FB Post -
Hi All
Here’s a ‘Lunchtime Snippet’ for the newer members...
“Statutes Explained” is a very short pdf which links nicely to yesterday’s post entitled “Living in the Private”. In fact, my writing for this post is probably longer... Lol.
As a brief overview, Government statutes, codes, legislation and acts apply to “persons” - i.e., your legal personality - but they do not apply to men and women, unless we consent to being the ALL CAPS/corporation name on our Birth Certificate, which is the name of our person/corporation on paper. This is also the fictional entity sometimes referred to as ‘The Strawman’... However, these statutes, acts etc. are binding on all corporations - hence the fact that they can be used against them.
For example, no matter what an employee or store manager says, The Equality Act 2010 is binding on any commercial public premises which denies you entry to their shop, restaurant etc for not wearing a mask... and you do not have to tell them why you’re not wearing one of you don’t wish to. After all, it’s private information - and as a private man or woman, you’re now comprehending the difference between the ‘public’ commercial realm, and the private, sovereign, living flesh-and-blood image of our Creator....
We were not given a choice as to whether we agreed with these statutes etc., but your acquiescence is taken as agreement. Fret not - you’re free to withdraw from this tacit agreement at any time, by making our feelings known in writing to whoever needs to know. Having a stand-up argument or confrontation is not the Sovereign way - emotions can sometimes get the better of us, but try to refrain from being in dishonour by arguing. Always be AS-KING by asking questions. Would a King or Queen ever argue? No, as there’s never a need. And remember, as a man or woman you are much, much more than that Royalty title they’re wearing like a jacket.
Giving these businesses and “authorities” a thousand paper cuts when appropriate can be a very fruitful endeavour, and a much more beneficial way to go.
Happy coffee time ☕️ and and always, Much Love to all
???❤️
Statutes Explained
Statutes
A Statute is nothing more than "A Legislated Rule of a Society".
And a Society is nothing more than "A group of like-minded individuals who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals".
A Society must, therefore, have:
1. A Name, such that – for “legal purposes” - it can be
distinguished from all other Societies & individuals;
2. Published its "common goals" - such that individuals can determine whether or not they are "like-minded" - and, if so, to join the Society (become Members, and thus bound by the Society's Legislated Rules i.e. Statutes);
3. A set of determined Legislated Rules (which may always be under review, extension, repeal – as deliberations continue);
4. A defined Membership – such that individuals bound by its Legislated Rules can be distinguished from all others. Including: A method of application to join, with a corresponding method for resignation – whenever an individual may feel that he or she can no longer support the “common goals”. “Applications to join” cannot be under duress, or any kind of deception. Similarly “Resignations” must be free from any recrimination, otherwise questions about the integrity of the Society are raised.
To reiterate: Individuals who become Members must have applied to join without duress, and without deception. Members so joined are bound by the Society’s Legislated Rules. Members can – by their own free will – resign at any time, without recriminations.
Thus, before attempting to apply a Statute to any individual i.e. before considering any individual is bound by any Society’s Legislated Rules, it must be shown that:
A. The Society who’s Legislated Rules are being imposed, has a distinct Name.
B. The Society has published its “common goals”;
C. The individual had joined under said individual’s own free will, without any duress imposed, and without any deception
imposed. By this means the Member has decided to TRUST the Society, and has CONSENTED to the AUTHORITY of the Society’s Disciplinary Body e.g. a Court;
D. The individual has not subsequently resigned, and thus remains a current Member.
If it is not possible to show (A) through (D), above, and action is taken against an individual, then such action is a CRIMINAL TRESPASS upon said individual’s SOVEREIGNTY, and an abuse said individual’s Natural, Inalienable, Rights - under the Common Law of the Land.
And this must apply equally to all individuals without fear or favour, because everyone is equal under the Common Law of the Land.
If you are having any kind of trouble with these concepts, they are easily resolved. Just consider your Solicitor and your Doctor.
Your Solicitor consented, of his or her own free will, to be bound by the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society, when he or she studied and became one.
Your Doctor consented, of his or her own free will, to be bound by the Rules & Regulations of the British Medical Association (another ‘society’ ... see the “soc” within the word), when he or she studied and became one.
Trying to apply the Rules & Regulations of the BMA to your Solicitor is not possible. He or she will say: “The Hippocratic Oath, and those Rules don’t apply to me ... I’m not a Doctor, and only bound by the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society”. (And the Common Law, of course ... but they forget that).
Trying to apply the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society to your Doctor is not possible. He or she will say: “The Law Society’s Rules & Regulations don’t apply to me. I’m not a Lawyer, I’m a Doctor. I’m only bound by my Hippocratic Oath, and the Rules & Regulations of the BMA”. (And the Common Law, of course ... but they forget that).
Unless, and until, it can be shown that one has consented to obey ANY set of Rules & Regulations, by one’s own free will, not under duress, or any kind of deception, ANY and ALL so-called ‘Disciplinary action’ is disreputable, despicable, and dishonourable. Because the 'Disciplinary Body' has not been given any AUTHORITY to do so. And those who perpetrate this kind of activity are simply CRIMINALS – in the true and absolute sense of that word.
This applies to Parliamentary Statutes as much as to any other Society.
The only 'law' that does not require 'consent' is the Common Law, the Law-of-the-Land.
PLEASE FEEL ENTIRELY FREE TO RUN THIS EXPLANATION PAST ANYONE IN THE “LEGAL” PROFESSION.
Hi All
Here’s a ‘Lunchtime Snippet’ for the newer members...
“Statutes Explained” is a very short pdf which links nicely to yesterday’s post entitled “Living in the Private”. In fact, my writing for this post is probably longer... Lol.
As a brief overview, Government statutes, codes, legislation and acts apply to “persons” - i.e., your legal personality - but they do not apply to men and women, unless we consent to being the ALL CAPS/corporation name on our Birth Certificate, which is the name of our person/corporation on paper. This is also the fictional entity sometimes referred to as ‘The Strawman’... However, these statutes, acts etc. are binding on all corporations - hence the fact that they can be used against them.
For example, no matter what an employee or store manager says, The Equality Act 2010 is binding on any commercial public premises which denies you entry to their shop, restaurant etc for not wearing a mask... and you do not have to tell them why you’re not wearing one of you don’t wish to. After all, it’s private information - and as a private man or woman, you’re now comprehending the difference between the ‘public’ commercial realm, and the private, sovereign, living flesh-and-blood image of our Creator....
We were not given a choice as to whether we agreed with these statutes etc., but your acquiescence is taken as agreement. Fret not - you’re free to withdraw from this tacit agreement at any time, by making our feelings known in writing to whoever needs to know. Having a stand-up argument or confrontation is not the Sovereign way - emotions can sometimes get the better of us, but try to refrain from being in dishonour by arguing. Always be AS-KING by asking questions. Would a King or Queen ever argue? No, as there’s never a need. And remember, as a man or woman you are much, much more than that Royalty title they’re wearing like a jacket.
Giving these businesses and “authorities” a thousand paper cuts when appropriate can be a very fruitful endeavour, and a much more beneficial way to go.
Happy coffee time ☕️ and and always, Much Love to all
???❤️
Statutes Explained
Statutes
A Statute is nothing more than "A Legislated Rule of a Society".
And a Society is nothing more than "A group of like-minded individuals who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals".
A Society must, therefore, have:
1. A Name, such that – for “legal purposes” - it can be
distinguished from all other Societies & individuals;
2. Published its "common goals" - such that individuals can determine whether or not they are "like-minded" - and, if so, to join the Society (become Members, and thus bound by the Society's Legislated Rules i.e. Statutes);
3. A set of determined Legislated Rules (which may always be under review, extension, repeal – as deliberations continue);
4. A defined Membership – such that individuals bound by its Legislated Rules can be distinguished from all others. Including: A method of application to join, with a corresponding method for resignation – whenever an individual may feel that he or she can no longer support the “common goals”. “Applications to join” cannot be under duress, or any kind of deception. Similarly “Resignations” must be free from any recrimination, otherwise questions about the integrity of the Society are raised.
To reiterate: Individuals who become Members must have applied to join without duress, and without deception. Members so joined are bound by the Society’s Legislated Rules. Members can – by their own free will – resign at any time, without recriminations.
Thus, before attempting to apply a Statute to any individual i.e. before considering any individual is bound by any Society’s Legislated Rules, it must be shown that:
A. The Society who’s Legislated Rules are being imposed, has a distinct Name.
B. The Society has published its “common goals”;
C. The individual had joined under said individual’s own free will, without any duress imposed, and without any deception
imposed. By this means the Member has decided to TRUST the Society, and has CONSENTED to the AUTHORITY of the Society’s Disciplinary Body e.g. a Court;
D. The individual has not subsequently resigned, and thus remains a current Member.
If it is not possible to show (A) through (D), above, and action is taken against an individual, then such action is a CRIMINAL TRESPASS upon said individual’s SOVEREIGNTY, and an abuse said individual’s Natural, Inalienable, Rights - under the Common Law of the Land.
And this must apply equally to all individuals without fear or favour, because everyone is equal under the Common Law of the Land.
If you are having any kind of trouble with these concepts, they are easily resolved. Just consider your Solicitor and your Doctor.
Your Solicitor consented, of his or her own free will, to be bound by the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society, when he or she studied and became one.
Your Doctor consented, of his or her own free will, to be bound by the Rules & Regulations of the British Medical Association (another ‘society’ ... see the “soc” within the word), when he or she studied and became one.
Trying to apply the Rules & Regulations of the BMA to your Solicitor is not possible. He or she will say: “The Hippocratic Oath, and those Rules don’t apply to me ... I’m not a Doctor, and only bound by the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society”. (And the Common Law, of course ... but they forget that).
Trying to apply the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society to your Doctor is not possible. He or she will say: “The Law Society’s Rules & Regulations don’t apply to me. I’m not a Lawyer, I’m a Doctor. I’m only bound by my Hippocratic Oath, and the Rules & Regulations of the BMA”. (And the Common Law, of course ... but they forget that).
Unless, and until, it can be shown that one has consented to obey ANY set of Rules & Regulations, by one’s own free will, not under duress, or any kind of deception, ANY and ALL so-called ‘Disciplinary action’ is disreputable, despicable, and dishonourable. Because the 'Disciplinary Body' has not been given any AUTHORITY to do so. And those who perpetrate this kind of activity are simply CRIMINALS – in the true and absolute sense of that word.
This applies to Parliamentary Statutes as much as to any other Society.
The only 'law' that does not require 'consent' is the Common Law, the Law-of-the-Land.
PLEASE FEEL ENTIRELY FREE TO RUN THIS EXPLANATION PAST ANYONE IN THE “LEGAL” PROFESSION.