioan Ratiu, provides in the book "The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World.", a critical study of the Milner Group and the Fabian Society, explaining how these two closely related organisations were set up in the late 1800s by banking and industrial interests for the purpose of subverting the existing order and assisting in the movement towards a new world order. 

The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy was written as a sequel to Carroll Quigley's "The Anglo-American Establishment", and Rose Martin's "Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A.".  Another of Professor Carrol Quigley's books - "Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" is described as "the ultimate insider admission of a secret global elite that has impacted nearly every modern historical event. Learn how the Anglo-American banking elite were able to secretly establish and maintain their global power."



It would be nice to think that the European Union developed specifically for the good of the People, however it doesn't require much research before one recognises the fundamental lack of democratic process existing in the systems of the European Union and its processes of government. It also becomes apparent that the EU is a sophisticated system designed to increasingly and inconspicuously serve the requirements of its designers.

In Britain we can propose new legislation and seek to amend or repeal old legislation through our elected parliamentary representatives.  Admittedly our system has deteriorated, but it is far more accountable to it's People and should be much easier to democratically reshape than the current undemocratic and monolithic EU.  The resistance to Britain's withdrawal from the EU is proof enough of the EU's stubbornness and unwillingness to fairly negotiate.  

The European Parliament differs from the British parliament in that a representative member cannot initiate, propose or repeal legislation.  That is all done by unelected Commissioners.  The real law making power in the EU lies with unelected officials who create the laws in secret meetings with other unelected bureaucrats, beyond the reach of the People.  

It has been my personal observation that the EU appears impervious to public opinion.  The structure of the EU is perfectly designed to serve the ruling-elite as it offers power without accountability.  
"Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services." - Barrister and Research Executive, Matthew Ellery.
The EU has been bureaucratically ratcheting more and more power from its Peoples with every passing month and year.  The late Tony Benn clearly warned us of these issues for some time.  He understood and knew very well that the EU was about "Empire" from the beginning:


In the 1960s-70s the key members of the British Establishment concerned with aiding in the birth of the European Super-State were keen to keep any awareness of the inevitable loss of British national sovereignty to the EU hidden from the public, as evidenced by the now declassified letter to Ted Heath from the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Kilmuir (FCO 30/1048 now sits with other documents in a public bulk file titled Shoe-horned into the EU ).  Edward Heath knew that the alleged “Common Market” would turn into a European Government which would therefore unlawfully surrender vital parts of our British Constitution to Brussels undermining our democracy over a period of three decades (Read), information which was of course withheld from public awareness deliberately.


By ceding more and more power to the EU over the last forty years, Parliament has broken its own parliamentary constitution - the 1689 Bill of Rightswhich for obvious reasons clearly states that no powers can be surrendered to a foreign authority:
"I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God."
More importantly Parliament has breached the Common Law Constitution, the 1215 Magna Carta, a treaty defining the People's will under Common Law to hold sovereignty themselves. 

According to the Act of Settlement 1700 s4 “The laws of England are the birthright of the people”.


Part of the Lord Chief Justice's advice to Heath reads :

"This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says: 
It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason…”

“This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire 1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 [...] No such power exists for parliament to do this.”

“This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason…”
To actively destroy or seek to undermine the People's Constitution is defined as treason -  Regina v Thistlewood, 1820. 

A People without the power to create and amend the laws which govern them do not live in a true democracy.  The destruction of Common Law Constitutions and the shifting of national sovereignty from the People into the hands of those wishing to rule over them, is of course fundamental to the aims of the hegemonic Globalist Elite.


The now departed Globalist guru of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission,Zbigniew Brzezinski, who later became President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, in 1970 wrote a book entitled "Between Two Ages." in which he has nothing but praise for Marxism:

"Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision...Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief...Marxism, disseminated on the popular level in the form of communism, represents a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to the world." - Marxism inspired Bolshevism and Maoist Communism resulting in the genocide of approximately 160 million people between 1917-1957.
In the proposed two-tier governmental system of the new world order, of which the Federation of Europe will form a key part, Communism is to be the preferred model of organisation of the 'ruled-class'.  Brzezinski, wrote in 1969, “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Today's advocates of Globalism are growing increasingly confident of their aims and less secretive about their need for Nations to surrender sovereignty to the EU. Here, staunch Europhile, Lord Michael Heseltine, when discussing his desire to see a second referendum on 'Brexit', declares on an open media platform that "national sovereignty has no relationship to the real world that we live in".




In the following 20 second clip, MEP Guy Verhofstadt shows his frustration as he demands that more member States must willingly give over their sovereignty to the EU:



At the entrance to the visitors center of the European Parliament, there is a plaque which reads: 
"National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times...  The only final remedy for this evil is the Federal Union of the Peoples"
Tony Benn recommended asking the following questions as a test of those seeking to represent you and your family's interests: What power have you got? Where did you get it from?  In whose interests do you exercise it?  To whom are you accountable?  How can we get rid of you?

Over some considerable time, even before we started on our path to membership of the EU, it is obvious that liberties have been taken, constitutional laws have been broken and a process of very long-term national subversion has been implemented.  Our monetary system has been compromised, our Common Law Constitution obfuscated, and our government has been developed along the pro-oligarchy systems of Roman Civil Law, whilst our attention and awareness has been manipulated through institutions such as the Tavistock Institute and the corporate-controlled mainstream-media.  


Conclusion

Unfortunately, most people don't have time to independently research or simply prefer to blindly trust different political, social and scientific fabrications; and therefore deny any suggestion of the possibility of hidden powers of control behind the scenes.  They do not want to see that the most important political, economic and social events in the world are not haphazard, but planned and orchestrated by those with far-reaching and layered agendas.

"We have to face up to an enemy that re-writes our history, dominates our economy, infiltrates our religions or destroys all faith systems and takes over our national affairs by stealth, the creation of usury and dominance of a socialism, which promotes the left-wing but is an extreme right-wing presence. 
The thin line between democracy and oligarchy has been crossed. Now it is time through peaceful entrenchments and singleness of purpose to turn a back on the “Internationalists” and to refuse to co-operate with their greed and deregulation. Such a battle cannot be won until some politicians realize that their friend and advisor has a brother in another country who also plays chess with national finance, education, politics and religion. 
Our job is to find out what is behind the darkness, the sinister, the enslaving of the people, and then to know and use the power of knowledge, but used peacefully and in a good cause. A nation learning to say “No” to international bankers is a nation that survives, but one that thinks it can deal with and be at peace with this menace will be ensnared from within and without. 
Our way to change is to find the truth and to speak it and to so communicate it with infuriating passion, so that only the corrupt sleepers in the establishment, rising into view on a tide of knowledge, are forced into the retirement that they so richly deserve." - William Stuart, The Invisible College.
 
The incredibly beautiful and diversely rich cultures of Europe must be preserved by halting the destructive agendas of the Crypto-Elite.

Its not enough for those that care to seek the truth. The truth must be spoken and shared, not with foolish enthusiasm but with effective intelligence.  For the truth to have a far reaching voice, increasing censorship of the alternative media must be opposed, and a free and decentralised block-chain based internet must be maintained at any cost.  

The shackles of usury via the fractional-reserve debt-based money system must also be removed and replaced with proper monetary reform.  Sovereign national credit is probably the most powerful solution.

Common law must re-enter public consciousness and take its place of preeminence above Roman civil statutes.  Only then can Platonic egalitarianism succeed over Aristotelean supremacist ideologies.  

29 Jun 2018

'Rule of Law' or to 'Rule through the law', this is the question. Common Law v. Statutes


With the considerable growth of international commerce and powerful corporations, combined with the ever-present need of the few to rule the many, the commercial legal system known as Roman Civil Law, has expanded internationally and led to the existence of bijural (dual jurisdiction) systems of regulation in all the World's Common Law countries.  The British Government's legislation is based in the system of Roman Civil Law.

A David with the head of Goliath statue in the gardens of Schwerin Castle in northern Germany.
These two competing systems of regulation, the ancient and preeminent jurisdiction of Common Law and the subordinate statutory jurisdiction of Roman Civil Law are in constant ideological conflict with each other. 

The primary and compelling reason for the United States’ Declaration of Independence was to eliminate the Roman civil legal system from the domestic law of the colonies due to its potential for conflict with freedom.

Briefly, and stated in general terms, the basic concepts of these two systems are diametrically opposed. In the Roman statutory legal system, the source of all regulations is the State or the personal ruler, it or he is sovereign. In the common law, the source of all law is the People, and they as a whole are sovereign.  The most prominent distinction between common law and the statutory legal system is that common laws are principle based and applied equally to all men, while the statutes of the Roman legal system are more prescriptive, can only hold jurisdiction over legally registered consenting persons and can be made to apply to specified parts of society.

The Roman civil legal system is recognised as lending itself towards an oligarchic state, whereas the true democracy enhancing Saxon Common Law promotes moral self-determination of the People by the People under a Constitution created by the People.  The Roman civil legal system is a top-down authority, whereas the Common Law system is a people-up authority, with the People as the foundation of power.

During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society.  The Roman civil legal system and its fundamental concepts have been the instrument through which men of genius and self-serving ambition have set up and maintained despotisms through trading and money.  Whereas the common law, with its basic moral principles being the instrument through which men of equal genius but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions.

Society has been hierarchical for millennia, revolving around the status of individuals and organisations.  The words state, statute, statutory all have their root in the word status.  By legal definition, a ‘society’ is “a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.” 

All Acts of Parliament are statutes known as legislation, they are technically not laws.  They are parliamentary legislated policies, which determine what is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ - words which are derived from the word ‘legislated’ and ‘legislation’.  A ‘Statute’ is defined as a rule or policy of a society, an edict of legislation used to govern that society.  Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. 

Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by barristers and solicitors trained by the State to serve the State’s legal system, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning Statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’.  

The word ‘Statute’ is legally defined as: “A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”  By its own definition it is not a law, it is only given the force of law by the consent of those who have entered into an agreement to be governed.  The Latin maxim - Consensus Facit Legem - means ‘Consent makes the law’, and to be lawful the consent must be free and fair and should not be induced by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or mistake. 

A law differs from a statute in that law applies to all individuals in the land regardless of consent, for example nobody is above the Common Law crime of murder.  Equality before the law is the principle that each independent being must be treated equally by the law - principle of isonomy - and that all are subject to the same laws of justice.  Whereas statutes require consent and apply to defined sectors of society, as per the details of the relevant Act of Parliament.

The 1689 Bill of Rights makes a distinction between laws and statutes – “All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm”.

Acts of Parliament become Statutes – primary legislation which in turn are enacted and enforced by statutory instruments – secondary legislation.  For example, council tax is a statutory instrument enacted under its primary legislation the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference.  Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.  Parliament can only create, amend and repeal Acts of Parliament, and according to its own parliamentary constitution, the Acts created by previous Governments cannot bind successive Governments.  Parliament cannot create, amend or repeal Common Laws as it does not have authority over the higher jurisdiction of Common Law.  Parliament is in fact bound by the preeminent jurisdiction of Common law, which means that all its statutes must not breach Common Law.

Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time.  Statutes can come and go based upon the whims and agendas of Government.  The fabric of a law may be copied into a statute but if later repealed as a statute, the Common Law obviously remains in force.  Only a proper convention of the People or the jury of a properly convened Common Law Court de Jure may change the law though a unanimous decision. 

The 1297 statute version of the Magna Carta is a perfect example. When referring to the Magna Carta, the misinformed will sometimes state that it has been repealed, but they are referring to the statute version without awareness that there is a Common Law version.  The statute version has been mostly repealed by Government, but the 1215 Common Law Magna Carta is out of the reach of Parliament and remains perfectly untouched. 

The land commonly known as Britain is a Common Law jurisdiction, and Parliament and the National Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are legal incorporated entities.  Legal entities of any and all natures and descriptions necessarily require voluntary agreements in order to make claim to or assert authority and control over other parties and their property.  As mentioned earlier, the jurisdiction of the statutory legal system is voluntary, where legitimate members must be fully informed and lawfully consenting volunteers, being fully aware of the system into which they are, or have been, contractually obligated.

Government has the task and duty to pass lawful and just legislation in an equitable administration of the uncontroversial ‘nuts and bolts’ of day-to-day life. This is, of course, provided government operates legitimately; always within the legal and lawful parameters set by its own self-regulating statutes but most importantly in accordance with the common law Constitution, as defined by the 1215 Common Law Magna Carta.

Whilst the Common Laws are of the People for the protection and empowerment of the People, the statutory legislation is created and modified by the State to regulate the privileges, obligations and punishments of its consenting membership.  It is the generally accepted viewpoint that Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’, as they frequently like to claim.  As the electorate, the intention is never to give ‘power’ to those that are elected, but merely to lend it to them for representation, trusting that that sovereignty should be returned to the electorate complete and intact at the end of a term of government.

Government legislation is created to both protect and limit its subjects’ civil rights.  Subjects can only do what the State’s legislation, rules and regulations allow them to do.  For the allowance of some statutory rights a subject must seek permission, through an application for a permit or license to do certain activities or practices which would otherwise be classed as illegal without a permit or license.  Subjects must comply with the State’s regulations or face liabilities, such as warnings, suspended sentences, fines or imprisonment. 

As a voluntary subject of the State’s statutory legal system, an individual is presumed to have knowingly consented to step into the much more limited jurisdiction of the increased regulations of the State’s authority and control, in return for whatever benefits the State provides.  As with joining any society or corporation, an individual may have to accept increased regulations as part of that society or corporation’s contractual obligations, but he shall remain protected by the legal and lawful jurisdictions above, obviously including the preeminent Common Laws of the land.

To be recognised within the statutory jurisdiction of the State an individual must be registered into the system as a ‘legal person’.  By doing so, that individual is entering, or being entered by his parents, into a system of contract, where both parties, the State and the ‘person’, seek to benefit from their interactions as per the terms and conditions of what should be a fully disclosed and lawful agreement.  This may involve some of an individual’s sovereign liberties being conceded in order to meet the terms required to participate in the State society.

As men and women, in Common Law we are all equal and subject to all the laws of British common law jurisdiction.  The State’s statutory jurisdiction should rightfully only have authority over its registered citizenship.  Not all members of society are of the same status, therefore, the legislative Acts of Parliament within that statutory jurisdiction do not apply equally to all members.  Members must have consented and contracted with the statutory jurisdiction of Parliament in order to become subject to its regulations, whereas we are all automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the Common Law of the land. 

To satisfy true and lawful consent of contract into statutory jurisdiction, the process of contract must have included full and proper disclosure, with clarity of meaning, and without deception, fraud or operation based upon assumption or presumption.  Without full disclosure, a ‘meeting of the minds’ and lawful consent, the validity of all contracts in the statutory jurisdiction can be challenged.  But it is my understanding that most people don’t even know that there are two different jurisdictions of regulation in Britain, and most certainly are not aware that lawful compliance with statutes should be properly informed and agreed rather than being based upon the presumption and assumption of consent, as is the reality today.

The theory of government is that we have surrendered some of our rights to the Government, so that the Government will protect the rights that we have not surrendered.  That’s the idea behind, the Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.  Does anyone… know anyone now living, who consented to the Government? The answer is no.  The idea that Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed is a fiction.  The fiction is that we have consented to the surrender of our rights.  The reality is that our rights have been stolen from us because the Government monopolizes force.  It’s a sad and terrible reality but it is a reality.”  – U.S. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Parliament played no part in the creation of the people’s great Common Law Magna Carta of 1215. The Great Charter was made by the People directly, to reiterate and reassert their existing Common Law rights of self-rule and sovereignty, explicitly to preclude tyranny, injustice and misgovernance by binding all Heads of State and the modus operandi of government for all time under judicium parium - equal justice - the Trial by Jury justice system of the Law of the Land.  

The British Parliament has always been bound by the superior jurisdiction of the Common Law Constitution of the 1215 Magna Carta, with the additional but obviously forgotten promise of the Monarch to protect the laws of the land, as detailed in the Coronation Oath.