Faith in Common Law Democracy
Only in the USA could this scenario unfold…
https://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2024/06/x22-report-trump-has-set-the-stage-for-the-debates-down-the-deep-state-goes-strikes-will-come-fast-a-must-video-3695497.html
Stay safe and sane in this crazy world..
We have been sent this 4-minute mp4 file (which has some rather sombre music) it shows how each birth is handled.
Whether the infant lives or dies at birth, it is recorded and tracked, used for profit and, as we have already discovered, carries a typical lapse date on the bond of ten thousand years.
“We are not a political party nor are we a religious cult; we are simply a group of living beings, flesh and blood, spiritually united in heart and soul. We stand as individuals yet built together under a common law, which is shared by all, owned by none and which is superior to any statute. We each have a personal commitment, divinely inspired, to do no harm, to cause no loss to others, to commit no fraud and to keep the peace.”
Foreword:
Reader, if you think this is an odd way to start a message, perhaps that’s because you haven’t yet realized that we are engaged in warfare, in a war of a very different kind. we quote the title of the booklet:
‘SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS’ – ISBN – 978-1-58509-380-9
which is (or was) available online. Without summarising the entire 56 pages, we’ll restrict ourselves to just two revealing quotations (Page 9), attributed to a member of the Rothschild dynasty:
“Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its statutes” (the original uses the word ‘laws’ for statutes)
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743 – 1812)
Rothschild knew how to influence and control people and their money. The principle is ‘when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you’.
The Keys to the Safe:
Over the past 18 months, with several trusted co-workers we have come to see how the very few of the extremely wealthy ‘elite’ (78 of them are known and named, all with a common link to the World Economic Forum [WEF] qv on Wikipedia) have, for generations, been manipulating the world’s wealth as part of a strategy to obtain total possession and total control of all of it – and all of us.
From the first registration of birth, infants are each earmarked with a National Insurance number. Their birthweight in gold is used as ‘value to be traded’ as bond-slaves inside the world of commerce. With a few
exceptions it is only as we reach the age of sixteen (16) years that we are even told about that ‘insurance’ number, and then we are expected to start paying, from our sweat equity, our National Insurance contributions – to keep ourselves secure. The many, exploited for the benefit of the few – for profit.
However, our joint efforts have now prised open the door to that vault of Crown ‘government’ secrecy: we know from where that ill-gotten wealth is being controlled and, more importantly, how to identify our right and claim to our individual portion which has been fraudulently used as a TRUST, under our ‘given’ name, (incidentally changed en route into CAPITAL LETTERS). This changed name, which we refer to as our ‘LEGAL FICTION’, is called our ‘Strawman’ by our American cousins.
Our previous document, ‘Legal Entrapment’, explained in detail how all this has been managed for centuries, yet you may be surprised to learn that our personal TRUST has a ‘bank’ account. Let’s take, for example, the name is Norma(n) Jones, then that trust would be identified asNORMA(N) JONES TRUST.
It’s true, our TRUST does have an ‘account’ a sort code and an account number – similar to an everyday bank account.
This should mean then, that our ‘account’ has an International Bank Account Number (that is what IBAN stands for) by which the wealth accumulated over the years in our name, (without either our knowledge or our consent), is being traded in commerce, on a daily basis, in markets worldwide – for more profit – for them – the capitalists.
Here is how we find out our account details and our IBAN number:
enter the date of registration of our birth, then set the addition factor to read 15 years and 9 months. Scroll down and press the GREEN button – ‘Calculate new date’.
Via a well-connected warrior, we know that ALL of these UK-based ‘trust’ accounts are housed under just the one sort code – 08-32-10
Next, we go online to sortcodes.co.uk where we enter, in two drop-down ‘boxes’, the sort code 08-32-10 and the full account number which we identified. We see our trust account details come up, and note that the page is headed, in faint grey tone:
Sort Code & Account Number Verification
Underneath this appear the IBAN details for that sort code and ‘account’ number.
MAKE A NOTE OF THIS IBAN NUMBER. It will look something like this:
GB (Great Britain) – followed by a random 2-digit number – e.g. 17 and this is followed by the letters CITI then the sort code and the account number.
Staying with our example, it will look like this – GB 17 CITI 083210 20123456 and this is how s/he will be able to refer to it in future, although printed without any spaces.
Print off your page and keep it safe.
However, there is a snag: HMRC recently admitted, under Freedom of Information correspondence, that, back in 2015, CITIBANK (qv – American owners) lost the contract to handle this ‘SORT CODE’, 08 32 10, which was then ‘transferred’ to a little-known bank, calling itself – Government Banking Services [GBS] – as it appeared in your verification search.
Within that ‘bank’ the SORT CODE is controlled by the bank branch – HMRC Tax Direct. We hold documentary evidence where HMRC tell us that the SORT CODE has been ‘ringfenced for government use only’.
Did someone just forget to update that Verification Page, or are we looking at the evidence of a monstrous criminal conspiracy??
This begs the question, “What use does a SORT CODE have, other than to control and massage the accounts within it”? We have written NOTICES to HMRC asking for clarification on the ‘ringfencing’ phrase and demanding to know by what Act, statute or other legal wrinkle, the Crown agents of the day, (then under David Cameron PM’s leadership), gave themselves the authority to assume ‘beneficiary’ status of those trust accounts, when their status is, in truth, that of trustee only.
According to statute law, the executor and the beneficiary cannot also be a trustee, and a trustee cannot be executor or beneficiary. Yet the deception still occurs daily, without any disclosure to the mother and father, as the control gets switched round at the registration of a birth This fraud is also proscribed by the Trustee Act 1925. At the time of writing, we await a response to our third NOTICE to HMRC on this important point – but we’re not holding our breath.
This is a significant breakthrough, and on can prepare professionally designed ‘Promissory Notes’ – something like the old-fashioned cheque books – but more powerful. With these, each of us would have the means, using specific details, to access and to use our trust funds wisely.
Remember, this misuse of our true free-born entity began in commerce. By using this slim thread of creating (without disclosure) a tradeable slave equity of every new-born infant, Crown agents think to tax us, the proletariat, throughout most of our lives. Income tax, local council tax, etc., these are all sent out under the ALL-CAPS fictional name. We hold a separate paper on this theme of ‘Justinian Deception’.
So, you can see that access to such accounts should, at present, only be for a ‘commercial’ purpose. You can imagine that, whatever colour of ‘government’ is acting on the stage at the Palace of Westminster, the Crown agents will be doing their utmost to block our access to what is lawfully ours. Do NOT fear those puppets –they are neither sovereign nor lawful, they are nothing more than purveyors of statutory sticking plasters – using layer after layer of Acts and Regulations to cover previous poor parliamentary surgery.
Happily, we have separate documentary evidence that all these our accounts, which HMRC and HM Treasury insist have never been in existence in the UK, are in fact held and administered overseas. That evidence shows us that our ‘bonds’ typically have a ‘Lapse Date’ around January 1st in the year nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine. (01.01.9999). Which explains why, where gravestones are still used, the name of the deceased appears in CAPITAL LETTERS
Postscript:
Going back to the web page – www.sortcodes.co.uk – here is an important extra feature: whereas you entered your new ‘account’ number and found out where your hard-earned money gets stored through the National Insurance contributions set-up, you should also try this:
Leave the sort code in – 08 32 10 – but then enter or copy and paste into the account area your Council Tax ‘account’ number, you know, the one you didn’t ask for. You will see that your Council Tax payments, which you thought were going to your local council, are also shifted straight into the same Crown consolidated coffers.
We wonder whether it could be possible that the Head of Finance and the Compliance Officer of our local councils could NOT BE AWARE of this?? These are two of the top officials in our council whose job is portrayed as making sure that all the payments DO arrive and DO get into the ledgers. We may have found just one more reason why COUNCIL TAX IS NOT VALID BUSINESS. Perhaps a SDSAR – with conditional acceptance – sent in to the CEO of your local council would provide us all with important information?
This all rings very hollow when we hear from our local council leaders that Council Tax will have to be increased for the coming year’s budget. Already, in this year, several local authorities have had a ‘114 Notice’ served on them for ‘being unable to send up budget figures to Westmonster for the coming financial year. We smell rodent here.
We are often critical in general terms of the way in which Crown agents operate these days.
The extract below is taken from the ‘History of Parliament‘ web pages; you may feel that very little has changed in real terms since the 13th Century. Then, as now, the now modern adage – ‘Whatever colour party you may vote for, the government always gets in’ remains pretty close to the mark.
‘All long-lived institutions have their antecedents, and the antecedents of the Lords are to found in the Anglo-Saxon witan which brought the leading men of the realm periodically together with the King for ceremonial, legislative and deliberative purposes. In its earliest history ‘Parliament’, first used as a technical term in 1236, was a gathering of the same type, an assembly of prominent men, summoned at the will of the King once or twice a year, to deal with matters of state and law. So it remained for much of the 13th century. Occasionally, however, these assemblies were afforced by the summons of a wider grouping. At first these extended assemblies – the first known dates from 1212 – served as the means by which the King could communicate with men who, although below the ranks of his leading tenants, were of standing in their localities and well-informed of local grievances. Had the Crown been able to function financially from its lands and feudal revenues alone, these representatives of the localities, the precursors of the Commons, might have remained no more than a source of information for the Crown and a conduit through which it could liaise with its subjects. The decline in the real value of the Crown’s traditional revenues and the financial demands of war, however, transformed these local representatives from an occasional to a defining component of Parliament because the levy of taxation depended on their consent. The theoretical principle of consent had been stated in Magna Carta, but that consent was conceived on the feudal principle that it need come from the King’s leading subjects, his tenants-in-chief, (barons) alone. But as the 13th century progressed this principle gave way to another, namely that consent must also be sought from the lesser tenants as the representatives of their localities. There was both a theoretical and practical reason for this: on the one hand, there was the influence of the Roman law doctrine, ‘what touches all shall be approved by all’, cited in the writs that summoned the 1295 Parliament; and, on the other, there was the practical consideration that the efficient collection of levy on moveable property, the form that tax assumed, depended on some mechanism of local consent. Hence, from the 1260s, no general tax was levied without the consent of the representatives of local communities specifically summoned for the purpose of giving their consent, and only Parliaments in which the Crown sought no grant of taxation met without these representatives. The Crown’s increasing need for money meant it was a short step to the Commons becoming an indispensable part of Parliament. After 1325 no Parliament met without their presence.
‘None the less, although this right of consent gave the Commons their place in Parliament, it did not give them any meaningful part in the formulation of royal policy. In so far as that policy was determined in Parliament, it was determined in a dialogue between the King and the Lords, who came to Parliament not through local election, as was the case with the Commons, but by personal writ of summons from the monarch. Further, the Commons’ right of consent was as much an obligation as it was a privilege. Since subjects had a duty to support the Crown in the defence of the realm, the Commons had few grounds, even had they sought them, on which to deny royal requests for taxation. What did, however, remain to them was some scope for negotiation. To make demands on his subjects’ goods, the Crown had to demonstrate an exceptional need, a need generally arising from the costs of war; and, in making a judgment on the level of taxation warranted by this need, the Commons were drawn into a dialogue with the Crown over matters of royal policy, at least in so far as concerned expenditure. Hence the Crown had to measure its demands to avoid exciting criticism of its government. The consequences of its failure to do so are exemplified most clearly by the ‘Good Parliament’ of 1376, when the Commons, in seeking to legitimize the extreme step of refusing to grant direct taxation, alleged mis-governance, accusing certain courtiers of misappropriating royal revenue.
‘Aside from the granting of taxation, the other principal function of the medieval Parliament was legislative. Even before the early Parliaments lawmaking was theoretically established as consensual between King and subjects, yet, in the reign of Edward I, legislation arose solely out of royal initiative and was drafted by royal counsellors and judges. In the course of the medieval period, however, the assent of Parliament, first of the Lords and then of the Commons, became an indispensable part of the legislative process. Here, however, the question was not, as in the case of taxation, simply one of parliamentary assent, it was also one of initiative. New law came to be initiated not only by the Crown but also by the Commons. In the early 14th century, in what was a natural elaboration of Parliament’s role as the forum for the presentation of petitions of individuals and communities, the Commons began to present petitions in their own name, seeking remedies, not to individual wrongs, but to general administrative, economic and legal problems. The King’s answers to these petitions became the basis of new law. Even so, it should not be concluded from this important procedural change that Crown conceded its legislative freedom. Not only could it deny the Commons’ petitions, but, by the simple means of introducing its own bills among the common petitions, it could steer its own legislative program through the Commons.
‘By the end of the medieval period, Parliament was, in both structure and function, the same assembly that opposed the Stuarts in the seventeenth century. It bargained with the Crown over taxation and formulated local grievances in such a way as to invite legislative remedy, and, on occasion, most notably in 1376, it opposed the royal will. Yet this is not to say that Parliament had yet achieved, or even sought, an independent part in the polity. The power of the Lords resided not in their place in Parliament, but in the landed wealth of the great nobility. For the Commons, a favourable answer to their petitions remained a matter of royal grace, yet they were under an obligation to grant taxation as necessity demanded (a necessity largely interpreted by the Crown); and their right of assent to new law was a theoretical rather than a practical restraint on the King’s freedom of legislative action. Indeed, Parliament amplified rather than curtailed royal power, at least when that power was exercised competently. Not only were the Crown’s financial resources expanded by the system of parliamentary taxation, so too was its legislative force and reach extended by the Commons’ endorsement of the initiatives of a strong monarch, a fact strikingly demonstrated by the legislative break with Rome during the Reformation of Parliament 1529-1536.’
This, below, is our statement as to how true sovereign men and women live their lives. When we are living right, the word ‘sorry‘ is seldom needed in our vocabulary
“We are not a political party nor are we a religious cult; we are simply a group of living beings, flesh and blood, spiritually united in heart and soul. We stand as individuals yet built together under a common, natural law, which is shared by all, owned by none and which is superior to any statute. We each have a personal commitment, divinely inspired, to do no harm, to cause no loss to others, to commit no fraud and to keep the peace.”
On the other hand, this bogus statement appeared around the 24th January 2024..
‘We note the following statement on the website of the Crown agents, who are acting as our present ‘government’
‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution’.
We believe this assertion to be treasonous, one which must be countered by us, the people, who have naively been selecting the 650-odd incumbents for those green benches for generations.
Those of us who still have faith in our common law position, and the constitution which has been based upon common law, must now do something about this…’
With a hat-tip to Martin Geddes for tackling this crime head-on. Please consider supporting his work and co-ordinate thought and action via ‘Truth Social’ at https://truthsocial.com
This one is a bit different: we had a run-in last year with one section of the ‘dark armed forces’, and thought it is a good idea to know
where they are,
who is controlling them on behalf of the Crown
and keep the list up-to-date – that bit you will have to do for your local area at least.
Attached is the state of play as of November 2023
SHORT BED _ NARROW BLANKET!!
It is becoming harder for the Crown to conceal its affairs…
This is an important post. What we do in life has consequences – cause and effect. We’re not going to write much by way of introduction, the words speak for themselves. Simply download or share the pdf below and live, without fear, in the Truth of its message.
Friends,
Let us not get tricked here, as the speaker on the attached video (almost 3 hours unbroken talk) explains, ‘occult’ = hidden and ‘law’ = statute.
This is a most significant explanation of the cunningly contrived plan which keeps the unwitting sheeple neatly tied up in knots. Brilliant!
“The body corporate has been found out – lying on a SHORT (online) bed, with its bits exposed, yet STILL trying to hide under a SKIMPY (tick-box emailed ‘contracts) blanket which does not sit well: those of us ‘with eyes to see’ do not like what we see poking out at the edges. We like even less what they are up to under there.”
With our apologies to the ancient prophet, who, like us, protested against what was going on in his country. – Isa 28 v 20